Forgiving or Enabling Immoral Behavior?

Breathtaking hypocricy from a woman who herself broke up another woman's marriage. Sally, Did you feel this way when you screwed around with Toni Bradlee's husband? who did you invite to smack yourslef?

Ms. Quinn, I have a question, have you smacked yourself, or your husband, Ben Bradley across the face as yet? Because if memory serves, you were his bit of adultery when he was married to another woman. Has hypocrisy come into fashion in your narrow little world, or are we supposed to just pretend that it's acceptable when you, like Hillary Clinton is guilty of it?

I believe that the only reason so much hay is being made of this, is because John Edwards was and IS the only candidate who spoke out against the real harm that is being done to working poor and struggling middle class American citizens by the corporate and foreign interests. He and Elizabeth Edwards sacrificed much to run their campaign in the interests of the American people.. not just the top 2% you choose to consider being important enough to matter, but all of us.

Elizabeth Edwards, despite being critically ill, and trying to make the most of the time she has left with her family, is also fighting for the rights of less affluent Americans who desperately need access to health care. Instead of cavalierly walking around as you seem to, this courageous woman actually cares about others, unlike a certain parasite I don't feel I have to name here.

You owe Elizabeth Edwards an apology. You attempted to drag her down into the gutter you inhabit. Unfortunately for you, she is a lady, and a decent and compassionate human being. You ought to be ashamed of yourself.. especially as you consider yourself a person capable of writing a column on faith. It seems to me that faith is something you're lacking in, as well as the compassion the truly faithful are supposed to have for others.

You are an embarassment.

Can't argue with this. What happens to the wives of politicians anyway? Is there some mandatory brainwashing that occurs behind closed doors? It really becomes all about not losing, doeesn't it? Don't lose face; don't lose power; don't lose position and income. These women are let down and in turn let others down. Why? I'm not talking about a public flogging, though I'd not be opposed. I just mean an honest and authentic response that does not involve trying to excuse or cover-up the doggy doo-doo.

Hindsight is great and who knows who knew what when.
But why aren't we talking instead about the guy who actually got a nomination instead of one of those who did not?
The guy who left the woman who kept his family together while he was suffering in prison. The guy who reportedly had many affairs and then left his first wife after she had had a disfiguring auto accident. The guy who took out a marriage license to marry Cindy, his second wife, while still married, and who married her a month after his divorce. How did his kids feel, I wonder.
Why aren't we talking about Senator McCain?

There's something missing in this story. I think that Elizabeth didn't know that her husband was cheating on her until after the campaign had already started. She whouldn't have agreeded to let him run for president if she had known, for fear of it becomming public and hurting her family. She's not a stupid women.

Why has no one pointed out the toy boy visiting the White House on a regular basis during the Bush years, staying overnight on over a hundred occasions last year? Laura Bush has said she never sees Bush after nine o'clock, so who do you suppose he's sleeping with?

I don't believe for one second that Elizabeth Edwards knew about the affair until very recently--like the last couple of weeks. I think she's covering up for all her husband's lies in the ABC interview. She's too smart to believe he could run for president and not have the affair come out--even if he isn't. He's been having an affair and it's his baby--everyone knows it.

So why don't Americans get real about the kind of individual that seeks that degree of power? Sexual acting out goes with the territory. Let's look for the qualities in a leader that really matter--intelligence, diplomacy, curiosity and a balanced temperament.

according to the time line we have been told so far edwards told his wife after he announced he was running for president.. the fault lies on his
concience (if indeed he has one) not on hers i hate this blaming the victim.. was she the one that should expose her lying spouse.. no because of love she supported him..his behavior is almost umforgivable .. please don' blame this brave woman
for trying to hold her family together.. except for the grace of God it could be any one of us.

Excuse me but wasn't Ben Bradley married when you were first involved with him? Let's have a reality check. No one knows the inner workings of anyone's relationship. Aren't you being a little presumptive to criticize Elizabeth Edwards at this point? Speaking as one who has been cheated on (tried to work through it - and ended up divorcing ... no worries, it worked out best for all of us - even our incedibly well-adjusted and successful children) I think what you have to say is a little bit ridiculous. At this point I don't think it's fair to compare J. Edwards with B. Clinton or E. Spitzer as it hasn't been proven that he is a serial adulterer (for no better term). Anyway, I think given your questionable past you really don't have any right to point a finger at anyone else. So there Ms. Quinn, I think you are off the mark. Your grandmother probably also said "Well, isn't that the pot calling the kettle black!"

Powerful men do not cheat because they believe there wife will give them "tacit support". There will always be men that will cheat on their wives and vice versa. There is a long list of reasons why. Whether you are a President, someone in a powerful position, or a fry cook at Mcdonald's, if you are cheating you are probably not thinking about your spouses needs one way or the other.

Sally,
You're way overdue to get off your soapbox about cheatin' politicians and their spouses....I would have thought that the response to your Eliot Spitzer musings would have shown you that much. What of any value have you added to a discussion that should be taking place between the two spouses, with hopefully a good therapist to facilitate?! And call me dimwitted, but there's not much about "faith" in your post....is this column "On Faith" the only way you can get your name into the Post?

No, Sally: let he punishment fit the crime; Elizabeth should execute a "Bobbit" move. That would be more appropriate than a slap!

Perhaps Ms. Quinn's own history explains why her greatest venom is not at Mr. Edwards, or heaven forbid Rielle Hunter, but Elizabeth Edwards. If you are looking for the woman who directly "enabled" this event to occur, it's not Elizabeth Edwards. I have to assume blaming the victim more aligns with Ms. Quinn's perspective. Also, I'm not quite sure it's accurate to say that John Edwards was "running for president at his wife's insistence." I assume Quinn may have meant that his wife discouraged him from withdrawing because of her diagnosis, but the phrasing was somewhere between ambiguous to misleading. And lastly, you know what, based on all that she is dealing with, Elizabeth Edwards really doesn't need gratuitous swipes from the likes of Sally Quinn. A little humanity and decency wouldn't violate freedom of the press.

Sally Quinn is fortunate that the first MRs. Bradley agreed with her strong position that women should dump their philandering husbands. Mrs. Bradley 1 disappeared shortly after Sally's boss, Washingtoin Post EDitor Ben Bradley, dsicovered that it was Sally who had been sending him those anonymous love letters at work. Sally and Ben have been happy ever since. And Sally suddenly became a Washington Post columnist!

No one's heard from the first Mrs. Bradley.

Do we really need Sally's advice on these matters? Now in her seventies, she apparently hasn't picked up any wisdom as she ages,

Why doesn't she go back to writing those inane novels and books on how to give a party.

Thank you so much for writing this article.Its high time people started talking about these wives.They are so pathetic !!They seem to be more ambitious than their husbands.Instead of standing by their man they should be teaching their kids self respect and dignity.Thanks once again.

Here here!

After re-reading the article and focusing on the last section; that is, what about the wives enabling bad behavior by their rockstar politician husbands, it may be that they are just as besotted by the lure of political power as their spouse. Their similarly amoral approach to their husband/narcissist's behavior merely reflects their own moral ambiguity. Any such wife's claim to the high road is not well-founded.

John Edwards is just a man, and maybe even he realizes it now. The poor sod was besotted by his own success and attracted a "party girl" whose amoral behavior must have been evident from an early stage in the "relationship." His fault is not recognizing his weakness and the positions he put himself in before it got to the point that led to his recent "confession."
The guy is just a stupid, dual-headed guy, as imperfect as you please. The one thing I think of though, when reporters titillate the public with expose's and other prurient approaches to this "story," is how Jesus dealt with such as you - Let he among you who is without sin cast the first stone.

I feel that the outrage regarding Edwards is completely justified.

I am even more outraged with President who has sent thousand of our young people into an unjust
war to be killed or maimed for life. This
should cause an outrage across the country.

Annie Margaret: "The world of subterfuge, lies, deceit, betrayal, blackmail, lies, hiding emails, deleting phone calls, revengeful wives, revengeful husbands, (some of those revenge types end up in court getting killed), sneaking around, hoping 'he/she' doesn't find out, lies, more lies to cover up the first lies, pretending, etc... "

Hey - I didn't mention any of that stuff. You sure do seem to know a lot about infidelity for someone who's so against it. Maybe you picked up some info at those "divorce groups" you've attended?

Something else, Annie - this is not the world of marriage that I "want" to live in -- it's pretty standard fare - and somewhat mild compared to somme of the things I've read about, but don't know of directly. Actually, it's some of the stuff you mentioned above - blackmail, killing, revenge. Is this the kind of world you live in?

To "E-Favorite"- so you have friends who are cheating on each other, some know, some don't, some might find out, some did find out and ended the marriage (despite 'loving' each other), some stayed.... what a strange world of marriage you appear to want to live in! The world of subterfuge, lies, deceit, betrayal, blackmail, lies, hiding emails, deleting phone calls, revengeful wives, revengeful husbands, (some of those revenge types end up in court getting killed), sneaking around, hoping 'he/she' doesn't find out, lies, more lies to cover up the first lies, pretending, etc... you call this 'love?' I call it insanity. And for those who build 'love' on the backs of others who were inflicted pain, at some point, the pain will come back upon them. If you cheat, how do you know the cheater you are cheating with won't cheat on you?

There are always consequences to lying and deceit, no matter how hard people try to rationalize them. It is being reported that EE suffered 'excruciating anguish' - and I would imagine many, many others in similar situations. Once the trust is broken, it most always can never be rebuilt.

I’ve seen couples split up because the aggrieved spouse thought that’s what they had to do to save face after their spouse cheated, irrespective of the fact that they still deeply loved each other. Society dictated that infidelity was an unpardonable crime, so the errant spouse was OUT.

I know three guys who had affairs with the babysitter. Two divorced their wives and married the babysitter.(One of those marriages lasted). The third dumped the babysitter and stayed with his wife, to whom he is very devoted.

Because friends confide in me, I’ve know of a couple of cases where either the husband or wife cheated and the other spouse either never knew or never let on – and once the affair petered out, the marriage continued on successfully.

I know of a situation where the wife has a loving husband and daughter, a long term lover, seen a couple of times a year (lives in a different country), and a recent lover, seen a couple of times a month (lives in a different city). The lovers don’t know about each other, but I and the wife suspect the husband knows something might be going on, but lays low to preserve family solidarity and his own secret lover(s).

Then I think about JFK and all his girls, while he was running the country at the same time, and it just makes me tired. Some people have a lot of energy – and I don’t mean just sexual energy. I get tired just thinking about keeping all the lovers straight and finding the time to see them all. I’d rather read a book or post on the “on faith” blog -- but that’s just me.

The people I’ve mentioned also have a lot of energy for other things – they are successful professionals, devoted to the children they are raising, active in worthy causes and in some cases, church going!

If they were famous and the world found out about their sexual liaisons, they would be in danger of losing their reputations and they’d have a bunch of prurient, anonymous bloggers complaining about what scum they are.

The whole thing is ridiculous.

the best thing I've read on this...couldn't agree more.

Hi Sally
Initially,I had the same bewildered reaction as you .It was with great relief that I read in People Magazine that Elizabeth did not know when her husband implied she did .The slow ( and almost certainly incomplete and selectively editted) disclosure came after both the decision to run and the public announcement had been made .She could have used her March 2007 diagnosis as an excuse to force him to do the right thing.But at that point I am not certain that she had as much input into his decision-making process as we were led to believe.I admire her greatly and more so now ....She deserved so much better.And blessedly she had the dignity to decline to appear with her husband on ABC.

Why is it always her problem? Why must we police men's actions? How can treating men like errant children improve relations between the sexes?

I refuse to take on the job of cop.

"A "friend" who think a baby looks like the Senator (cause he's white?)"

Say what Marc!?

I'm saying the media must have enough pond scum scrappings on this story that they can sell "Breaking Exposes on Edward's Lies" until the new year.

To kill this story- he should step forward and tell nothing but the truth. One way or the other- Edwards is going down. Does he have to drag his political party members down with him?

Hey Anon
I see that you have no proof what so ever. A "friend" who think a baby looks like the Senator (cause he's white?) is less than nothing. Not sure if you ever had a baby, but babies don't look like adults - unless the friend had pictures of Edwards when he was a baby. I'd also call into question any "friend" that would go into one's personal business with a gossip show. Perhaps you are buying her "proof" as incontrovertable because you just hate Edwards (or men?).

Again, I don't defend cheating, and I don't defend what Edwards did EXCEPT that he did confess his deeds to his wife. As to lying to a reporter, I think that was the right thing to do.

Of course I'm sure glad he isn't the nominee!!

"Are you saying you're pro-abortion?"

If you are married to a terminally ill wife- I'm for keeping your pants up or wearing a condom.

But any man who father a child outside his marriage and publicaly denies that the child is his- is a pathetic low-life bastard-maker.

Anonymous

Do you hate the baby? Are you saying you're pro-abortion?

Its all over the internet, John Edwards should quickly tell the WHOLE TRUTH.

"The New York Daily News' gossip section today features a quote from someone who has seen Rielle Hunter's baby:

"She looks like John Edwards in a onesie."

Entertainment Tonight and The Insider will air interviews on Wednesday August 13 with the sisters of John Edwards' mistress Rielle Hunter (real name Lisa Druck). Roxanne and Melissa Druck took the opportunity to talk about various aspects of the scandal. According to a press release advertising the program:

Roxanne tells [Entertainment Tonight] that if she could speak to Elizabeth Edwards, "I'd giver her a big hug and say I'm sorry for what they both did. I feel a lot of empathy for Mrs. Edwards. I'd love to tell her how sorry I am for her children. I'm very ashamed my sister had an affair with such a public man."

Roxanne goes on to say, "I've seen the pictures of the baby she looks like John Edwards. She's got his eyes and jaw line and lips, but she does have Rielle's nose."

Last Friday, Sen. John Edwards acknowledged having had an affair with Hunter, but denied tabloid claims that he is the father of the baby girl Hunter delivered in February. "My niece is not a bastard, I just don't think it's right," Roxanne said.

This morning on CBS' The Early Show, Pigeon O'Brien, a friend of Rielle Hunter, said that John Edwards lied about the timeline of the affair and said she also believed that Edwards is the father of Hunter's child.

RODRIGUEZ: He says it started five months later when his campaign hired her.

O'BRIEN: Yeah, that's not true. That's not true. It started in the winter of '06. They became involved at that point, not later in the summer when she was hired to work for the political action committee.

O'Brien also thinks Edwards is the father of Hunter's child. "I don't see any other explanation," O'Brien told Rodriguez. "She would not have a child with someone that she didn't love, and she loves him."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/12/edwards-fathered-hunters_n_118529.html

To the most recent Anonymous:

"Entertainment Tonight" is your proof?

That's seems a little weird.

Marc sez

"And your proof is?
Methinks you're a liar."

REALLY?

Rielle Hunter's Sister Apologizes to Elizabeth Edwards

http://www.kget.com/entertainment/entertainmenttonight/story.aspx?content_id=50377738-6386-46dd-a242-55c58c3878ae

Edwards must have reminded Lisa Jo (now Rielle) of her father.

From the Gainesville Sun--

"Hunter's life became sordid long before she slipped into bed with the former presidential candidate.

Hunter's father, James D. Druck, a successful Ocala lawyer representing insurance companies during the 1980s, was implicated in a scam that involved a local man, Tommy "The Sandman" Burns, who electrocuted horses so that their owners could collect the insurance money.

One of Burns' first victims was the show horse Lisa Druck rode, Henry the Hawk.

Burns said in a 1992 Sports Illustrated interview that James Druck showed him how to electrocute Lisa's horse using a stripped extension cord plugged into a wall socket.

Burns said Druck showed him the execution scam so Druck could collect the $150,000 he had in insurance on his daughter's horse."

Some of the snippy and judgemental comments here are the problem.

People ARE busy-bodies; they do like to judge others; they do like to listen in on phone calls, and put their ears to the hotel room wall, to know what is going on next door; but this is all childish and silly nonsense.

Sally,

Deleting posts that call you on your position isn't a good idea since they've already been read. Hence, you risk appearing hypocritical, not what you want.

One of my posts and a post of Anon have been removed. I merely pasted Anon's and asked for an end to this discussion, an elevation of the discourse level. Anon pointed out that you had affairs with both Hunter Thompson and Ben Bradlee, when the two men were married. You, in fact, became Bradlee's third wife.

Following your logic, what should Mrs. Bradlee have done? Thankfully, in the case under discussion, what could have become an electoral desaster for Democrats did not. What, then, is the point of dragging this nonsense on ad infinitum?

Some anon person wrote:
"That's a moving mini-sermon on reconciliation of broken marriages. Unfortunately, John Edwards is continuing a relationship with his mistress and seems intent to wait it out until Elizabeth dies then move her in. "

And your proof is?
Methinks you're a liar.

Some other anon person wrote:
"When John Edwards gave his confessional interview and brazenly lied through his teeth about his relationship to Hunter and her child, Wasn't he lying to everyone listening? "

Yeah, and so what? While he was protecting himself he was also protecting his wife and children. Anyone who would answer that kind of question with an "of course!" is a fool. Edwards was foolish enough to have the relationship, but he DID correct his course and confess to his wife.

By the reasoning of many people FDR couldn't be trusted to be President, nor Eisenhaur, Kennedy, Johnson, Reagan, Lincoln, Clinton, etc. The only presidents they would be supporting would be Carter, Nixon and the two Bushes. Some America you'd leave us with!

"it's not your place to "forgive" senator edwards. He has not hurt you in any way what so ever"

One more question:

When John Edwards gave his confessional interview and brazenly lied through his teeth about his relationship to Hunter and her child, Wasn't he lying to everyone listening?

Didn't he give that interview to repent and ask forgiveness for the multitude of times he lied saying he did not have a sexual relationship with Hunter?

Remember?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCQHIyQICLc

"John Edwards is continuing a relationship with his mistress and seems intent to wait it out until Elizabeth dies then move her in."

No kidding? How do you know all that? Are you an Edwards confidant? or just a busybody?

"People can forgive, and wounds can heal. I don't advocate for cheaters, but I don't see marriage as a fragile crystal flower that once broken can never be healed. The relationship can not only survive but even be better."

Marc:

That's a moving mini-sermon on reconciliation of broken marriages. Unfortunately, John Edwards is continuing a relationship with his mistress and seems intent to wait it out until Elizabeth dies then move her in.

Any mini sermons for forgiving a perpetual liar and cheat?

If a woman would throw her husband away for cheating, then there was not much love there; it is a little selfish to expect your spouse to be perfect, and never to stumble. To call it "enablling" is too simplistic.

If they are really having problems so that they don't really like each other, then maybe they should split up. But if they love each other, it would be a shame to throw it all away over shame, or spite, or momentary vindictiveness.

Monogamy comes more easily to some people than to others. I do not think that people who have an easy time are automatically "good" and people who have a more difficult and restless time are automatically "evil."

Perhaps we should have John and Elizabeth Edwards on "Face the Nation" or "Meet the Press" where they can hash it all out in public.

Maybe John would say, "In my own defense, Elizabeth had lost interest in sex lately..."

And maybe Elizabeth would reply,"Well you know, John has got a point there; I can't plead completely innocnet on that point..."

And then the modertor might ask people to call in or send emails on what they think of it all.

Anon wrote "Elizabeth Edwards better not lay down and die just yet. She has to play the cards she is dealt. She better gather her children together, stand up and do something.."

She is ya coward - she's getting her kids ready for school - it starts next week!

Annmargret wrote "When I was in some divorce groups, I saw men crying that their wives had cheated on them, and I saw women crying that their husbands cheated on them. Some of the them tried to 'forgive' but trust me, they never 'forget.' "

I trust you, but your experience is rather limited. People that need support groups hardly represent the norm, no disrespect intended. People can forgive, and wounds can heal. I don't advocate for cheaters, but I don't see marriage as a fragile crystal flower that once broken can never be healed. The relationship can not only survive but even be better. Just cause bitter people are more vocal, doesn't mean they are worth listening to.
ann, it's not your place to "forgive" senator edwards. He has not hurt you in any way what so ever.

Only a Full Blown FOOL keeps lying when he is caught. Make a mental note:

Tell the TRUTH and if you are caught in a lie tell the whole TRUTH as quickly as you can.

(Especially if you are a politician whose wife has terminal cancer).

http://www.nationalenquirer.com/john_edwards_sex_more_lies_videotape_/celebrity/65288

Elizabeth Edwards better not lay down and die just yet. She has to play the cards she is dealt. She better gather her children together, stand up and do something..

Annie margaret: "Society elevates marriage to the highest form of love between a man and a woman."

In your dreams. Marriage was established to protect family property. Women, in particular have had no input into the decision of whom they would marry. Love had nothing to do with it.

Unlike marriage, Love is an emotion that cannot be mandated or legislated.

E Favorite,

Hard to tell what can be learned. But, for argument's sake, let's pursue the 'tell the truth' path. What if Edwards had come forward immediately upon the first mention of this and come clean? Would that have enabled him to keep running? I don't know the answer to that, but it would have made it easier to accept. Note that recent history, from Nixon on, shows that the cover-up is much more harmful than the act itself. Hell, what if Clinton had immediately fessed up? Historical 'ifs' are always slippery, of course.

Linda: "She has enabled him. Wait until all the truth comes out. She will look even dumber."

Dear Linda, I bet you'll be following the news carefully to learn the full truth and will be gratified at how dumb Elizabeth looks.

Be glad you're not famous so that your faults and foibles aren't national news so that little people like you aren't hoping you'll look dumb.

When I was in some divorce groups, I saw men crying that their wives had cheated on them, and I saw women crying that their husbands cheated on them. Some of the them tried to 'forgive' but trust me, they never 'forget.' It breaks the bond of trust and integrity in a marriage. Yes, I agree that both EE and JE have to work out their marriage problems within the confines of their marriage. But if anyone doesn't think that JE's philandering didn't hurt his wife and his children, they're kidding themselves. A world in which we give in to every 'animal' instinct is a world in chaos. Society elevates marriage to the highest form of love between a man and a woman. To try to honor that love means not breaking the bonds of sexual fidelity. As I said before, the urge to do so is normal, but to do so without thinking of the huge consequences is simply...selfish and there is price to pay. We control our 'animal' instincts to gorge food, or drink alcohol to our heart's content, but we also know to break those boundaries has consequences to ourselves and to those around us. So how does having sexual urges played out whenever one sees fit not incur consequences of pain for family and the cheated upon spouse? And please.... if you are saying that men cannot control their sexual urges then you are basically saying they're nothing but organs on wheels. For every man that commits adultery, there are far more that don't. The same hold true for women. And thank God for it. Our children deserve adults who can think of them and not just themselves. As the Billy Crystal character said in the movie "City Slickers" when asked if he would and could have a little affair outside of his marriage, his answer was, "I wouldn't, cause even though others may not know of it, I would know of it, and I would be dishonoring my own integrity. " Bravo, Billy!

Arminius: "Something to be learned here, maybe?"

Definitely - but what?

Be honest? Maybe, but when? under what circumstances? Would Cleveland's tactic of 100 years ago work with the same effectiveness today?

Hard to know.

Sex complicates things. That's for sure.

I agree 100%. She has enabled him. Wait until all the truth comes out. She will look even dumber.

OK, everybody, calm down! Time for a history lesson.

The time is 1884. Grover Cleveland, Democrat, is running for president. Suddenly all the newspapers explode with a scandal: Cleveland had an affair with a woman, and she had a baby. Hooo boy! Looked bad for the Dem's candidate. So what did Grover tell his staff to do? TELL THE TRUTH! That was done, and the scandal blew over. Cleveland won the election. It did help that the paternity of the child was uncertain, but Cleveland took full blame. Also, Cleveland was a bachelor at the time - he got married as president.

Something to be learned here, maybe?

Annie Margaret says: "if people get harmed, then it is a 'big deal."

People have gotten harmed by society's attitude about the perceived proper place of racial minorities and women. These attitudes were completely accepted by many religious leader and taught at the pulpit, using biblical quotations to make their points.

Society changes. I don't know what changes need to take place for people to openly acknowledge that sexual fidelity in marriage is not as simple as we'd like to make it, but certainly the evidence that it's not simple is all around us.

Of course you know that divorce is proportionally higher among Christians than among atheists, right? Domestic violence too.

Apparently viewing sexual infidelity as a sin doesn't stop people from doing it -- and Christianity always offers forgiveness and redemption. I bet a lot of good Christians have begged and received forgiveness for their sexual sins many times.

For AnnieMarie

In this case, "sin" is a tool or mechanism to control the sexaulity of other people. It has no real meaning or purpose, other than that. Only traditional religious people believe in sin. But even for them, it doesn't work. Even relgious people are animals, motivated by animal instincts; sex is not bad and engaging in sex is not bad, and violating ones marriage vows for sex outside of marriage is not an evil thing in itself, but only as it relates to the hurt it may cause to ones spouse, and that is something that is fixable. Men who have sex with other women are not "enabled" by their weak wives; it is just the nature of individual men. And by the way, if men are dogs, then what are women? Who are all these men cheating with? This is a faulty paradigm; it is the paradigm that is at fault, and not men.

In my previous post, I said that this is a pattern that has repeated for 2,000 generations; I think I must have meant 200 generations; I meant, for all of human civilization. The intimacies of ones life are secret; people share many of the same secrets; yet when other people's secrets are made public, then it is exciting and titilatting to hear them; it is titillating to cast blame, and to feel superior; when this involves political or public figures, then their enemies seize upon these types of scandals, to magnify them, and to villify their enemies and opponents; and then when their own secrets are scandalously exposed for public discussion, then the whole cycle repeats. It repeats over and over again.

I think that sexual liasons and sexual encounters between people are just a part of life, and they happen. Many Americans have a paradigm of sex as bad, and they fall for the poliical exploitation and villification of sexuality. This paradigm is primitive and childish, and as long as it persists, it discourages good people from engaging in public life.

Your write up on Edwards and his affair is a waste of words and at best a form of therapy for you alone.

We're all hypocrites, but only apply the term to others.

Couples have to work out their issues and failings themselves. In my opinion reporters like you who wring their hands over relationship issues are just trying to strengthen your own egos and sense of moral superiority.

Get real. You have the same capacities, good and bad, that any other human has. You may not choose to act on them (yet), or perhaps you just weren't caught in public.

"E-Favorite" says "it is called sexual desire." No one is saying most people don't occasionally desire another person sexually. It is human nature to think the grass is always greener on the other side, much to the testament of thousands of people who are now divorced by playing out on their 'sexual desires.' The important morality lesson here is whether or not we act on those desires, and there is a huge difference between the two. When Jimmy Carter said he 'lusted in my heart' everyone jumped all over him, but the man was being honest. Yet he didn't go out and act on those feelings. Very often sexual desire feelings are transient and often, ridiculously superficial, as most mature individuals know that once the passion dies down, the desired one may often not be the person for whom you truly can respect or love. The other aspect of this argument is the one of religion. For those that have no religious guidelines to follow, then having 'just sex' with another person outside your marriage vows is no big deal, obviously. If you are a religious person, it is called sinning. For sure, this 'other woman' who apparently had so little concern for causing great harm to another person's marriage, and the pain it would cause their children, has sinned. One of the things our society has done is tried to eliminate shame or guilt from any act which is selfish. Acting on sexual desires outside of marriage is nothing but a selfish act . It is putting your own needs first before the needs of the wife or husband (wives cheat too, of course), or those of your own children. It is a sin of selfishness. So please let's rid ourselves of the notion that having sex outside of marriage is no 'big deal.' It most certainly is. And the children of this country are harmed by it emotionally. The cheated upon spouse is harmed by it, and if people get harmed, then it is a 'big deal."

Sally Quinn: “These women, these political spouses have to stop enabling their husbands to behave like this. Because as long as they do the men will continue to cheat, lie and betray. As long as they believe there will be no consequences (and by their wives tacit support they begin to believe it), what is there to stop them?”

Let’s face it, Sally, this is the way a lot of men act. And a lot of women too, whether they’re “enabled” or not. It’s called sexual desire. I’m sure you’ve experienced it. I’m sure you know lots of smart people who have done really dumb things because of sexual desire. Maybe you’re one of them. Maybe I am, too. But the culture we live in requires that we be shocked, shocked that these things happen. As long as it’s secret it’s OK, but let it get out and we must be repentant, humbled, narcissistic, you-name-it, anything but so madly desirous of sex that we will cheat, lie and betray to get it.

Someday, hopefully soon, we’ll realize that sexual desire is an unruly part of human nature that we need to deal with realistically, giving up this idea that only the bad boys and girls among us succumb to this evil desire.

The truth is, most of us just don’t get caught.

I agree he is a dog, but, I will still have to defend Elizabeth. I wondered the same thing. Why not kick his sweet baby face out. But in her case, she did lose a child. It is a small comfort to be with someone who loved that child and suffered from that loss as much as you.
She also has had cancer and now it is back. Why would she want to live the rest of her life sick, alone and still grieving. She has a lot of years invested in this marriage and maybe not a lot left. HE OWES IT TO HER to stand by her the rest of her days. I hope he is remorseful, not just because he ruined his polical career but for what he has done to his wife and family and I hope he has time to try to make it up to her.
If Elizabeth were not ill, I probably would have said, Rielle sounds like a nut and they deserve each other, Elizabeth is too good for him. I do not know if I am more shocked that politicians cheat or just shocked by their choice of cheating partner.

Before reading any comments, I wish to make my comments and not be influenced in any manner.

Congratulations, Sally! I am so fed up with women that feel they "have to carry the burden" of unfaithful men. And, they certainly don't corner the market.

The only reason we know about Bill is that he was caught before Hillary started her official political career. Otherwise she wouldn't have told us about her cheating spouse.

Elizabeth did not need this additional "burden". Her load was already too heavy. Please accept one more burden and step up and castigate the 'man' !

John Edwards hurt a lot of women before he ran for President just by his dishonesty as a lawyer. He promoted a quack theory about a need to avoid cerebral palsy by forcing women to have a Caesaran section. He won the case with this Voodoo doctor that he found in the backwaters of science that espoused this theory. The cerebral palsy child that was the subject won the case and Edward's got rich on his theatrics. The amount of money won by Edwards was so large that it got the attention of insurance company gate keepers. They then told the doctors that their insurance rates would go up if they allowed their patients to have natural births. If they did the Caesaran section the rates would be lower and they could continue with their insurance.
My daughter was forced to have a c-section in Alisa Viejo, CA on January 20, 200O by her doctor because of insurance issues that came from the Edwards law suit award and the fear it caused.
Thanks for your article and I am disappointed in
Elisabeth Edwards. Her Husband is a con artist and he hurt a lot of people.

Anon writes:

"Ms. Quinn:

And this is important because?

From what we know, a heck of a lot of presidents, nevermind candidates, had extra-marital affairs. Then, too, wives do cheat. And what does one say of the woman, you for instance, who has affairs with married men, candidates or no? In your case, I'm thinking of Hunter Thompson and Ben Bradlee who were married during the period you were sleeping with them. Of course, Bradlee divorced his third wife and married you.

Now, suppose it had been you having the affair with Edwards. Or suppose old Ben just wanted to have one more fling.

If there is a real scandal involved with this Edwards nonsense, I'd like to know about it. Otherwise, see what you can do to raise the level of discourse, lower the volume on narcissism."

Ditto, ditto, and, again, ditto. PLEEZE.

A very good article . Excellent point made about how this kind of behavior affects women and how it cast a view of woman as a whole. Also, by women just keeping quiet and looking the other way , does indeed convey the message that it's ok for men to "leave the reservation".

I agree theoretically that 'breaking with the cad' would hurt the children. Particularly in this case where Elizabeth knows all the media attention to Edward's adultery will be hurting the children, so it is highly possible she is hanging on for dear life to this marriage as best she can. On the other hand, she did participate in the coverup and more importantly, she did aid and abet him in pretending he was the same old John Edwards, Presidential Nominee, as he was displayed for all America, but knowing fully well he wasn't. And please...spare me the 'it isn't a big deal' stuff.

A public figure having an affair on a cancer stricken wife is a Big Deal. Always will be. And adultery turns most people off, regardless of whether you want to 'forgive' him or not . I liked Edwards very much, but I'm not inclined to 'forgive' him as I still think he's lying through his teeth . And I cannot forgive him for putting his family through so much turmoil and the Democratic party for the almost-karate chop he gave them if he had stayed in. It most definitely would have been the "October Surprise" the Republicans would have wanted. The whole thing is sordid, sorry, and sad. One more thing. Any woman who sets her marks on married men is slime. Knowing fully well that involving herself in an adulterous relationship with a man who had a family shows you the type of character that "Rielle" was and is. The fact that she also allowed herself to get pregnant (and it's Edwards child, no doubt), also shows you she has no respect for anyone except her own selfish needs.

Apparently the selfish Edwards and the selfish Rielle are made for each other!

Did it ever occur to Ms.Quinn that Elizabeth Edwards is aware that her time is short and is doing her best to hold together some semblance of a family for her young children? Breaking with the cad would only deprive them of the father who may soon be the only parent they have.
Elizabeth Edwards is a fine woman caught up in a terrible situation that is not of her making. She deserves our support no matter what she chooses to do. My guess is that had she been healthy she would have quickly given him the boot he so richly deserves.

I hardly think that the blame game is appropriate here. He wanted to run for President. I'm pretty sure that she would have loved to have kicked him you know where, BUT in a way maybe she did. He runs for President. She knows at some point this will come out as it always does. However, it's possible that she felt she might be gone by the time that it does come out and he is still going to be embarassed and humiliated and all of that stuff that a scorned woman thinks about and hopes for. You have to remember that at the point in time that this is formulating in her mind she is no doubt the owner of a larger portion of anger, embarassment, shock and what ever other emotion that happened by. This story was out there and in respect for Mrs. Edwards people didn't run it. If he had been the presumptive nominee you can bet that it would have hit the news 2 or 3 months back. I for one give Her all the slack she needs. She has enough to deal with and having a philandering, lying, cheating husband isn't the worst. I was sorry to see that John McCain came into this. I don't think that enough is known to talk about it. My sister in law was married to a 20 year Army. After they get back home from where ever and been gone 1 yr or 2 or 3 and it's hard for both parties. She told me once that it was harder than starting over. Guess what, her husband hadn't been in the Hanoi Hilton for 5 1/2 years! I wish only the best for Elizabeth Edwards.

Diedra writes:

"I certainly would not support a candidate for the Office of President who was an adulterer."

Welcome to the Obama camp! He's the only person running for president from a major party who isn't an admitted adulterer.

Amen! I am beginning to wonder if the women of this country have any moral fibers left. I certainly would not support a candidate for the Office of President who was an adulterer - whether he was my husband or not. (Of course, my husband would have a hard time running for President after that considering that he would be in the hospital for a while..) I am not going to condone this type of behavior much less encourage it. These women pretend, cover up and out right lie for their husbands. They are willing to sacrifice their marriages, their families and their beliefs to ensure their husbands are in the political spotlight. It makes me wonder if the political wives are not the ones who are truly power hungry.

I could not agree more. I do not care if someone has an affair. I used to condemn anyone who cheated on their spouse and felt that if they could not be faithful to those closest to them, they could not be trusted to keep faith with those they led.

I have grown up and read more history and perhaps become more cynical. Government and business would be minus a lot of leaders and workers as well if all the guilty were condemned to leave.

But I do not think we have the energy to go through this again. Thank god, he did not win the nomination and I voted for him in the primaries.

Hubris lies in power and power is a sultry siren to political egos.

Has anyone ever heard the saying: "Mamma's baby; Pappa's, maybe."

This method of the determination of fatherhood has persisted since Roman times in the famous sentence: Mater semper certa; pater est quem nuptiae demonstrant (Mother is always certain; the father is whom the marriage shows).

People are people.

his actions are merely a pattern among men that has been repeating for more than 2,000 generations, of civilization.

Actually, among people of both sexes. Quite a number of men (before the advent of genetic testing) raised children that were not "their own". I recall it as being 30%.

Let's not forget that historically at least one reason for marrying off your daughters was not just because they were likely to die young (preferably in childbirth), but also because women were viewed as so ruled by their "passions" as to be incapable of resisting the urge to mate. It was a means of protecting them from their base natures, as their minds were underdeveloped.

Human Beings are animals. We are the highest evolved animal, that is, if you are measuring "intelligence." We are the most intelligent primate, a cousin to all monkeys and apes, and a more distant cousin to all mammals, including dogs. So, whenever someone says that "men are dogs," then that is not news; that is just how men are made.

By our animal nature, human beings are motivated, even compelled to look for food, and seek out sexual encounters. Societial suppression of these basic urges or "instincts" may prove successful in some indviduals, sometimes, but still, animals we have always been, and animals we shall remain.

Many people do not accept this fact. People prance, and preen, and primp, in their pretty clothes, and their chic jewelry, and fashionable hair cuts and coiffures, and dream their dreams, and plan their plans, and pray their prayers, until they forget totally and completely, that they are animals too, like the primates, and like the mammals, and like all the other animals. In the movie "Gone With the Wind," Mammy, the house-keeper slave made the observations that "...folks might get dressed up in fancy clothes, but they are still just mules in a bridle." That expresses my sentiment.

But, alas, when you get a look at a man or woman, naked, then you are reminded, that we are animals. When you see the Olympic atheletes, in their scanty clothes, in contests of physical strength and skill, then by comparision, you might think of the beautiful muscularity of a horse, or the lean balance of a tiger, or the aquatic skills of a dolphin; when you see atheletes competing, then it can bring you back down to the reality, that we are all animals.

Our sex lives are usually secret; the intimacy of our relationships are ususlly secret; so it is titillating to find out about what is normally secret; but many many people share the same secrets. They are only scandals if they are published in the newspapers. Otherwise they are private and personal problems, and foibles. All people have these problems, religious and non-religious, Christian and Moslem, Catholic and Protestant, believer and atheist. It has got nothing to do with individual belief but rather on the actual genetic make-up of individual people, and the kinds of lives they lead, either public or private, and circumscribed, or sophistocated.

Sex happens, and people have to deal with it. Sally Quinn has taken a very judgemental attitude towards John Edwards, but his actions are merely a pattern among men that has been repeating for more than 2,000 generations, of civilization.

John McCain was accused of having an affair with Vicki Iseman, a DC lobyist. If true, his involvement with her should be examined in depth by the press as it would appear that he did legislative favors for her and her clients. From the NYT:

"[Iseman] had been turning up with him at fund-raisers, visiting his offices and accompanying him on a client's corporate jet. Convinced the relationship had become romantic, some of his top advisers intervened to protect the candidate from himself -- instructing staff members to block the woman's access, privately warning her away and repeatedly confronting him, several people involved in the campaign said on the condition of anonymity.

"When news organizations reported that Mr. McCain had written letters to government regulators on behalf of the lobbyist's client, the former campaign associates said, some aides feared for a time that attention would fall on her involvement."

The New York Times highlighted the most obvious example of her potentially nefarious ties to McCain:

"A champion of deregulation, Mr. McCain wrote letters in 1998 and 1999 to the Federal Communications Commission urging it to uphold marketing agreements allowing a television company to control two stations in the same city, a crucial issue for Glencairn Ltd., one of Ms. Iseman's clients. He introduced a bill to create tax incentives for minority ownership of stations; Ms. Iseman represented several businesses seeking such a program. And he twice tried to advance legislation that would permit a company to control television stations in overlapping markets, an important issue for Paxson.

"In late 1999, Ms. Iseman asked Mr. McCain's staff to send a letter to the commission to help Paxson, now Ion Media Networks, on another matter. Mr. Paxson was impatient for F.C.C. approval of a television deal, and Ms. Iseman acknowledged in an e-mail message to The Times that she had sent to Mr. McCain's staff information for drafting a letter urging a swift decision.

"Mr. McCain complied. He sent two letters to the commission, drawing a rare rebuke for interference from its chairman. In an embarrassing turn for the campaign, news reports invoked the Keating scandal, once again raising questions about intervening for a patron."

Anything John Edwards did by having an affair pales in comparison to the favors Mc Cain did for receiving "favors" from Ms Iseman.

Sorry, I meant "puerile".

Sorry, I meant "puerile".

A far more interesting discussion is whether or not forgiving someone predisposes them to try the same act again.

Forgiving is not the same thing as a free pass. You can forgive AND there can be consequences for what happened. As well as spelling out what the consequences will be if something (not limited to infidelity) should occur again.

He is the one person who is 100% responsible for his choices, decisions, actions and words. She's not some puppet-master, pulling his strings.

It's not convincing when it comes out of a child's mouth; what makes it more convincing when an adult tries to place the blame for one's own actions upon others? Particularly for such a personal choice. That's unseemly and putrile.

I understand feeling outrage, but exactly how would you expect her to stop him?

Chains? Maybe insisting that the kids be his chaperones, or her spies? I mean, if someone wants to commit adultery, there's really no way to prevent them from doing it.

You can detail the consequences and then follow through; but I doubt she was really in any way physically capable of that. I mean, she'd suffered a huge loss, then diagnosis of cancer, then TREATMENT of cancer (which can be hell on earth), and then a relapse?

Hit him. Hard. Repetitively. Maybe Mike Tyson can be hired for this. But give her a pass, would you? She's got enough on her mind trying to prepare for her death and provide for her remaining children.

Just reread your faith article.
I guess if you get rid of the ol ball and chain it's ok
No mention of the newt,mclame or st. ronnie.

I just read an interesting post about you and Ben Bradlee @firedoglake.

At least Edwards didn't have to "pay" for his.

Let's back-peddle a little bit.

She lost a child. She had cancer. He had an affair. The beans were spilled. She had a relapse. He wanted to run for president. (The time line isn't the most important thing here. It's all of this happening in a relatively short period of time, total.)

You know, I'm willing to bet that somewhere in there she was reeling from shock, depression, despair and I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if she basically curled into a fetal ball and told him to do whatever he bloody well wanted. To stick a fork in her heart and call it "done".

Blaming her for her husband's choices is like punting puppies.

But feel free to mention that he's a selfish jack ass.

Ms. Quinn does not deserve the blame and venom she is being subjected to here. Her observations are rational and well founded. Just because John Edwards' wife Elizabeth has cancer does not entitle her to any kind of absolution. she knew her husband was running for president at the same time he was lying to the public. Too bad he didn't get nominated; now there would be an appropriate scandal and the Democratic convention would unravel completely.

Isn't it rather hypocritical for you to be judging John Edwards, considering your own past affair with Ben Bradlee when he was married?

Let she who is without sin cast the first stone....

You're blaming the wife for what her husband does? Sally, I expected better from you.

Elizabeth Edwards is dying of cancer; we all need to cut her some slack here. She's a totally innocent party.

There's another innocent party, too; the baby girl Frances. Whoever her father is, she deserves the same love, care, and support any other child deserves. She also has the right to know who her father actually is. A paternity test is definitely called for.

For the record, for whatever you may think it's worth, I was an early Edwards supporter and voted for him in the Democratic primary last spring.

Exactly! The tacit approval that arrives once the aggrieved wife has unloaded in private on the unfaithful husband is what helps to perpetuate this narcissism in powerful public figures. If she gets a free pass because of the death of her child, he got the free pass when she said, let's run. And if Elizabeth Edwards weren't dying of cancer, the press would be as justifiably hard on her as it was on Hillary. I think there are TOO MANY free passes going around, starting with the free pass the mainstream media, which certainly includes THE WASHINGTON POST and the NYTimes, gave Team Edwards by not airing this story months ago. It's a wonder the editors of these nationally regarded papers aren't blind from winking!!! And I'm red-hot that this tawdry charade could have, as Quinn so eloquently stated, brought down the Democratic party on the eve of the 2008 election. Surely everyone who kept this under wraps, starting with Edwards and his wife and including the Post, knows that. And still, they all turned a blind eye. Shame Shame Shame all around.

I couldn't agree with you more. I have thought for a long time that Hillary Clinton was as much to blame as Bill for the mess they created for the country via the Monica affair. That she should have said a long time before, Honey, if you want to run for Pres. you have to get help first - you're gonna be found out, and that won't be fair to the American people.

To me, the entire thing was an indication of Hillary's lack of character, as much as Bill's. Maybe even worse, since he's obviously dealing with an addiction - or not having to deal with it since she continues to give him cover - while she appears to be motivated soley by ambition, in enabling him.

This is exactly why I didn't support Hillary - why I still believe they would both say and do anything to be president.

AND WHY ISN'T ANYTHING BEING SAID ABOUT JOHN MCCAIN'S PAST BEHAVIOR AND THE TROPHY WIFE he now has glued to his side, with her short skirts, long blonde hair and cute little wifey kisses? Doesn't anyone notice he's using his ageing Barby Doll in an attempt to make him look younger?

Wake up America - character counts!

Elizabeth Edwards is "sticking by her man" for the same reason that Hillary Clinton is.

Political power is more important than a true marriage.

In Hilliary's case, she and her pseudo-husband are still on a power roll, with advantages for both of them to operate as a pair.

If John Edwards can pull off a Bubba accomplishment and maintain power, Elizabeth will continue to accept a pseudo husband.

We are starting to become very European, in the same way that is disrupting their society.

Private life is just that.

However deception, deceit and lies can and do
carry over to the ruling chair.

Olmert is an example of this, and it is harming Israel.

The thing you are missing, Sally, is that he did not tell his wife the truth in 2006; he denied it to the press and to his wife. Cheating men will deny affairs to their spouses until they are forced by events to fess up. He probably only told her recently, when he was caught at the hotel. Now Elizabeth has decided to take part in the cover up,back up his phony story, and pretend she knew all along. Sad.

Sally, men, and yes women, have cheated, lied, and betrayed since mankind began and some how you now believe that if a few political wives slapped their husbands around it would stop. I suppose you also believe that if Adam would have slapped Even around when he found she committed the first "sin", that maybe we could all still be living in the "Garden".

Somehow Sally Quinn has bestirred herself from her life in the Hamptons this August to write about a subject she knows only too well. But a subject that has virtually nothing to do with "faith" in the real sense and everything to do with "faith" as she defines it, in order to be au courant with the personal lives of the candidates, or ex-candidates, in this slow news week.

And, yes, Sally, wow, you are the last person in the world to write about marital infidelity or the feelings of wives who are cheated on. Or about "faith" for that matter. Better to go back to the beach and think up another "novel." Hope the new Post editor decides that this kind of thing doesn't have a place in the Post. Without nepotism, you'd be hard-pressed to find a job writing the social column in the Wichita Times.

Consdiering Sally Quinn's personal history she's a fine one to be dissing Elizabeth Edwards.

Bravo Sally Quinn,

You said it all and said it most eloquently!

I just don't get this woman. Her main skill is as a social climber, who managed to snare a much older man at the height of his career, and then made hers on his back (so to speak) - while breaking up his marriage. Now she has become the Post's resident moralist? What gives Post? Ben is no longer your boss? If you want to pay homage to Bradlee, then do some great investigative journalism. But please get this woman off your website - and smack her behind while you are at it.

If there's ever an article that you can't resist to answer is this one.

JAB said it the best. Compared to Cheney and Bush's lies about the war in Iraq, this is just gossip. Where is the outrage over the Iraq lies?

Are we supposed to pass some laws to punish men for marital infidelity and for the wives who enable them?

It seems the author is no Mother Theresa either.

Men are cheaters, women are dumb a$$es. Women stay with their men for a myriad of reasons, but at the end it all comes down to the sexist society women themselves enable by raising children based on sexist ideas. Dumb a$$ess women allow boys to be sexist and promote dependency on girls. Yes, you out there with tons of children. I'm talking to you.

If you want a less sexist society, start with your kids or stop complaining about cheating men while you are sleeping with some other 'woman's man'.

I'm sick and tired of women complaining about men. I'm a woman, if I don't like the behavior of 'my man' I dump him. He is advised: if you are unfaithful, I can be so too. So pick your choices: we both can have extramarital relations or none can have it.

Life is a mess. There's no perfection any where. You set the bar as high as you want. Then face the consequences.

But remember, if you are in politics, the game is different. You will be shamed publicly. But ultimately, it's no body's business how the couple resolve their problem.

IT IS OUR BUSINESS THAT THERE IS INFIDELITY IN THE POLITICIANS HOUSE, BUT NOT HOW THEY RESOLVE IT.

Oh, one correction, Ms.Quinn: an affair does not ruin the Democratic party. It only makes it stronger. One name, Jenifer Flowers (however its spelled). Clinton didn't lose an ounce of luster.

Gee, how very moralizing of you Ms Quinn. And how was it that you met and married your husband?

Orrrr, maybe this is Elizabeth's revenge, or slap on the puss. Maybe she pushed her husband out into the spotlight on purpose so he could get caught in the headlights and she would be off the hook for breaking up the family when the kids really really need their father. And then she plays the this-is-a-private-matter act. Who knows. She probably fed the info to the tabloids herself. Attagirl. Passive aggression: my favorite way to serve it up.

I really find it galling to have Sally Quinn moralizing in a glass house. I mean this is a woman who before her reinvention as an "writer" (mostly ghosted so I hear) and "insider"(mostly on Mrs. Graham's back) was a social climbing Post back bencher who got involved with a married much older man. Like so many of her kind she would do what the wife wouldn't and I have long considered her only talent to be her apparent ability to stifle her gag reflex. Sally, go away!

Where is the moral outrage of this piece when we have a president in office who *lied* to this nation and the world about Sadam Hussein and then sent our brave men and women to get KILLED.
Talk about screwing the American public. I'll take a sexual pecadillo over a bomb any day.

McCan't is not an ordinary guy.

his dainty little feet are housed in $ 500 dollar italian shoes.

his monthly credit card payment is 150,000.

he traded his crippled wife for one awash with beer $$$.

McCain is not an ordinary American...those of us who shop at walmart and get hit with 24% interest on credit card debt.

he can not fathom the agonizing experience of making a living; the sweat and tears of it all.

i wish he were honest about who he really is!!

Elizabeth Edwards has 2 young children. She has inoperable cancer. Do you really think she wants to divorce her husband and wreak havoc on her childrens' lives and then follow that with her death? I don't think so.

The holier than thou tone of this article is very off-putting. How did Elizabeth Edwards LET him do it? Perhaps she simply faced facts and accepted what he had done, not liking it but realizing that John Edwards had erred but hoping he wouldn't have to spend the rest of his life paying for an extra-marital affair. I wish the U.S. electorate could be expected to accept human frailties in candidates for public office. Then we might get honesty for a change.

It's sickening to me to see the media going after the details of this affair, analyzing his body language to see if he may still be lying, etc. To me, the only part of the story that should still be covered is the issue of possible misappropriation of campaign funds. Other than that, let's let it lie!!

I agree with you 100%. I have lost a great deal fo respect for her. They endangered the Democratic party. Just imagine if he were the nominee. Peopl who gave money to him feel betrayed. her forgiveness is her business , but the decision to run was a betrayal of the people who supported him.

Yes, I agree. 1,000%. Elizabeth Edwards put her husband's unrealistic dream ahead of everything. She knowingly put at risk the presidential race. They are both jerks; selfish and self-centered jerks. To run for President while lying about something this big is a serious character flaw. It is in a much different category than making an error of judgment once in office. Edwards deserves the political equivalent of shunning. Thank goodness it came out now (if not earlier). Imagine of Obama had asked him to be VP.

I eagerly await an article detailing John McCain's past discretions concerning his two wifes. Oh I see your handwringing is only reserved for Democrats.

What is it with men?!! They only think with their sexual apparatus and think the world will let them!! I am sick of this scenario. I can't understand Elizabeth Edwards letting him off the hook. I would have sent him packing, divorced him, and taken him for everything he had. I believed in him, too, but I don't any more and I think anybody who does isn't thinking straight. Shame on Andrew Young (yes, another man) for taking the hit for Edwards. And shame on Ms. Hunter who now has a bastard child and no future except that provided by Edwards' money--why is Elizabeth letting all of this roll off her back?!! Sue all of them, take your children and live out the rest of your life peacefully, knowing that you have done the appropriate thing by saying, "No more, John, no more. Take your apparatus and live with it alone--not with me and my children."

Hey, Sally, how about your enabling McCain's immoral and criminal behavior by not writing about it? By labeling him a "hero"?
He did the following evil things:
Cheated on his handicapped first wife.
Abandoned his kids.
Abandoned his first wife after she waited five years for him.
Lied about the timeline in his book. He lied about the divorce, about when he was having sex with his mistresses.
Took a marriage license while still married -- a crime. Where is the application? Why don't you post it?
Lied about what he did in Vietnam. Where are the audio and video from his anti-American prop for Russia's ally NV? Why don't you get copies available in Vietnam and post them?
Lied about his affair with a young lobbyist.
Harrassed and had criminal sexual relations with subordinates.
Enjoyed telling rape jokes. Lied about it.
Took millions from a Bush-supporter who enjoys telling rape jokes. Lied about it.
Called his second wife a "cun*" and a trollop.
Took millions from Keating, vacationed in the Bahamas with him, and voted against campaign reform and for Pork spending.
Bought $500 shoes (how non-elite!)
Spends $150,000 a month on credit cards. (What an ordinary guy!)
Has NINE houses and doesn't pay taxes on some of them. (He sure is an average Joe!)
Gets rich selling beer to kids.
When will you and the Post and Newsweek stop enabling McSleaze and cover what all are talking about?

Joshua Generation for a New GOP

It seems John Edwards made the decision he was going to run again for sure at the end of Dec. 2006. I remember him saying, his running would
depend on Elizabeth's health. Everytime she went in for check up, everyone on the blog site waited for the report of Ok, One of things that
Edwards did, each time he made a speech somewhere most of time he started with Elizabeth is doing just fine. Then he announced he was going to run for 2008. So you are right, because he was not
going to run if she had said, I am well, but I don't want you to run, I think he would have listened, afterall there was always 2012. But she didn't I think she really wanted to see him try again,, so he did. I don't know when he confessed that there was sometime more than work between him and that women that was making u-tube videos, it really could have been after the announcement and he had already began the campaign like in Jan. 2007, that's close to 2006. But there was another chance not to drop out March 2007, when the cancer returned, instead of going on they could have dropped out, and the affair probably never would have come to light
publicaly. For some reason they were determined, I
think for her, it was bucket time, there might be
no 2012, I don't think either one thought the other women, would betray John by selling the story of the affair to the Enquirer,by telling
her friends, but we all know what happened when Monica bragged about her liason with Bill Clinton. It's water under the bridge, John had
a great message, but he was not going to be nominee, so hopefully Mr. Obama will pick up where John Edwards left off.

Typical female knee jerk response. Personally, John Edwards should have smacked his wife across the puss when she packed on 100 lbs. and chose food over her marriage. That is just as disruptive and disrespectful of a marriage as a clandestine affair. So I'd say they are now even.

I find it difficult to understand why Edwards
was forced to talk about his affair.

Millions of Americans commit adultery all the time. I see no reason for any of it to be made public.

I'm sorry that the Edwards' private life has been intruded on.

Both Edwards have contributed so much to this country that I deplore the exposure via a false friend and the Enquirer.

OK, Sally Quinn, so now it's Elizabeth Edwards' fault. Oh, please. Do you really think there was anything or any person who could have kept that egomaniac from running for president again?

Then you're more naive that I thought you were.

I give a free pass to anyone who has lost a child . end of article.

The reason for religion is for people to have faith in something other than our imperfect selves. Everyone has a story. The President and any other human being has the same value as a human. Treat another as you would treat yourself. Why did all the Leaders attend the Popes funeral and the next day it was back to business as usual. Sally why did you get a rise out of Mrs. Edwards? Ride Sally ride.

Life and relationships are messy. Like the $600 an hour divorce lawyer said. Once a conversation is outside of two people it's game on.

Why is it that John Edwards' affair has garnered so much attention but John McCain's affair(s) have not? One newspaper reporter recently commented that McCain's affair(s) are simply old news. Why? Because he married one of his mistresses? The one whose father was wealthy enough to buy him a Senate seat? I beg to differ about the importance of airing McCain's dirty linen, as well as that of Edwards. Edwards might have been running for president, but McCain still is and he's not pure, just in case somebody didn't get the message. And most people under a certain age didn't.

It seems to me that if revelation, rather than revenge, is the cautionary message in the Edwards story, then McCain's revelation should be part of the package--or the package should never have been opened.

I give a free pass to anyone who has lost a child . end of article.

The reason for religion is for people to have faith in something other than our imperfect selves. Everyone has a story. The President and any other human being has the same value as a human. Treat another as you would treat yourself. Why did all the Leaders attend the Popes funeral and the next day it was back to business as usual. Sally why did you get a rise out of Mrs. Edwards? Ride Sally ride.

Life and relationships are messy. Like the $600 an hour divorce lawyer said. Once a conversation is outside of two people it's game on.

I agree with pretty much everything you've said here. But there must be something that an "enabling" wife gets out of it. I don't think that part is so bewildering. They get the power that comes from being "the wife" and also, they probably hope, hold their families together. To a degree. In the Edwards' case, as with the Clintons, there is the added dimension of political power. Elizabeth benefitted or stood to benefit from John's quest too don't forget. Look at all the praise she's gotten from being so public about her illness and her "wonderful" marriage and family. And if he had won, she stood to benefit from that as well. It is understandable that she would do all she could to keep Ms. Hunter from having any continuing relationship with John. That seems not to have worked out as she'd hoped. This story may not be over.

Sally,
I have not read any of the comments yet, however, your comments are right on point:
"This is the thing that is driving me crazy. The wives. The enabling wives. ...
I'm sorry but it was not a private matter. Not when you are running for president. ...
And what if he had won the primary? ... she could have allowed him to destroy the Democratic party in the process."
==
The moment they decided to go for the presidency in the primary season, they lost whatever privacy they could claim title to.
With that decision, they placed themselves in the public arena and could no longer claim to be private persons.
At first, I didn't want to blame Elizabeth Edwards, just as you said.
She has been through a terrible set of circumstances more than once and come out sane, with a positive drive that is uplifting and courageous.
But this revelation that she knew about all this and banked on keeping it secret was far from her finest hour.
This much is clear: it's not Elizabeth's job to blow the whistle on him.
The fact that he maintained some kind of contact with the woman throughout this primary season and after makes me wonder what in the world he thought he was doing.
He knew last December someone in the press was onto his game of dodge-ball.
You said it well: "It always comes out."
But to continue to tempt fate ...
It completely mystifies me.
And you are correct that if he had won the nomination, the damage to the Democratic Party would have been incalculable for decades to come.
It's bad enough that he ran in the primary.
Both of them have an on-going problem, which I hope both of them will survive, but especially Elizabeth, in this continuing battle of her life.
I admired Hillary Clinton for her decision to retain her family, for the sake of Chelsea and for the sake of the history of the country and I have defended her right to make that decision in the public limelight, rising above retaliation which most people would say Bill Clinton richly deserved, but which would have provoked a ton of pain more long-lived than did the truce they negotiated, which gave Bill Clinton the chance to walk through the rest of his life with some kind of dignity.
I came to this position after reading Hillary's biography, "Living History."
Yet, I now think your remark about the wives enabling this behavior in their husbands applies to all these situations.
You are right.
I no longer wish to see a wife standing at her husband's side as did Spitzer's wife at his press conference or Craig's wife squinting out in the sun of a Montana morning.
In all these cases, seeing the wife standing loyally at her husband's side, I have thought, "How could he ask her to do that?"
And I have no good answer.
Seeing that syndrome play out so publicly makes me more than just a bit angry; it makes me furious.
We need to make it plain to both parties: this display is NOT socially acceptable.
We won't stand for it any longer.
Now we need to figure out a way to get this message through all their thick skulls, with sufficient force, that it penetrates their hubris, without hanging them all from a nearby tree.
Once found out, it should be the end of any career in public service.
From that moment on, they should fade into obscurity.
And we must resist any attempt by any of these people from trying to resurface in any manner.

How can you spend so much time focusing on HER being at fault? Of course anyone who knew about his affair should have told him he was CRAZY to run for office. But, HE shouldn't have considered it - to put the blame on her (for not stopping him) is the wrong focus. In fact, we don't really even know when he told his wife about the affair. He hasn't been truthful about the anything (the baby and the mistress disappearing to a $3million dollar home??) so what makes you think that Elizabeth really even knew before the race began?? The burden is NOT on Elizabeth Edwards to make sure her cheating, lying husband does the right thing. She was busy trying to battle cancer, raise her children and oh maybe keep a little dignity?? Keep her OUT OF IT.

Anyone who thinks this was Edwards "first" time is delusional. Once a cheater always a cheater. I understand his wife's position now, but nothing would convince me this was his only "lapse in judgement". If this is true, his wife should have left him long ago. She could very well be a "poor me" enabler. The difference between me and Elizabeth Edwards is my children were more important than my ex-husband's ego. As long as she thinks of herself as a victim, she'll be a victim.

How is it that Sally Quinn, a woman who obtained her already-married husband, Ben Bradlee, in similar fashion to that of a hound dog treeing a racoon, is in charge of a discussion on marital morality and infidelity?

Jesus, Mary, and Holy Joseph... That's what I say...

Someone said it. Thank you.

I'd like to ask Elizabeth Edwards: Why do you think so little of yourself? Why did you take a chance that the rest of the country would have to pay for? And how on earth could you believe that this was a "private matter?" Losing a child is perhaps the most horrible private tragedy anyone can experience, and it appears to have blinded both you and your husband. The biggest victims - your living children.

Ms. Quinn:

And this is important because?

From what we know, a heck of a lot of presidents, nevermind candidates, had extra-marital affairs. Then, too, wives do cheat. And what does one say of the woman, you for instance, who has affairs with married men, candidates or no? In your case, I'm thinking of Hunter Thompson and Ben Bradlee who were married during the period you were sleeping with them. Of course, Bradlee divorced his third wife and married you.

Now, suppose it had been you having the affair with Edwards. Or suppose old Ben just wanted to have one more fling.

If there is a real scandal involved with this Edwards nonsense, I'd like to know about it. Otherwise, see what you can do to raise the level of discourse, lower the volume on narcissism.

Mr. Mark wants to know:

"Yet, they jump on the Edwards affair like flies on poop. Why is that?"

Because Edwards IS poop.

I totally support your thinking. I would have voted for Hillary if she had stood up for herself
instead of swallowing her hurt for all those years.
I couldn't vote for this brilliant women who is
nothing but milk toast. She would have been better off without him... and then I would have given her my vote.

If everyone who hides behind religion to make snide comments and further add to the anguish of Elizabeth Edwards would take care of their own lives: They would have more than enough to concentrate on and do.

What the Edwards do is their business and how they handle the situation is also. What I or anyone else thinks if of no value.

I feel sorry for those of you who have such a dull life or such a lack of character that you have to get your "jollies" from someone else's misfortune.

P. S. I like him and would still vote for him. His private life is just that--------private!

Follow up to my last post:

I just checked the On Faith archives for Feb & Mar, 2008. Strange, but back then, Sally & Jon couldn't be bothered to ask a question about McCain's supposed infidelity with a DC lobbyist. Yet, they jump on the Edwards affair like flies on poop.

Why is that?

ANNIEMARGRET writes:
"We are not talking the guy and his mrs next door. We are talking about a possible presidential candidate for the U.S! If this had been the Republican candidate instead of the Democrat, all the Democrats would be searing him over the coals and castigating his wife for perpetuating the deceit."

How quickly we forget. Does the name Vicki Iseman ring a bell? Probably not.

In February, John McCain was accused of having an affair with this prominent DC lobbyist. The McCain camp went into full defensive mode, McCain dragged Cindy out to be his beard and the press dropped the story within two days, even though the story had been first reported in the NY Times.

Imagine, a story reported 8 months ago in the National Enquirer about John Edwards' adultery stays alive to the press even after Edwards is long out of the race. A story about McCain's adultery as reported in the NY Times is dropped within days and never revisited.

So, what is it? Is the NE a more-reliable source of news than the NY Times, or does the press give Rs a pass while frying Ds, no matter what the source.

I guess the latter, based on the way the press took the NY Times lead and ran with it when Cheney used Judy Miller to plant the false WMD stories on the front page of the Times. Seems the press has no problem at all following the lead of the NY Times as long as it advances R positions. It's only when the Times goes after a R that the rest of the press yawns and moves on to the breaking news about Brangelina.

Amen! I have a great deal of admiration for Elizabeth Edwards, and I'm glad she didn't do the "stand by man" interview routine, but I cringe at the fact that she is otherwise standing by "her man." What kind of lesson are the political wives conveying to our daughters?! That men will be men, and women just have to take it? I can only assume that Elizabeth's cancer has worn her down so much that she does not have the energy to boot the SOB out for betraying her, her lovely children, and his supporters, of whom I once was one.

I mean, hey, whassis?

My sweetie and me, we're just not living up to the *exacting standards* of the 'sanctity' of straight marriage?

Funny how I couldn't give two rats' posteriors.

Can we have a country, now?

To wit.

*spit*

Shaddap.

Theoretically, policy matters. In a Republic.

But don't let me get in ya fricking way, Christians. Maybe a bit of nookie is more important than policy.

Cause *that's* more immoral than people losing their homes, you &#&$&$^$ ...citizens.

All's O can say, is while you 'moral absolutists' are scuffling over whether or not a non-candidate is fit for an office he *ain't wunning for* in the name of the 'sanctity' of 'straight marriage' which everyone knows involves *men,* ...I would much like.... to get a good night's sleep, in all my lifelong-commited 'immorality,'... Once in a while, thanks very much for nothing, you *#&$$^ people.

What you *want?* This is *your* drama, not mine, Christians. You don't like it, *you* put it down. Don't make *me* suffer, and wonder if we get to keep our home, you self righteous sonsa*@&#&##6s.

Immoral? Dont' try and tell me about 'immoral,'

*expletives deleted to spare righteous ears*

Perhaps, Sally's indignation re Edwards has very much to do with his "holier than thou" style of campaigning and the profligate use of his wife and the public's sympathy for her to further his own political ambitions.

Of course, none of us can possibly know what went through Elizabeth's Edwards' mind in her decision to forgive his transgression and to support his run for the presidency. Could be he's a wonderful father, fabulous provider, and a supportive husband throughout her fight with cancer, not to mention the fact that they also shared a strong political vision. Women have certainly forgiven their husbands for less. Sometimes, they get back a contrite, far more loyal man than the one they had before.

As for those who criticize McCain, I can only recount my own sister's experience with a husband who was a VietNam POW for four years. A man she barely knew returned from captivity, and their marriage simply no longer worked, despite a serious attempt on both their parts to regain their previous relationship. The guilt they both felt was horrendous.

And how do you know that she didn't (i.e., smack him in the puss)? It is none of your goddamned business. Your article was a waste of cyber-space and whatever carbon footprints it generated.

Excellent! Finally, somebody with the guts to call it like it is. The Edwards debacle was a team effort, in the finest Clinton tradition. When it comes to damaging the Democratic Party, the Karl Roves of the world run a distant second.

Very well put, Sally. I was an early Edwards supporter, but you're absolutely right that if he'd somehow gotten the nomination, the bottom line is that we would have almost certainly been stuck with a Bush third term, out of disgust with Edwards' behavior. Thank God he ran such a poor campaign.

It's bad enough that any Democrat is going to get Swift Boated for things that they HAVEN'T done, but when you hand the Swifties a loaded gun with the barrel pointed straight at your head and say "fire away," you have to wonder about the people handing them the gun. Elizabeth Edwards has my admiration in a hundred ways, but what could she have been thinking?

"You cannot compare what Edwards has done to what McCain has done"

No kidding. McCain traded up.

Edwards had a beautiful intelligent wife and sought out a middle-aged horse-faced ho. WTFIGO?

Yes, McCain is the 'sleaze boys' club too. And I hope his comeuppance with come soon, but sorry to say because it happened many decades ago, it has lost its power to strike. He has already referred to it as his 'being immature'... yeah, right.

You cannot compare what Edwards has done to what Clinton or McCain has done, etc... they are all morally wrong, and have sinned against their families, no small thing. Some men beat their wives and make great businessmen, right? Does it make it right because they are successful?

Great post Sally,
but you could have contacted Elizabeth Edwards and ask her why she let him run and let us know her answer. Possible guesses: she believes in miracles ( nobody will ever find out), she wants
to destroy him ( the revenge instinct).

The part about Edward's "confession" that I find most amusing, and little commented upon, is his assertion that he has been forgiven by his God. If that isn't hubris or chutzpah, what is. It must be wonderful to be a believing Christian so that anything you do is just great with God.

You know the money will talk. Fred Baron the man who is paying for Edwards’ mistress' upkeep is also paying for the "father of her child" Andrew Young, his wife and children to live comfortably close to her in CA. Go figure. That Fred Baron- what a nice guy.

Sally,
Is there a statute of limitations for politicians cheating on their wives? John McCain Cheated on his first wife while she was ill with the woman who is now his wife, how is that different? Why give any of them a free pass? Keep in mind, Edwards is not an office holder, he is not running for office, McCain is both.

We are not talking the guy and his mrs next door. We are talking about a possible presidential candidate for the U.S! If this had been the Republican candidate instead of the Democrat, all the Democrats would be searing him over the coals and castigating his wife for perpetuating the deceit. Look, I really, really, really liked John Edwards. But to me now, he is just another sleazy moronic DC politician who didn't have to say yes, to a 42 y/o woman who likes sleeping around with married men and then getting herself pregnant. In this day and age, any woman having sex and getting herself pregnant only means one thing....she wanted to. So we are talking not about a 'mistake' - but a calculated decision that he knew would put great risk on his marriage, his life, his children and most definitely his career. If she wants to forgive him she can...for every woman and man who has been cheated on, there are others for whom the marriage falls apart. That part really is her decision I agree. But this simplistic notion that it is none 'our business' is just plain WRONG. It is our business. Because he put himself on the national stage, he talked about morality (castigated Clinton for his dirty deed), put his wife and kids in the middle of it all to encourage votes and generally let everyone think he was above the usual DC garbage. Then he lied about it, again and again, and frankly, if he is not keeping his mistress, why all the monies funneled to her? Why the late night visits? And as a Democrat who truly believed and liked these people, I am saddned, deeply, to know they played the game even when he was literally caught with his pants down. They both should be ashamed. He for hurting his wife and family (and his elderly parents cause the papers say they are terribly embarrassed), but also for Elizabeth for not having the decency to ask him to remove himself from the campaign.

THANK you, Sally! My sentiments, exactly.

I've been waiting to read that someone feels the same as I, over her dishonesty, right along with his. How shameful.

I can't imagine myself being in that situation...it's a virtual impossibility. I won't lie or cover for ANYONE! I'm a realist from the word "GO"!

They both must be idealist, like the majority of people. "Ideally, no one will ever find out what I/he did." DUH! Get real and be a realist! In the long run, it's a whole lot easier.

"Yes, Jessica, I'm naive. That's it. It couldn't possibly be that you are the one who lacks any level of sophistication or understanding of nuance."

OK Annes- Time will tell who read this sad story right. Lets give it six months. If I am wrong -I'll post my error right here on Sally Quinn's blog. If you are wrong- I expect you to do the same.

Yes, Jessica, I'm naive. That's it. It couldn't possibly be that you are the one who lacks any level of sophistication or understanding of nuance.

And Patty, see my reply to Jessica's first nonsensical post. Elizabeth Edwards is wealthy in her own right. She doesn't need to do anything as emotionally draining and publicly embarassing as divorce to protect her two minor children from poverty.

Munchausen's Syndrome? Poor me, poor me, I'm the victim. Oh, please, Elizabeth, stop pretending to care about the husband you hate and despise and take a stand for your children who will obviously be totally cut out of the will (have you seen the latest version?) and will left on the curb to beg for crumbs while your "husband" re-marries the woman of his dreams and cuddles their new-born baby in his arms while sending your kids off to military school and summarily disowning them. If you have no miniscule atom of self-respect left for yourself, at least try and get something from this sexual pervert and his more perverted mistress to save for your kids. Stop playing the poor me role and protect your kids; you know he's going go disown them as soon as he legally can.

"I'm sure there are some gory details, or speculation about gory details"

Annes- You are naive and clueless if you think a man can say he is giving a repentant interview and then continue with more crass straightfaced lies. Edwards has inspired the media to sift out every truth. He should have told the whole truth and then slunk away.

Oh, I'm sure there are some gory details, or speculation about gory details, that the press has yet to trot out for your delectation. Even after that, we still won't have the whole story. In any event, none of us will be in any position to judge whether Mrs. Edwards has punished her husband enough for his transgressions without costing her and her children more than its worth. You know who will have the closest thing to the whole story? Mr. and Mrs. Edwards. You know whose business it mostly definitely isn't? Ours.

why can't people stay out of other peoples private lives?I dont care who is screwing who. Just run the damn government,do all the "people" some good, and where everyone sleeps is their business. How did he vote on health care,the war,energy bills etc. His sleeping arrangements are his bussiness...or his wifes.The biggest mistake Bill Clinton and all the others have madis NOT standing up and saying "MY PRIVATE LIFE IS NONE OF YOUR DAMNED BUSINESS'

Annes- Do you really think the Edwards affair saga has played out? Do you think the truth has already been told?

If you answer yes to those questions, then

YOU ARE SADLY MISTAKEN.

Well,
it sound to me like it's the poor wife who's taking the blame. What about the pathetic b-words who sleep with other women's husband. Talk about the loser who could have stopped it all!

She's a no-class, house-breaking' fool!

Are we serious about this? I mean, I've worked in an office my entire life and people at work have affairs. My boss and his secretary, my other boss and a lady who worked for him. Co-workers. All of them married, but to different people. Should this be reported???? We don't report this at work. Especially the boss.

Oh fer crying out loud. This man was a public figure, who exuded sweetness and light and made his family and his 'family values' the centerpiece of his campaign. Thousands contributed to his campaign and thousands more feel they have been betrayed. No, not betrayed because he was stupid enough to be videotaped with his mistress (really, really stupid), but that his stupidity would and could have brought on the 'October surprise' that the Republicans have been lusting for. That would have meant another 4-8 years of Bush rule, because if anyone is really paying attention, Bush=McCain-Bush. That is what is so really awful about this. It is bad enough he hurt his family, but they both had to go and forge ahead with his taking the "Father of the Year Award" after he paid off his mistress. Then he and Elizabeth went on the campaign trail touting his goodness, etc... This is wrong! It is false and misleading, and it was deceitful. And it is not wrong to call out a wrong! I agree-if Elizabeth wants to forgive him, so be it. But women enabling men to cheat and lie have been going on for generations, and it will never change until and when we bring back some standards and morality in marriage. And if we all really care about our kids...we would hold our spouses up to a higher standard.

Jessica - Do you have a bug placed in the Edwards living room? Are you that bug? Otherwise, I repeat, you are parading your ignorance. You have no idea what is going on or was going on between this couple. You know only that Mrs. Edwards has declined to publicly express her (presumed) anger and that she has not initiated a divorce. Despite that, you express an opinion on the way this wealthy, intelligent, and dying woman should punish him and protect her children. Don't you think it's possible that Mrs. Edwards knows something about herself, her husband, her marriage, her children, and her (independently wealthy) financial situation that you don't? DOn't you think it's possible that entering a prolonged and nasty divorce battle, which would admittedly punish Mr. Edwards, would have serious negative consequences for a woman and her children who have already suffered personal betrayal and public humiliation through no fault of their own? Don't you think it's possible you and all the other self-righteous nitwits here are talking out of your collect butts?

Sally, tell us what you "REALLY" think!!!

"Jessica - You're parading your ignorance."

Annes- you are mistaken. Forgiveness is not attainable and reconciliation cannot be achieved unless the lying partner has stopped lying and the betrayed partner is given time to forgive.

This has been a longtime affair- not a few one-night stands. Edwards recently met with his mistress and baby. Elizabeth was not aware of this.

Everyone is talking about it. Everyone has an opinion. It hasn't played out yet. Elizabeth Edwards is being played for a fool. I don't think she is.

Oh, please, Reader, you have no idea what you're talking about. Various political wives have declined to pitch public hissy fits and add to the public castigation of the fathers of their children. You have no idea what they're like to their husbands in private. I imagine there's some yelling, some serious couch or hotel time, and probably years of strained relationships.

I realize that in the world of reality TV, the dimmer and crasser among us have come to demand public displays of all our most private emotions and interactions. The rest of us are grateful for a little dignity, if only to spare the feelings of the children and prevent future cringe-inducing replays of the wronged spouses' initial angry reactions.

Terra, Thanks for posting my essay and the link to it.

"I just want to smack him across the puss, as my Savannah-born mother used to say. I want to smack him across that pretty puss, those pretty eyelashes, that pretty hair. I want to shake him and knock his pretty head against the wall."

Is this your reaction to all adultery, Mrs Quinn-Bradlee?

@ Marc Edward
Pleeze -- I am not part of some "hate Elizabeth Edwards crowd." Can we grow up here? I voted for John Edwards in the Maryland primary!

First, this didn't happen "years ago." It happened in 2006. Furthermore, the Enquirer got wind of it in 2007 and he lied about it. Not old news, OK? Whereas, if I understand correctly, McCain's infidelities go back more than 20 years. Americans think that's just not equivalent. (I guess that may be one of the advantages of having an older candidate?)

Second, Elizabeth has every right to forgive her man. But that's a private act. Running for the highest office in the land is a very, very public act. Imagine if John Edwards did not do this, won the nomination, and was looking for a V.P. You know how V.P. candidates get vetted these days. Would he himself choose somebody with this skeleton in his closet to run with him? And that's for V.P.!!!!

I repeat: Sally was right -- they should have thought this through. If he's so all fired up to run for the presidency, she needed to look him square in the eye and told him, "Honey, you blew it." But who knows how hard that would have been for her to tell him.

The truth is, I'm surprised that any guy with that kind of charisma and drive manages to stay monogamous -- it's almost unnatural. I've read that Jackie Kennedy completely accepted JFK's roving nature. What Elizabeth privately feels about what John did is not my right to know or judge. But when it comes to the public sphere, times have changed. It's political suicide for a presidential candidate to be sowing his seeds in other, well, places, and they both should have known it and not risked the Democratic Party and the future of the country on a not-even-well-concealed lie.

It's interesting that so many members of the Humiliated Wives Club are lawyers - graduates from well regarded law schools. If they don't have the where with all to dump the bastards, who does? And I agree, what is with all the niceness, the tolerance, the forgivingness, for God's sake?? Is this an uppermiddle class wasp syndrome? I think the Lorena Bobbit approach would be a lot more healthy and appropriate.

Interesting piece. I think the signature reason that the "woman" (and somehow, it's always a woman) "enables" her man is that up thru the "baby boom" generation it was utterly unthinkable for a woman to succeed in her own right, but only thru the success of her men, whether, husbands, brothers, or sons.

There are exceptions, of course, and there have always been powerful women, but for the most part they got there with the backing of a male.

The good news is that the female baby boomers heirs and successors won't have to put up with it any more, unless of course they remain sufficiently clueless to think that the advantages they got, they got because of THEIR wonderfulness.

Trust me, Gen X women, the choices you get to MAKE are because your mothers had to take it on the chin, and fight and scrape, their entire careers. Don't think for one nano-second that there isn't some man out there who would be more than happy to take that away from you.

Jessica - You're parading your ignorance. Elizabeth Edwards made just as much money as her husband. She doesn't need to take anyone to the cleaners. She certainly doesn't need to spend whatever time she has left on this earth pursuing material revenge against her husband in order to protect her children.

I'm sick of people who have, in all probability, never been the wronged spouse in a 30 year marriage, insisting that a woman who has done nothing wrong blow up her own life and the lives of her children in the name of punishing her husband in a manner sufficient to satisfy the self righteous revenge fantasies of a bunch of nitwits. Mrs. Edwards made a choice that was hers, and hers alone, to make. It was a perfectly understandable, perfectly valid choice. One that women and men make every day because, as I said, they don't want to blow up their lives and punish themselves in order to sufficiently punish their cheating spouses.

I repeat, unless you're his wife or his child, Edwards has done nothing to you. And if you're holding out for a politician who has never and will never cheat on his spouse, you might as well turn in your voter registration.

Marc E-

Do you honestly think all is sweetness and lite in the Edwards marriage? Rielle Hunter told everyone she felt Elizabeth's "bad energy" when she met her. So- what kind words she must have for Elizabeth's kids?

IMHO- She should take the money and her kids. She should seek a little peace and work on maintaining her health. I hope she kicks him to the curb.

Anniemargret, nobody is saying that "women should shut up and put with cheating". It's kind of cheap to make up an argument than knock it down. The fact is that it happened, Mrs. Edwards decided to forgive her husband and that is the end of it, period. Men forgive cheating wives, women forgive cheating husbands, and it's none of your business (nor Sally Quinn the adultress hypocrite).
It's easy to say "oh she should clamp down on him, take him to the cleaners" and all that. Kind of an eye for an eye mentality, one that has never done anybody any good. By forgiving her husband, Mrs. Edwards has kept her family together. Her kids are growing up with two parents, living in one home. You really think it would be better for her or her children to have the kids shuttling between two homes occupied by hostile parents?
Seems to me that most of the "we hate the Edwards couple because they aren't perfect like me" crowd here are very, very bitter people. I'd much rather know the Edwards than ever hang you with bitter losers like some folks around here.

Oh, and where's the condemnation of the other woman? Or is this space off limets to home wreckers as the OnFaith leader is a homewrecker?

As a Democrate who held John Edwards in full respect I voted for Sen Obama,If Sen. Obama was not on the ticket I would have voted for Edwards But never Sen. Clinton, The Republicans and MSM is praying Se. Clinton is VP so they and break THE NEW story about Bill Clinton, Hillary just like Edwards would throw her party under the bus, knowing they have ticking time bombs under their seats.

Just proves humans are not meant to be Monogamous. But we do the job damn well than any other species. Give the man a break.

Finally, a grown, mature, intelligent woman gives the proper take on this whole sordid mess. I am so tired of hearing of how the wife 'should forgive.' The single word here is perhaps and of course, it is an individual decision for any wife (or husband) who has been cheated upon. For the life of me, I cannot understand those who say all he did was 'just some sex' as if cheating on your spouse, destroying the very fabric of honesty and trust, is something nebulous. Thousands of people are divorced now due to adultery. Thousands more children are the product of those divorces. There is also the matter of 'cheap grace or forgivess' which according to Catholicism is that which is given to someone without the proper 'penance' or the true sorrow for what they've done, and the promise not to repeat it.
All I hear from the Edwards' now is that she has 'forgiven' him, his "Lord" has forgiven him and the rest of us must follow and be quiet. Elizabeth, you must make your own decision on this of course, but I agree that she has reduced this cheap 'affair' to an even cheaper state by allowing and aiding her husband to lie, lie and lie again. Frankly, I think the baby is his. Enough with women enabling! Time to put the proper slant on this, no public official should be cheating on his wife or husband (that is NOT too much to ask), as they are the symbols of our society and roll models for our youth, and if they do cheat, they must confess, and ask for public forgiveness, not lie and fudge their way to the White House!

If she dies- she leaves her children to divide her husband's estate with a new wife and new children.

For the sake of her children who have no doubt been damaged by their father's infidelity- Elizabeth Edwards should take John Edwards to the cleaners.

Att: M A R K, Edwards.

Please excuse "i".

Please accept.

Thank-A-Shame!

Sehr gut, Jacob!!! Always nice is the motto of the day!!! Hugs!!!

When the 'other' woman ends up with the hubby in their own unholy matrimony - now, that's ok.

All's well that ends well, with that particular scenario. Our celebrities among the rich and famous realize that when we just can't resist our urges, then marriage rights all wrongs - so let the winner take the spoils, and public opinion be damned.

.
|*.|.|.*.|.|.*|
|......?.....|
C...(♦ (♥
.|.........~
..|..\...C…..(((((((((( Huggy's & Kisso's Cyber-Freund! Ich bin, Versprechung nett, Yavol!
......\__/

And I do hope that McCain's similarly nasty affair while his disabled (first) wife recuperated from a near-fatal accident is revealed in all of it's ugliness - and that particularly lurid affair with present wife Cindy was the hardcore stuff of tabloid journalism everywhere...but of course the media ignores the foibles of the republican candidate for president. Why bring up a less than stellar past?

Talk about media protection! Looks like McCain is getting the same pass that GWB got for the last 8 years. What the hell ever happened to real journalists, and real journalism?

Is mainstream media now owned lock, stock and barrel by Rupert Murdock? It really begins to look like it. As it turns out, Edwards was only human after all, and won't get the VP nod for sure.

I guess I'll just make fidelity my number one consideration for president, and vote for Obama. How about that? Well, I was going to anyway...but now I'm REALLY going to.

I mean afterall, Edwards isn't running for office, and McCain....well, I trust you see the difference.

Hi JJ!!!

Are you being nice these days, or do I have to flip your "ON" button

What self-righteous piffle.

Funny how it's such big news that EX-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE Edwards cheated, while CURRENT PRESIDENTIAL candidate McCain also cheated, and you never hear about that.

I think Elizabeth Edwards just found out about the other woman. If not- she's one helluvagood actress.

-Katie Couric sat down for an exclusive interview with the John Edwards and his wife after the announcement of the recurrence of Elizabeth's cancer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ky-TlTNKSZQ

Sally, you're right. These politicians think that they can get away with anything...and they (almost) do. John is obviously at fault here but Elizabeth should have clamped down but good - right on his neck. He stayed in the race, jeopardizing his family and his supporters and his political party.

Sally you make a very good point. Senator Edwards must know by this time that there is no such thing as a secret in political life. Mrs. Edwards should have insisted that he drop out. They are very good people and have made good contributions to our political life. Rev. Bernard F. Hillenbrand

Why is a gossip column in the 'On Faith' feature?

I truly agree with every word here, Sally. Not many people are in agreement with me but I too think that women (Elizabeth Edwards, Hillary Clinton) have got to continue to stand up for what is right. Cheating AND lying: not right.

Talk about Family Values...what our the American children learning from these affairs? That it's OK to cheat AND lie and still run or become President.

Wow...no thank you. I would have way more respect if Elizabeth and Hillary had walked away from their man. Political figures, especially, need to show the rest of us that this type of behavior is not to be tolerated. "Standing by your man" holds true for many situations, but certainly not betrayal.

Wow! There are lots of ways to spin this, but calling Elizabeth Edwards an enabler? Sally, it's time for you to hang up your pen. By her agreement to have him run for president, she somehow sanctioned his affair?? So, that means that Obama and McCain get a free pass, too??

I hope someday you meet Elizabeth Edwards and tell her this to her face. I'm sure she'll have some choice words for you, too.

PunditMom
http://punditmom1.blogspot.com
http://momocrats.typepad.com

B R E A K i N G, N E W S:

Eeeeeeeeeeeeeee Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

Go Russia! Egee Ruskaya! Nashee Slotkaya! Momma Rrrodnaya! Da Da Da Da................!

"Russian troops reportedly

cut Georgia in half

,Towns, military base captured..; Moscow to brief NATO on actions.

I couldn't agree with you more - "stand by your man" is not the way to enable women, children or the man when the man is trying to get by with something that he knows is wrong. I liked your analysis of the betrayal of so many who bought into Edwards'presidential run. Somehow we've all got to recognize that hypocrisy in any form is demoralizing and destructive not the way to make things work.

John Edwards is a lying wad of weasel poo.

Att: M A R C, EDWARD (not like Counsler John) & Similarly Situated;

Your a Dumb Person. Get Ye facts right!

By the way, "i" invented the "TCPiP"! [yea right, Sucker!]!

Ye do not know , surely what ye saith!

Dumb gets dumber!

Pleaaaazze, Becoame An ECLAT{i}ON, not Off (like WARM-HEART et al) & ye IQ will increase by Max 13%. Not to mention "Coochi Pooch" lives too!

Thank-O-Shame!

Obama is next in line for a scandal like this. I think the Democratic Party leaders unfortunately see the same narcissism in Obama that we do in Edwards and are just waiting for the Republicans to sniff out something in his past - I'm sorry to say I have no doubts they will find something, and something big. It does seem like this party looks for every opportunity to shoot itself in the foot. Perhaps this is what we reap when we insist on moral relativism.

John Edwards ended his political career.

Second wife Sally Quinn's comments suggests she
desires release from choices she made in the past as well.

Posing for the rest of one's life is a burden.

John Edwards is released.

Elizabeth Edwards is released.

Sally Quinn is not released.

Howdy Pagan -
Thanks for the reminder, and I should have written better.
Al Gore never said he invented the Internet. However it is true that without Senator Al Gore there would be no Internet, which is why I was thanking him.
I also thank Senator Stephens for the Intertubes, which has got to be one of the more interesting images one can contemplate.

As for OMGalmost53 and the other "we hate Elizabeth Edwards" crowd - if you want somebody to condemn go look in the mirror. This affair happened years ago and Senator Edwards did the right thing - he told his wife. Mrs Edwards did the Christian thing, she forgave him. You have no place even having an opinion about what happened, because it did not effect you or anyone you know in any way what so ever.
Perhaps as this is onfaith, you should reflect on what Jesus said about this subject.
"Do not judge others, so that God will not judge you, for God will judge you in the same way as you judge others, and he will apply to you the same rules you apply to others"

Just remember - God has an ironic sense of humor. Keep building up bad karma with your nasty and witless observations so we can all have a laugh at your expense!

I agree. I'm furious with her! she did it for her own benefit. i can't believe that i am accusing a cancer victim of being selfish but there it is. Perhaps she was on chemotherapy and it made her utterly weak? stupid? heartless? I don't think so-- I know lots of cancer victims and they pretty much kept their old personalities.

or . . . is it possible that she didn't really know? that she is taking the fall for him and saying that she knew to deflect blame from her husband? I've grown so cynical, the thought has passed my mind. Probably because I can't believe that woman I thought so well of could have been so wrong, wrong, wrong! Maybe so was a victim and continues the lie for the benefit of her children. Their poor kids. I think child Protective Services should consider evaluating whether the vipers nest of lies that is their current home is an appropriate setting to raise children.

Look, I don't know why most post-ers are being obtuse.

Sally is absolutely right.

What if John had won the nomination? Can you imagine what would be happening right now?
Isn't it bad enough that a stained blue dress led, in a horrid, Greek tragedy sort of way, to the Iraq War, to the deficits, to these last wasted eight years where the rich have gotten filthy rich and the country has gone down the drain? Perhaps, even, it led to 9/11? Imagine if the Monica Lewinsky affair hadn't happened -- Clinton was riding so high right then. The GOP might have imploded eight years sooner, and many of our lives might have played out differently. Trillions of dollars and thousands of lives, limbs, and minds have been lost due to one stupid slip, a secret shared in confidence with one -- one! -- wrong person.

Now just try to imagine the ramifications to this election and the Democratic Party for the next thirty years if another presidential Democrat turned out not only to have (very recently) shtupped a person working for him, but lied about it.

Given all of that, why did they play Russian Roulette with all of our futures? Once the Enquirer had gotten wind of it, he should have admitted it right then and let the chips fall where they may. He didn't, and for one obvious reason -- he knew in his guts that he probably would have had to quit the race. And he (and his wife) didn't want to. He probably rationalized that his country needed him, when in fact he was simply rationalizing, just like when a man has an affair and doesn't tell his wife because it would "hurt" her.

Given the history of what happened to Clinton, what John and Elizabeth did is inexcusable. But I guess it's understandable. When you've got that much fire and ambition inside you, you must imagine yourself invulnerable. All I can say is, thank God -- thank God -- he didn't win.

W O W!

O.U.R. Eclat{i}-ON "WARMHEART" is Back!

Ya Ya Yo yea!

Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

.
|*.|.|.*.|.|.*|
|......?.....|
C...(♦ (♥
.|.........~
..|..\...C………..((((((((((((((((( Hello HUE{MATE}! Welcome On Holy Cosmic Space/Ship Earth again!
......\__/

=

I completely agree with your analysis of Elizabeth Edwards - she is as guilty of the lie as her husband and as a voting Democrat, I am really angry over their lack of concern for our Party. They put their own agendas before those of the Party, hence, ahead of the country's. How selfish of both of them. Battling cancer doesn't give you a free pass to lie to those who are supporting your candidance both financially and emotionally.

"Other posters here prompted me to do a little digging - thanks Al Gore for the internet"

If you do a little *more* digging, you'll find that Al Gore never actually claimed to have 'invented the Internet' as the meme went.

Remarkable what you can accomplish with 'a series of tubes,' ennit?

Excuse me, Ms. Quinn, but you should be the last one to be outraged by the Edwards' behavior. If I remember correctly, weren't you the cause of your husband's failed former marriage???

Talk about the pot calling the Kettle black!!!!

If she forgave him, it's none of our business. Period. It's their marriage.

I find the hostility in this article toward both Edwards' to be outrageous. Sally Quinn is older than I am. I know this because I remember reading her in the Post when I was a child. Her tone is that of a betrayed teenager.

The scandal is not in the affair. Nor is it in Elizabeth Edwards forgiving her husband. The scandal is in the cover-up (and did no politician learn anything from Watergate?).

Had he come clean in the beginning, would I have sent money to support his candidacy any way? Probably. I thought he had the best plans for the issues I found important.

His infidelity is important only within the context of his marriage. His covering it up is what shows him a liar.

As this is in OnFaith, perhaps MsQuinn ought to look into what Jesus said about Forgiveness and about hypocrites.

Other posters here prompted me to do a little digging - thanks Al Gore for the internet and thanks Ted Stephens for the intertubes!
Is Sally really upset because Senator Edwards didn't stay with the other woman? One would think that little Ms Quinn/Bradley would have been introspective enough to lead her diatribe with "as a woman who has broken up a marriage myself" to better frame the subject. Of course Ms Quinn presumed that nobody is smart enough to figure out that her way to being "Editor of On Faith" was having an affair with a married man who ran the WaPo, than breaking up his marriage. Gee Sally, didn't you know that THESE THINGS ALWAYS COME OUT?? Sally, herself a homewrecker, cheat and adultress, probably condemns Senator Edwards for staying with his wife and not the "other woman". Sally, herself an adultress, condemns Mrs. Edwards (who actually made her own career and didn't rely on a wealthy man to make one for her) because Elizabeth didn't toss John out, making room for the "other woman", who is the only person Ms Quinn can identify with.

Sally, as you post this in onfaith, I'll steer you to Jesus, who didn't condemn adulterers, didn't condemn soldiers, didn't condemn prostitutes and tax collecters, but harshly and DID condemn hypocrites!!!!!!
Oh, and he said that you should forgive anothe person not 7 times, but 490 times. Perhaps if you're gonna write in "onfaith" you should have a passing familiarity with the bible?

Att: A R L i N G T O N, et al:

WhooooooWAweeeeeeeeeeooo! Ya Ya Monsa-Mono's!

Very Good "iNSIGHiGHT & PATTERN RECOGNiTiON" ability's!

Ye is a ECLAT{i}-ON, Potentiate, not Off "i" See!

"Besides missing-out on Her Life/Photonically, That 'Sally-Q' has acute "Religio Jealousy Psychosis" & a bout "Pre-Apocalyptic-Syndrome" and eminating Synergetic-less "SPLiT MiNDED THiNKiNG"!

yes, A Serious Disability that causes her, to Fail to ENJOY the Holy Cosmic "TETRA-NEEDS" [4-Necessitys] of innate LiFE/Photon awareness.

1:F♣♣D To keep from disappearing;
2:H♦ME Abode to sleep/enjoy/protect;
3:L♥VE, someone to or have companion;
4:CL♠TH, something to wear!

IMPORTANT: Rich, Middle-class or Poor, Besides Keeping Busy that, If YE hath All these “4-Tetra-Needs“ then Ye hath No Worry’s , in the World, on this Blesseth Holy Cosmic Miraculous, & zero biblical Sin, Holy Cosmic NEBULA(s)-built S.paceS.hip Planet EARTH(s), aka S.S. GAiA, S.S. GEOiD, S.S. TELLUSng something!

---

iMagine: No More Need to Visit a Yogi, or even a Psychologist or a Psychiatrist or a Transadentalist, IF

YE (you &world) already hath or meet (by keeping Busy) all 4-Tetra Needs? Unless there is Neuro-Brain discombobalation, aka Synaptic misfirings, so to spaketh! {"i"m O.K.], Wherefore "i" no woory!.

PS: If We can get rid of them Pre-Apocalyptic SEXUAL-GUiLT's Story's, in most, Scriptures, Then We can Cure The WORLD!

Start by thinking that, "G-D", by a 1,000 Names (like Pictures)and no more 999, is Not a HE/HiM/His nor a 'She/her'! Justly & Simply say,

"G-D is an "IT" being "iTSELF" in an Of Us-All!", as STUDENTS, We art Together Forever w/SOURCE-ONE, knowing that WE Never Graduate, only Cometh & Goeth in Holy Cosmic Miracle via thee "FiAT-LUX" [a not Jealous & Fearless CREATOR] , never Bible(s), Gita(s), Tenach(s), Gita(s), Kanguyr(s), Tripitaka(s) etc.!

BEHOLD!

The RELiGiON of Everything, before the SCiENCE of Everything is now Prophetically Upon Us!

Oooopsadaisy.

FACT: Like "SEX iS Not L♥VE", then "ReLiGiON" is not SCiENCE, visa viz!"

---

Behold, The "13-FiATS OF THe NEW-SONG! Below:

“THE TEN (10 plus 3 alternates) FiATS Of The NEW-SONG” Of The “Holy Cosmic Feelers Faith“:

1) "Let there be NO Worship of JEALOUSY as a G-D.!"

2) "Let there be NO Abuse of LOVE to forgive UNCORRECTED-SIN(s)!"

3) "Let there be NO Hassling over a NAME for G-d!"

4) "Let there be NO Denial of FREEDOM OF {ECLAT{I}{ONiTY} or
Apocalyptarianity as Religion et al!"

5) "Let there be NO Dishonoring of HONORABLE Parents!"

6) "Let there be NO Unjustifiable HOMICIDE or HURTING!"

7) "Let there be NO Sex with Non-CONSENTERS or BEASTS!"

8) "Let there be NO Theft from NON-THIEVES or NON-USERERS!"

9) "Let there be NO False WITNESSING or Un-JUST Judging!"

10) "Let there be NO Envy of {HU} {MATES} or Folks keeping these FIATS of O.U.R.
NEW-SONG!"
-
11) “Let there be NO Denial of the TETRA-NEEDS (Food, Shelter, LOVE & Clothes) to
Any 'Hue{Mate}Kind} on Hol{i} Space-Ship Earth(s)!'

12) "Let there be NO Procrastination nor LAZYNESS nor Idleness & Sloth!"

13) “Let there Be NO Denial To Self Nor Others in contemplation of REALITY, aka Ye Holy Cosmic Miraculous “TRANS{FiNiTY} [immortal REALiTY]"

---

Hence [O.U.R.-B.O.T.] “O.ne U.niversal R.eligion” B.ook O.f T.rans{finity} each unique HEURiSTiC/a/o (immortal SOUL) is an Automatic Citizen/Denizen of Holy Cosmic Nebula-Built Ma/Pa-Earth(s) by Justly appearing again herein via the Holy ETERNiTY AVOiDiNG LONLiNESS-effection, a genuine Miraculous HOL{i} Cosmic mission & purpose.

---

BY: [Please remove curly brackets; since the ‘NiCOLAiTAN’s are Jealous. Thank-A-Shame] visit URL:

{j}{o}{z}
{e}{v}{z}
{dot}{US}

O.rdained R.elationship M.inister [ORM}, Revelator & Defender of the 'Holy Cosmic Feeler Faith, aka 'Ho-Co-Fe-Fa' System; a belief like a religion, yet better that‘s based on TRUTH (opposite of MYTH Systems) & a Lover’s of the "O.U.R.-B.O.T.", aka the Holy-Cosmic Bible, ala "O.ne U.niversal R.eligion B.ook O.f T.rans{Finity}" aka “The RELiGiON of Everything before the SCiENCE of Everything” like-a-dat. Finally!

Edwards is a private citizen...what happened is a matter between him and his wife.

The one to pay attention to is McCain and what he did to his ex-wife. Poor thing. He is swimming in beer money.

his shoes cost $ 500....he is not one of us.

Garrett,

you mean Cindy stole the hero from his needy wife??

how could such a turn around be described other than UNpatriotic!!

Especially the enabling by Cindy McCain of John McCain's leaving his crippled wife.

Our cultural bias around sex is extreme, demonizing behaviors that are often quietly accommodated in many world cultures. Our ownership assumptions in relationship have led most of us to such exclusivity that we are afraid of socializing, afraid of even our friends, and so hooked on vicarious pleasure that we have little of our own.
That Ms. Quinn can be forgiving of friends responding to long term illness in their partners, as long as they are discreet and respectful, and then condemn both Elizabeth and John Edwards illustrates the double standard we all tend to accept without question.
I have been irreversibly impotent, with zero libido for over three years.
I can understand why my healthy wife might want to find her own pleasure, and while I am grateful that she hasn't openly sought outside partners,
her happiness and pleasure remain important to me, even if there could be some difficult fallout in the future.
We all need to be more thoughtful here.
Thank you.

Sleasy Sally - you make me puck.

I remember a similar screed from Sally a few months ago on the same topic addressing Hillary Clinton's failing for not giving her hubby the boot. I see Sally is VERY serious about this topic. There must have been a traumatic moment in her past that she never got over, but that's exactly what many healthy people do: they get over it. They recognize the weaknesses in their mates and stack it up against all of the other aspects of their relationships and they deal with it. Sex is really only a small part of a lifelong relationship. How Sally ranted in her previous article about this subject was that the only honorable thing to do is blow up the marriage for pride's sake. How silly and immature and really, Sally, are you sure old handsome Bill Bradley never had a fling or a callgirl that you never found out about. Grow up!

REMEMBER: We Appear in ECLATi's "TiME"

[via "TEMPERATURE", not Clock or Space 'time' thinking]

A Holy Cosmic Placement machine, in "IT"s own Holy Cosmic PALiNDROME, aka ETERNiTY Avoiding Lonliness" Work, That's automating in and Of Us-All

[through animates & innanimates of "iTSELF", aka being the "Fiat-Lux" & having IT's own Cosmic Stufs & Things to account for, Thus arising, elegently via "IT"s own Hol{i} Cosmic CONSTiTUTiON & CLAUSE awareness for Us-All to likewise Magnify, uphold & make honorable via O.U.R. Awareness!

Note:
SEX iS HOW "i" [YE/WE] GOT HERE, Stupid! Wether Married or Not!

Note:
LiFE/PHOTON , arising out of the Holy Cosmic "Fiat-Lux" is LOVE ,is BirTH , a Miracle & this awareness alone is the 1st innate-Miracle & never any man-made sin/Curse Story's, Shamelesly competing, JEALOUSLY, for a name for some god, INSTEAD OF O.U.R. [O.ne U.niversal R.eligion 'G-D"] Reality (Trans{finity} story!

Where, Sing "HALLALUYA!", Praise The LORD! LiFE/Photon + "i" = MiRACLE, never is Birth ANY Bibliomaniac sin/Curseth Story!

THEREFORE: "ECLAT{i}ON", "SEXUAL-MiZAN" is Healthy! "IT"s part of ETERNiTY AVOiDiNG LONLiNESS Holy innate Pattern & System & Never a Sexual Guilt story!

imagine allowing Ye Spouse/a/o to have excercise SEXUAL-RELEASE via Sex with another Person. A Surrogate, Hore-House (Legally, or not Legally) or 3rd Person, like a Friend or Stranger.???

Note: A Good HUSBAND is one who will allow the Wife (married or not) to have Sex. Woman hore houses are in demand too. And Visa Visa Yo!

PS: "i" LOVE Hoar-Houses! "i" Love "SEX FOR SALE" & or SEX FOR FREE!" How About Ye?

PS: No Love Attached, that is!

Please: Invest All Ye money in "JON'S WORE-HOUSE", Brooklyn, N.Y.! Imagine 1-Billion Customers served!???

---

Shed ye Pre-Apocalyptic "Sexual-Guilt" Story's!

Again: "SEX is Not LOVE! Sex is Not LOVE!..."

I mean, Edwards isn't even running. He was my second choice, but that wasn't about 'marital fidelity.' Or 'four hundred dollar haircuts' that probably some campaign staffer squeezed into an itinerary that'd probably cost nearly as much to hit a local barbershop that might produce a ruinously-embarrassing result on national TV for Fox News to mock.

If Edwards wasn't demanding of anyone else something he himself wasn't living up to, ...if he didn't abandon his wife and she is OK with it, I just can't get kerfuffled about it.

What does cheese me off is that they don't subject McCain to the same scrutiny, that the media continue to present this kind of thing as actually of major consequence, ...and again divert our attention from real and pressing issues with soundbites, Swiftboating, and trivialities.

He's *not even running,* remember.

I think anytime you have to resort to using the phrase "the men", perhaps it's time to leave behind the self-righteous feminist anger and look at which century we live in.

I agree. Political wives are enabling this behavior. Stand by your man, is okay as long as you reveal it out before the public knows about it. Even then, it should affect the politician because if you cheat on your spouse, what will they do to us?

All I can say here is that the 'Moral values' everyone's forced to emulate actually *teaches* that men are basically incapable of controlling themselves, and only through expression of power over them by government or religion can they possibly be restrained.

Then of course, they blame the woman, whatever the result, for not apparently teaching the man this losing proposition hard enough while a little preoccupied with having cancer.

Love em dear, but, especially where sex is concerned, *men lie.*

How it's supposed to square with 'family values' where women are supposed to be dutiful and supportive, ...that suddenly it's a cancer-sufferer's fault for not sufficiently being *Mommy* laying down patriarchal law, well, that's just silly.

If only authority and threat of some distant punishment are going to prevent men from breaking their oaths and promises, maybe we shouldn't be *electing them on that basis.*

This fixation on sexual fidelity as some ideal of marriage, when, frankly, cheating on that ideal is *normative,* means the hypocrisy doesn't even reside in any one individual. It's obviously worse when people champion and demand unrealistic absolutisms of everyone *else* while using their power to try and hurt those different from them, but....

That's not what this is.

Edwards is not one of the ones demanding that a fundie Christian view of marriage be made *mandatory,* ..he's just one of the ones not previously disqualified for cheating without being or becoming a Fundie about it.

No, it's not 'OK,' but it is his and his wife's business unless he makes it otherwise.

And, frankly, focusing on unrealistic expectations of pietistic 'virtue' as more of a gauge of honesty than actual positions, means you might get a Fundie President who does everything wrong, and deceives about everything *but* getting caught sneaking around.

I wish this story would just go away. But- it won't be over for a long long time:

"If, as I now suspect, there is some sort of pre-arranged agreement between Edwards and Hunter that she refuse a DNA test because he may actually be the father of the baby, then his mendacity goes deeper than I could ever have imagined. And he is not only a liar and a cheat, but a thief, as well. The moneys that were paid to Ms. Hunter for the maintenance of her lifestyle and the care and welfare of her self and her child may have come from his campaign funds. And if they did... which is simply corrupt... then he is a fool as well as a liar, cheat and thief. Because he is wealthy beyond belief. There was no earthly reason to have paid her moneys from his campaign -- except to maintain his deceit of his wife. Which brings us back to his life of utter mendacity.

And the only possible redemption for this grotesque series of crimes against decency and basic common sense, for chrissakes, is to take a stand for the salvation of your self-respect, for chrissakes, stand up in front of the whole damned world and admit EVERY GODDAMNED BIT OF THE TRUTH and NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, get it ALL out... and then slink away into the shadows, don't let us see your pitiful face or hear your name uttered by ANYONE with a shred of self-respect for at LEAST five years...

And let Barack Obama get back to campaigning for the Presidency with enough time to let us all TRY to forget this horrible, horrible week.

You slimy, pitiful, pathetic embarrassment of an excuse for a man."

http://myleftwing.com/showDiary.do;jsessionid=B5C82C4EB8D6DA8B3CAD572166B95FF5?diaryId=22514

anonymous,

Lying about his private matters concerns me not although I will agree that the more honorable route was for him to just remain silent. If he had remained silent and refused to discuss private matters that are irrelevant to his public policies and administrative skills, he would have my respect regardless because I support his public policy positions.

The fact that he lost long before his personal revelations became public just shows you how irrelevant they are. He lost on the relevant merits of the race. In other words, he didn't have the right stuff regardless of his marriage fidelity or sexual proclivities.

This is the same Washington Post which, during the entire 2000 election season failed to ever mention that George W Bush was an idiot. This is the same WaPo which covered up for Newt Gingrich when it was common knowledge he was being serviced by an employee in his car while married to another woman. This is the same WaPo which knew Henry Hyde, leader of the impeachment against President Clinton, had carried on a 5 year affair with a married woman. Some how all these politicians could count on the WaPo to keep their secrets, but somehow the Edwards "knew this would come out"?
It's not even a story. Edwards was not an office holder when he had his affair. He wasn't running for office at the time. He certainly wasn't positioning himself as the "perfect husband" or as representing the "family values crowd", nor was he calling himself a representitive of any kind of moral crusade.
Quinn writes "he is a narcissistic, self centered, lyin', cheatin', no-good, hypocritical egomaniac" to which I say "look in the mirror baby". The WaPo has a lot to learn about morality from the Edwards. The WaPo has never apologized for it's blind support for the invasion of Iraq. Every day the post publishes more lies about "the surge working". 2/3 of the posts editorials seem to be supporting Senator McCain. The post is in no position to get moral on us - the WaPo is just a rag for selling ads, and if it wasn't free I wouldn't buy it to line a birdcage.

"Nobody has more respect for Elizabeth Edwards than I do."

Sally, this is patently untrue. You clearly have NO respect for Elizabeth Edwards; otherwise, how to explain a sentence like this:

"Not only did she allow him to run, exposing herself and her children to the pain and humiliation that would inevitably come, she could have allowed him to destroy the Democratic party in the process."

Once again, the wife gets blamed. She "allowed" him to do the bad thing. And now, having done so -- and, in the process, betrayed you personally -- she needs to slap him, give him the shove, put him in the corner.

You were likely one of the women screaming for Hillary to leave Bill. As if you had any part in their marriage. Or in Elizabeth Edwards's.

Let's get a few things clear.

1. You do NOT respect Elizabeth Edwards -- any more than you respect any of the other wives you accuse of being "enablers." Their behavior does, however, enable your sanctimony.

2. It's not the wife's fault when the husband goes walkabout.

3. When he does, it's not your business. And this includes sitting presidents as well as hopefuls.

4. When the wife doesn't smack or leave him, it's not your business. The wife doesn't owe you either a specific course of action or an explanation. You are of no consequence in the story.

This sort of crap is what's always made you a bad journalist. And nobody believes for one moment, sweetie, that you would have all this WaPo space to indulge your college newspaper skills if you weren't married to Ben.

Oh please. You know, I understand this is about Edwards sorted affair, but why is no one mentioning the fact that WOMEN cheat too. I can't help but wonder if any men out there actually can comprehend that their wives/girlfriends would cheat. True, men are dogs. But this is not the 1950's, and women are no longer dependent on a man for support. They cheat too, they're just better at not getting caught. I get tired of hearing everyone lambast men when they cheat. Politics is full of ego-manics, liars, and cheaters. Get used to it.

And if a woman chooses to stay with her man, that's her business. Maybe she "likes the house too much to leave him". Yes, I've heard that one. It doesn't make her any more pathetic in my eyes. That's an old-fashioned ideal. It's simply a choice. I'm sure many men have decided to stay with their wives who cheated too. So what.

It's a private matter, and god knows some "fine, upstanding men/women" have been lousy leaders. People stay for a lot of reasons, and people leave for reasons big and small.

And Elizabeth Edwards doesn't owe us anything. What a ridiculous idea.

"It always comes out. Repeat... it always comes out".
Well, except when it does not come out. How on earth can we be sure that it always comes out? I couldn’t care less.

freestinker- we live in a time when private infidelities are sought and told because they sell. edwards knows this and should have kept his pants on. he's a lying fool with no self control- not presidential material.

Thank you Sally, for having the guts to say this. This is why I do not admire Hillary Clinton and did not vote for her to be my senator or Democratic candidate.

I have zero respect for enabling wives. Mrs. Clinton and Mrs. Edwards, may have some problems with self-worth, I suspect and that's why they put up with such intolerable behavior. Maybe the wives think they can't make it on their own.

Brambleton said:
"Actually, it becomes our business when the person in question is running for public office to represent the interests of his/her constituents. Unless, of course, honor, character, and integrity don't mean that much to you."

No it doesn't. A person's private marriage vows (and sex life) should always be private, period. As I noted in an earlier post, marriage fidelity is a piss poor predictor of presidential performance. A person with strong character, honor, and integrity would simply refuse to discuss anything about their private marriage and sex life in any public setting.

Reasonable said:
"It matters to me. If I can't trust a pol to stay faithful to this wife, why would I entrust him with my country?"

Freestinker responds:
Because marriage fidelity is not a very good indicator of Presidential leadership! In fact, marriage fidelity is entirely irrelevant. FDR, JFK, and Bill Clinton for example were all good presidents despite their private affairs while George Bush, for example, has been a been a really bad president despite being faithful to his wife so I just don't see any connection between a person's marriage fidelity and their abilities and policies as President.

Sally forgot the "faith" component in this story. From Newsweek:

What Rielle Hunter Told Me
A seeker and a New Age spiritualist, John Edwards's other woman believed she could help him make history.

"I would soon learn that there was no such thing as small talk with Rielle Hunter. She told me that she'd felt a connection to me when we'd first met, that she could tell I was a very old soul. This meant a lot to Rielle. Her speech was peppered with New Age jargon—human beings were dragged down by "blockages" to their actual potential; history was the story of souls entering and escaping our field of consciousness. A seminal book for her had been Eckhart Tolle's "The Power of Now." Her purpose on this Earth, she said, was to help raise awareness about all this, to help the unenlightened become better reflections of their true, repressed selves.

Her latest project was John Edwards. Edwards, she said, was an old soul who had barely tapped into any of his potential. The real John Edwards, she believed, was a brilliant, generous, giving man who was driven by competing impulses—to feed his ego and serve the world. If he could only tap into his heart more, and use his head less, he had the power to be a "transformational leader" on par with Gandhi and Martin Luther King. "He has the power to change the world," she said."

http://www.newsweek.com/id/151783/output/print

4Heaven,

Actually, it becomes our business when the person in question is running for public office to represent the interests of his/her constituents. Unless, of course, honor, character, and integrity don't mean that much to you.

As an aside, I've read more than one post now in this thread intimating that Edwards is being raked across the coals because he is a Democrat and the news media is biased that way.

I honestly don't understand how anyone can say that with a straight face. We all know that all forms of media are biased, it just cuts both ways. To think that, on the whole, Republicans get some sort of free pass is laughable. As Howard Kurtz of the WP wrote,

"I don't think the party favoritism charge holds up. Yes, the media went hard after two Republican senators, Larry Craig (who pleaded guilty in that bathroom incident) and David Vitter (who admitted calling an escort service). But they also pounced on New York's Democratic then-governor, Eliot Spitzer (whose taste in prostitutes was revealed by the New York Times), and, famously, Bill Clinton (whose Monica Lewinsky mess was disclosed by The Post and hotly pursued by Newsweek). It helps, of course, when there is a law enforcement inquiry that journalists can cite as evidence."

Ms. Quinn has nailed the bastard and his codependent wife pretty good!

Why, oh why, is everyone so disturbed about this? He confessed it to his wife before he told all of us something that's really none of our business.

Is there something you all know, that you can attest to with complete surety, that I don't and can't? Do you know for a fact that any other politicians haven't had affairs?

Sally: Thank you for being honest about the real meaning of this type of betrayal.

Ms. Quinn...when did your affair with Mr. Bradlee begin? How did you feel about the effect on Mrs. Bradlee? Actually, I really don't care--and don't think it's anyone's business--except that you seem to feel so free to judge others. I venture I could find a stink bomb in just about any political candidate's closet, and my guess is that so could you. The whole thing about redemption--you are writing a spiritual blog...is that once forgiven, one is redeemed. The main mistake the Edwards couple made was in not coming clean before running. As a former campaign policy wonk, that would always be my advice. "Here's what I did, I'm lucky she forgave me, I've worked to regain her trust," etc. Let he or she who is without, cast the first, etc.

Sally's argument rests on a false premise ... that a politician's private sex life is somehow relevant to their qualifications for public office when clearly it is not.

Dog Bites Man

Politician Cheats on Spouse

In both cases, this is hardly news. I fail to see the significance of this story -- haven't we heard it all before? If not, its because the press didn't make a big deal of it that time. Why are they making a big deal of it now? He is not a senator and is no longer running for president. Why is anybody (besides the Enquirer) even covering this story?

Yeah, it was a big blunder. It is perplexing, to say the least, as to the, why the heck did they think they could run for the highest office in the land, and believe his little secret would not get out. And, really, we do not even know if the baby is really his or not, I am thinking it is his until a paternity test says otherwise.

It was fine to forgive him Elizabeth, the affair, but then to choose to help him in his quest for the political office was just plain off the wall...but considering what you were dealing with health wise, children wise, know-it-all-love-my-own reflecton sooo much- of a husband....I forgive the blunder.....

Choir boy-

It matters to me. If I can't trust a pol to stay faithful to this wife, why would I entrust him with my country?

Mr Mark- what, RR did this way in the past and was married for YEARS before he became President.

Same with McCain. It happened in the present.....

Man you are a partisan.

I suppose writing this way about a sick woman makes you feel tough.

I don't feel the slightest betrayed and it speaks more than volumes about you that you do.

Get a grip, Sally. What is wrong with you? Are you that neurotic, that projecged outside yourself, that bitter about some personal betrayl, that unconscious, that addicted to some ideal that you have to blame a victim for the indiscretions of her husband?

My God, woman. What is wrong with you? You act as if this is the first time some pol has dipped his stick into someone other than his wife.

Just how mad can you be? I mean, really. Who the hell cares what John Edwards did and who SHOULD care but Mrs. Edwards? And if she didn't then what business is it of yours.

We're electing a cheif adminsgtrative executive. Not some moral vanguard. Read the frickin' constitution. Does it say anything in there about who can ZOOM who?

Why don't you put your energies into something that matters....something like helping sexually frustrated middle aged women, like yourself, get a grip on reality and stop living a soap opera life.

The theatre that you obviously create each day you live is causing great suffering for many people including yourself. Snap out of it -- do us all a favor and SNAP OUT OF IT.

Why is that Ms. Quinn's harse criticism is reserved for the man in these situations? Pray tell, Ms. Quinn, why no harse, stinging words for the WOMAN involved in this affair ( Rielle Hunter )? Was she also simply an "innocent victim" who was simply seduced by power and thus immune from any blame? Please do tell us and explain your man-hating attitudes to us. As the saying goes, it takes two to tango.

Sally loves Bill Clinton, but not John Edwards are they both like Teddy the K. morally beneath contempt but admired by hypocrical writers.

Betrayal requires trust. If you got betrayed by John Edwards, then that means you trusted him in the first place. So that's just bad judgement on your part and I don't feel sorry for you.

If Obama gets elected, I'll be mocking the Obama supporters next year too.

Seriously, why do people set themselves up to get hurt by trusting a guy like Edwards or Obama? It just makes no sense to me. Edwards has a long history as a zero-ethics sue-everybody plaintiff attorney. Under what possible set of circumstances is it a good idea to trust a guy like that? Probably under the circumstances where if you win, he gets 40%.

I wonder how much he paid his mistress to refuse to allow a paternity test? And what he offered the "aide" who is pretending that he impregnated her? And here's the acid test - is the other alleged father going to pay child support? Duh, not likely.

It's so typical of the hypocritical democrats that they will prevent John Edwards - such a poor boy who achieved success defending the down troden - from speaking at the upcoming convention yet give over an entire evening to the Chief impeached fornicating ex president Bill "get lots anytime you can" Clinton. Why it's e3nopugh to make you "nauseaous". Dear Sally; what did your mother say about Bill's sucker in the kneewell of his desk at in the Oval office. So many questions abound, one other is why oh why Dear Hillary failed to divorce Bill in those days or in these days. Did she really need his 'help' that much?

"First of all, any woman who has lost a child gets a pass for life from me."

. . . Except when her actions stoke my sense of manufactured outrage and equally manufactured self-righteous indignation.

Neither John Edwards nor, especially, Elizabeth Edwards betrayed you. John Edwards betrayed his wife and his family and, possibly, his staff.

All this is beside the point, though. IN the name of protecting women from victimization, you proceed to victimize a woman (who has done absolutely nothing to you, by the way) and demonstrate why even innocent people might want to keep this sort of thing private. A woman who has been cheated on by her spouse, particularly a woman who is a public figure, cannot win. If she divorces him, she loses her husband, her children lose the full-time support of her father, and, in a political marriage, she gives up the goals that she and her husband have worked towards for many years. IF she stays with him, she'll get attacked by the left and right for staying with him, appearing to approve his actions, and, by some magical, mystical mechanism that is never defined, promoting the victimhood of women.

Spare me, Ms. Quinn. You weren't injured by this. No one except the principals were. Certainly you were not injured by anything Mrs. Edwards did or didn't do. She didn't act how you imagine you would act (or, more accurately, how you claim you imagine you would act). SHe chose to stick with a marriage of about 30 years duration despite her husband's offense. She chose not to give up the work she and her husband had decided to undertake. What a witch.

I weep for you, Ms. Quinn. And all the poor women who would not otherwise suffer from cheating spouses but for Mrs. Edward's heinous offense.

Oh, wait, I must be misinterpreting you. AFter all, you prefaced all this with the (disingenuous and dishonest) disclaimer that "any woman who loses a child gets a pass from [you] for life." Except, apparently, when you can make a cheap point by feigning injury and outrage.

men are dogs. woof!

Brambleton -

Good point about Edwards saying he was "99% honest." Isn't being honest a but like being pregnant?

FACT! FACT!

Please WAPO, please let AMERiCAN(s) Know that Mother/Father RUSSiA (1st in Space), does not want breakaway-GEORGiA, nor Want Georgians on Russian Soil via a 'Regime Change!'

AMERiCA needs to mind Ye Own Business. Best to ISOLATE for the next four Years & concentrate on Uniting MEXiCo & or CUBA 1st!

----

.........P.............
.........E.............
.........A.............
.........C.............
L O V e R O C K
.........R.............
.........O.............
.........L.............
.........L.............

--

..........................McCain for PREZ 2008!

...........................................Condoleeza vPREZ 2009!

VOTE: "ECONoMiC MiGHT, Not MiLiTARY MiGHT!" This TiME Around!

VOTE: Stable or Lower Oil Prices!

VOTE: Finish what is unfinished, and Globally ,as well as Locally ,fix What is Broken, and not fix what's not broken, but Prevent!

G O O D -- B Y E Mr. G.W. BuSH et al!

HELLO McCAiN-TEAM ! A better FUTURE with 'FRESH' Faces & “SMARTER” minds!

VOTO/A:

Peace (English), Paz (latin), Shalom (Eberu), Ahimsa (Hindu/Urdu), Salaam (Arab), Zhengyu (Sino), ... & more Good Tidings coming YE-WAY!

Thank Ya.

Gracia Yo.

Todar!

Shookria!

Shookron!

Zcee Zcee or Doe-jaey, Respectfully!

Pay'd For, By the American JOCKTANian-PARTY of the "ECLATi{ON}" Votary Assoc. 2012+

Here's what's really sad . . . Edwards said, "Although I was honest in every painful detail with my family, I did not tell the public. When a supermarket tabloid told a version of the story, I used the fact that the story contained many falsities to deny it. But being 99% honest is no longer enough."

99%???? The Inquirer KNEW he was having an affair, and reported as such, but apparently the actual affair was just 1% of the story. What was the other 99% that they got wrong? Were they reporting that his mistress was an ape from the planet Kroll who held the key to the Darwinian galatic empire?

'This kind of thing hurts everybody. Most importantly it hurts women. It paints all of us as pathetic victims, or potential ones in any case. Every time one of these guys goes off the reservation it creates the perception that it's OK, that that's what men do and the women should just shut up, put on a brave face and support them.'

Well isn't really what many men, especially powerful men, do? Do you need some examples?? Does Ms Quinn really think it's going to ever change? The media getting involved in politicians private lives is simply sleezy and only occurs for no ethic reason but rather only for the purpose of making money and wielding political influence. And why does Ms. Quinn think that intelligent women, whose husbands do cheat on them, need her to think for them as to how to respond to the situation? I'm pretty sure they knew what they were marrying and know their divorce options. The fact is that Ms. Quinn is the one painting women as 'pathetic victims' with her sisterly paternalism. Let's all grow up and be adults now.

'This kind of thing hurts everybody. Most importantly it hurts women. It paints all of us as pathetic victims, or potential ones in any case. Every time one of these guys goes off the reservation it creates the perception that it's OK, that that's what men do and the women should just shut up, put on a brave face and support them.'

Well isn't really what many men, especially powerful men, do? Do you need some examples?? Do you really think it's going to ever change? The media getting involved in politicians private lives is simply sleezy and only occurs for no ethic reason but rather only for the purpose of making money and wielding political influence. And why does Ms. Quinn think that intelligent women, whose husbands do cheat on them, need her to think for them as to how to respond to the situation? I'm pretty sure they knew what they were marrying. The fact is that Ms. Quinn is the one painting women as 'pathetic victims' with her sisterly paternalism. Let's all grow up and be adults now.

Isn't Sally Quin one of those who considered the Clintons to be trash and suitable for her kind of insider WashingtonDC parties?
The WaPo is all too happy to attack dems, while conservatives they leave alone (probably to prove they aren't liberal). Supposedly it was well known about Newt's multiple affairs, as well as Henry Hydes years long affair with a married woman, and the Sally Quinn types thought it best to keep their secrets.

Ms. Quinn, out here in the USA people hit roadbumps in their life. For many of us Faith is what we hold on to because our country and the fortunes of our lives have let us down. For you, faith is more of a fashion question. For many couples, including the Edwards, circumstances can come up where one person cheats, than asks for forgiveness. Some people divorce, but many people try to work things out, knowing that nobody is perfect, and under the right circumstances people will do just about anything. I admire Ms Edwards for dealing with the problem rather than running away (or like Ms Clinton, running for office). Was she supposed to announce it to the world?
As for your claim -'it always comes out ' - you should have added 'if you're a democrat' as your paper is so dang good at covering up for Republicans.
BTW, speaking of faith, you're building up a nice pile of bad karma right now - you oughtta be a little more humble, cause one thing I KNOW about God, he has an ironic sense of humor.

"I'm puzzled why there isn't more in the media about McCain's past."

"A study by a Brigham Young University professor has found that combat veterans' first marriages are 62 percent more likely to end in separation or divorce than other men's, a fact he hopes will be considered by defense policy-makers."

My impression is that most of Sally's anger against Mrs. Edwards is not so much for forgiving him personally but for encouraging him to run for president knowing he had this skeleton in his closet. But certainly the blame lies with him. I'm sure he knew what would happen if the story got out after having been nominated.

More to the point, I'm puzzled why there isn't more in the media about McCain's past. There's certainly a double standard.

I'm having a nauseating feeling that this story is just beginning to be told. When I heard in John Edwards' interview confession- he said he never loved his mistress, her child wasn't his, he didn't know how she had been set up in a multi-million dollar house in CA and given a BMW to drive, and he had no idea someone was giving her $15,000.00 a month for incidentals. Sorry John Edwards, the money is going to talk. The truth comes out.

The depth of deceit was apparent in the pass he gave himself to start the affair when his wife's was in remission. The heartbreak and stress of his infidelity most likely compromised her health and brought her out of remission. He says he ended the affair in 2006, confesses to his wife and they reconciled. Then what was he doing in this woman's hotel room for hours in the middle of the night? This is the man who accepted the Father of the Year Award in 2007. I don't see how Elizabeth Edwards will stand up to this betrayal in her fragile health. The confusion and pain her children are experiencing must be breaking her heart in two.

If Sally can slap him down- I'd like to give him good, solid kick in the @ss.

how dare you speak of elizabeth in that manner. you don't know her. you don't know him. you don't know their children. this is a private issue. so john is a human being, as flawed as the rest of us. why do we judge him, or in particular, her? private. private. private. in other words, did not have anything to do with his public service. leave it alone.

I mean, we do all realize we're dealing with a political process that calls it 'fair and balanced' in the course of all this 'moral rectitude' to give equal credence to the opinion I and my partner ought to have civil rights, with the opinion that if we get equal health care, the men are all going to turn gay and run off and marry donkeys...

You're *shocked* at these pecadilloes? Or is that just part of the ritual, now?

And by the way, she didn't 'Let him do it,' save perhaps by being part of a culture which says it's just as 'sinful' to deal with the question *openly* as to 'cheat,' then go through the sin-redemption-forgiveness drama, which they *did* apparently, in their personal lives.

I mean, I haven't been in the best of health for a lot of my current partnership, my dear one knows she can talk to me about any sexual needs that might take someone else to deal with, ...and has not chosen to, (well, we're girls) ...but that's a whole different model than shame and sneaking and lies... I can imagine just how many kinds of *terrible person* people would be calling Mrs. Edwards if they had made a similar sort of arrangement in their personal lives.

As she's being called a terrible enabler now for not being enough of a moral absolutist about her own marriage's business.

Let's be real, like it or not, this does happen. It's *hypocrisy* to aggressively-champion disenfranchising anyone who *admits* it, or who doesn't *espouse* the belief that it's the same 'adultery' whatever happens in people's lives, so you may as well sneak around and cheat, but it's *not necessarily about the sex.*

McCain betrayed and abandoned a wife who was hurt, while pandering to religious conservatives and oposing the rights of people to arrange their own lives, ...this is different, I think, from someone having a 'lapse' of the absolutist 'fidelity' that is considered normative, if 'sinful,' in his society.

In some ways, the real fault for this sort of thing is the obligatory moral absolutism in media-religion-politics, anyway: people demand sqeaky-clean 'moral rectitude,' then make it their business to say, 'She's an unfit 'champion of marriage' cause she didn't divorce the bastich.'

Of course, if she did do so they'd just say she was 'horrible and unforgiving and uncommitted to the family.' Unless it falls under, 'It's OK if a Republican Does It.'

I didn't see Edwards attacking *my* partnership, I really don't care much for those tryng to raise a stink about *his.*

sally stated "Yes, I want to smack John Edwards across the puss." It is clear that them of the so-called christian like to take judgment of others in their hands. tell me sally, does what john did bother you so much that you feel if is your right to be violent. remember you believe that you must eat the flesh and drink the blood of the son of man for eternal life. that is the gospel of the sinner creatures. you also believe the works of the roman crufication of the son of god for sin removal. mother like daughter "I want to shake him and knock his pretty head against the wall."

Maybe she thought that saving her marriage, sparing her children a messy divorce, and wanting someone to care for her if her cancer returned (which it did) trumped kicking him out? Maybe she actually forgave him for it?

However despicably he behaved towards his family, I think that he also behaved that way towards the people that campaigned and voted for him. If he would have just confessed when the National Enquirer raised the issue - said that it was a mistake and it was over with - it might have been a different story. Everybody loves a repentant sinner.

To all of the people who didn't vote for Edwards because he "seemed too phony", you were right.

Sally writes:

"The problem is, SHE LET HIM DO IT. She not only agreed to his run for the presidency, she encouraged him to do it, knowing the toll it would take on the family given her health problems. But, worse, she let him do it knowing that he had had an affair. What on earth was she thinking? She said in the Daily Kos, "This was our private matter, and I frankly wanted it to be private because as painful as it was I did not want to have to play it out on a public stage as well." I'm sorry but it was not a private matter. Not when you are running for president. The press would surely have left him alone had he not run. The mainstream press left him alone while he was running, but if he had won the primaries she had to know it surely would have come out. It always comes out. Repeat... it always comes out."

Oh, I dunno. Maybe she thought the press wouldn't cover it, the same way they don't cover John McCain's multiple affairs and his dumping of his crippled first wife.

Perhaps she felt that since R politicians can frequent hookers over and over again (David Vetter) or look for homosexual sex in airport rest rooms and get arrested doing so (Larry Craig) and not have to quit their day jobs that the times were changing, and that husband John would be given the same free pass in the press as is the typical R who commits adultery. Perhaps she even felt that if the country could elect a divorced man as president (Reagan) who was having an affair with the woman who would eventually become first lady, that they would give a wide berth to a man who had an affair but did not divorce his wife.

Sadly, Elizabeth Edwards forgot one simple letter, and that is the letter "D" that one sees next to her husband's name, the D that denotes his political affiliation. That "D" is for the double standard the press applies to Democrats in this matter, just as surely as does the "R" stand for the free RIDE they give Rs in these instances.

All this indignance over Edwards, while the media quietly coughs and looks away whenever anyone mentions *McCain's* brazenly horrid behavior toward his wife (who dealt with his POW deal) when she got crippled, not just having an *affair* but deserting her through a divorce to go be with a younger, prettier woman.

Call it 'moral relativism,' but Edwards' behavior, now that he's a non-candidate, isn't on the same order or of as much concern, particularly because his wife is reconciled to it.

Infidelities do happen. Gods know what goes through men's minds, ...oh, wait, I almost forgot, it's a preoccupation of an intimacy-conflicted culture and is on TV every night, even if we expect more of politicians who are immediately-disqualified if they *don't* talk the 'family values' line. Oh, yeah, it's a symptom of this and that and the other.

Yeah, you want to slap him for an oathbreaker and for not either keeping it in his pants or recognizing the political realities of his choices.

Still, people freaking out about it when we have enough trouble keeping the talk of the *actual candidates* anywhere near substance, that's also something I want to smack the *media* for.