Now Elizabeth Edwards is to Blame?

As an early adopter of the John Edwards presidential campaign, I'm still smarting over the news of his affair.  Not because I think his personal life, or personal mistakes, are any of my GD business, but because of how this could have truly messed things up for the Democrats if he had become the nominee.

Because of how this distracts from reducing poverty in America, Edwards' pet issue.

Because of what he's said in the past about character and commitment to family and their importance for politicians.

It never occurred to me to hold Elizabeth Edwards responsible for what might have happened to an Edwards candidacy this late in the game.  But apparently, Sally Quinn had a lot of extra time on her hands, because in her Washington Post column, "On Faith," she blames Elizabeth Edwards for encouraging her husband to run for president even though she knew about the liaison.  And then smacked a really ugly and loaded label on Elizabeth -- "enabler."

In Political Wives Enabling Immoral Behavior, Quinn claims to respect Elizabeth Edwards, but then attacks her as someone who "allowed" her husband to lie and lays the decision of Edwards to run for president at her feet, launching into a diatribe about political wives enabling the dalliances of their husbands.   

But if we start going down that road, then don't we have to hold all wives of cheating husbands responsible for those actions?  Sally, I'm sure you have friends who have found themselves in the same situation.  Are you ready to hold their feet to that moral fire, too?

While Elizabeth supported her husband's decision to run for president, I have a hard time believing that she could have stopped him or that any reasonable journalist would find a backhanded way of holding the wife responsible for the sins of the husband.  Really ... wasn't she just a little bit busy fighting cancer, taking care of two small children and, I'm guessing, still being a big support system for her older daughter?

As Diane raised in her blog post over at The WomensDISH, I'm also uncomfortable with one woman trying to toss another under the bus after viewing the situation through a lens of righteousness that I'm pretty sure she bought in the 1950s. 

The funny thing about judging others too harshly, though, is even if you think politicians are fair targets, that game can come back to bite you, especially if you live in a similar spotlight.

Sally, if you want to take on the issue of infidelity and politics, try putting the blame where it belongs.  Or better yet, let's leave this one where it should stay -- back in the 1950s.

Now that she's gotten this off her chest, Joanne can go back to thinking about all the great events that will be going on at the Democratic Convention over at her place, PunditMom.

Comments

[dallasmamaof2]

Oh for cryin' out loud. 'enabler' is the most over-used word in the English language. Ridiculous that a columnist on 'faith' would dare exploit this for political gain-- blaming the wife as opposed to ...the one who broke one of the commandments of her faith!?!?!?!??!

These people are idiots. Call it what it is-- another politician sneakng around behind his wife. As a long time supporter of Edwards, I never thought I'd say this: we're just lucky John Edwards wasn't the Democratic nominee.

[Karoli]

I don't want to throw her under the bus, but I was surprised that she would, with full disclosure, decide to risk a Presidential bid with him, knowing that if three people are privy to a secret that's one too many. She placed a lot of confidence in 'the other woman' and her promise to keep silent, don't you think?

For me it was a risky judgment call that I wouldn't have thought she'd take. With that said, it was still her judgment to make, and I'm not going to stand back and dump on her now over it. It just surprised me.

[Carrie]

A to the Men.

[icebergslim]

I don't hold Elizabeth Edwards at fault for her husband's lower head, dictating what he will do. But, I do hold her equally responsible for knowing this information, not being forthright with the staff, supporters and donors. Prior to Iowa, Clinton, Obama and Edwards were on equal footing and either could have won Iowa. Yes, the "what if", is an eyeopener for many because he could have been the nominee.

My take is that John Edwards is still lying to his wife about the length, breadth and depth of the Hunter affair and the child. He comes and says, "I will take a paternity test". Hunter states, "I will not". Of course, she won't take a test, she is being paid. An unemployed woman with no independent means of great money don't end up in a 3M home in Santa Barbara, CA for nothing. And now she is shuttled away, with daughter on a private jet to an undisclosed location?

This reeks of the hypocrisy of John Edwards, the man.

If the Edwards, both, want this story gone. Tell the truth so the story is shut down. Now, since he did not do this it still goes on.

I feel for Elizabeth because in all honesty I don't think she knew about this until late in 2007. She is doing what most women do, she loves her husband and is trying to help him.

All of this is just a mess and a damn shame.

[Jessica Gottlieb]

Why this is news baffles me.

I'm not a democrat and I'm deeply apologetic for W. I'm sure we can do better next time. Obama seems to be coming to the middle, but I'm sure that's just campaign rhetoric.

I always disliked Edwards because of the cancer issue. I felt like he had to be a horrible husband and father to pursue the white house with a dying wife and that he should be with his kids as many hours of the day as possible since they know there's a countdown.

That all being said, I also think there's a chapter of the DSM yet to be written that would discuss the multitude of illnesses one would need in order to pursue the American Presidency.

I'm fairly certain that the best cretin will win. Heaven help us.

[kady]

I agree w/ Icebergslim. I don't think that Elizabeth found out about the affair until recently.

Because as selfless as she is, could she really have been diagnosed with recurring cancer, and still given her husband the support to continue his campaign, if she knew that he had just recently been sowing his oats?

[jaelithe]

I think that if Elizabeth did know about the affair, as has she said she did, she seems to have have considered it to be a brief, private episode that had already been dealt with in her family and was over and done with. I know that people are saying she should have considered the risk to the presidency. But, good heavens. The woman is suffering from incurable cancer. Her husband has been messing around. She's trying to shield her STILL. VERY. SMALL. younger children from all of this drama, I am sure. It would take an incredible amount of strength just to keep one's head together in that sort of situation, and Elizabeth has not only been doing that, with grace, but also, she has been continuing her work to fight poverty and advocate for universal health care in the middle of it.

So, maybe she was in some deliberate denial about the possibility of this ever coming out in public. Maybe she just couldn't bring herself to give up on this chance to make a positive difference in the world because of her husband's one stupid mistake. Maybe she felt that, this time, the stakes were too high to allow herself to be distracted from her ultimate goals by something as petty as an extramarital affair. Too high for herself, because she is dying. Too high for the country, because it's falling apart. Maybe she still truly believed her husband was the right man to pull us out of our current situation, despite his flaws. After all, love is blind.

From the outside, we can all tut and tsk and say it was ridiculous for her to support her husband's presidential bid under those circumstances, because we all know the political attack machines will sniff out any scandal that can be found. But we don't know what things looked like from inside that family. I am furious at John Edwards for having the hubris to think he was above reproach, and for risking the presidency at such a critical moment. But I refuse to focus my anger at his silly, selfish actions upon his wife.

[Gunfighter]

Well, what can we expect from Sally Quinn? For God's sake, she can't even write a half decent book about throwing parties.

[Alex]

Or she knew he would be exposed - and then everyone would know the same lying cheat that she did...you don't get many secrets past a Presidential Campaign. She knew it would come out - and maybe she was ok with that.
Now - if I was Hillary, I'd be pissed. The election would have been very different without Edwards in Iowa.

[Linda]

This whole development leaves me heartsick. I wasn't sure I should blog about it, but I finally couldn't keep my cybermouth shut and posted about it tonight.

I feel so much worse for Elizabeth than I do for her husband, and I hope she is able to find a resolution for this that, ultimately, works for her and the kids. I don't give her a free pass on the chance she took in supporting his run, but I also agree with the MOMocrats that she is an amazing woman and I hope she weathers this storm.

[Christine]

It's ridiculously hypocritical of Sally Quinn to pretend that she is standing up for women and not going to take it anymore while putting the blame on Elizabeth Edwards.

(Also, note to Sally, the Edwards' did not receive Secret Service protection during this campaign.)

Hers is a knee jerk reaction piece.

[Catherine of Ivanhoe]

There has been a lot of talk about Hillary winning the race, but for Edwards adulterous behavior not being revealed. On the contrary, but for Rush Limbaugh's Operation Chaos, she would have been gone long ago. You may recall that Republicans were voting for her because they felt she would be easier to beat. Her militant followers are mostly Republicans whose sole purpose is to get a better chance at winning.

Those people care less than a flying fig about her. That is why she had to go and beg for money after it was all over. Any help she got came from the Obama campaign...and she felt he should have helped her more. Obama may be magnanimous but his supporters are not. His supporters keep him up to speed financially. He is not in debt, has never been in debt, and will never be in debt. Everybody who has worked for Obama has been paid. Do consider the fact that the way one runs a campaign is an example of how they will run the country. Hillary has yet to pay the little people who made banners and things for her, she has made her donors sign documents that allow her not to refund their money, and she is due in court on the charge of misusing campaign funds. I have added a link to further explain, it is called Hillary Clinton Uncensored. She got the right to make the media not show it, but you can still see it online.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7007109937779036019

Hillary went to Edwards and asked if he would release his delegates to her, he said no. It is not Elizabeth's fault, or Johns fault that she lost. Obama got tired of running in a negative campaign and began to run against McCain while they were still in the primaries. She began to do better because he stopped running.Hillary lost because she lost. This is the thing though, if she destroys this convention out of selfishness...she will destroy ant chance for women in the future. Those rowdy supporters of hers are a reflection of the type of people she attracts. That is not who we want running this country. I want people who are gentle, educated and progressive. I like the idea of lattes and reading groups, as opposed to boiler makers in a bar. Yep, it's true...and I am far from elite! Bottom line, Hillary would have lost no matter what.

[Catherine of Ivanhoe]

I had to come back on this blog and give an open apology for making a mean comment about Hillary.When I look back over my life, I can say I am sure of one thing. That is, that I have no right to judge anyone. All of us have our trials and tribulations, and our pain should not be exploited. Grief is grief, no matter how you shake it. It is that feeling of deep loss that most us us have felt at some time in their life. In the case of Hillary, she had the same experience that Elizabeth had. It was a loss...in the case of those dreams we chased and never caught, it is a loss.

Elizabeth had lost a child, learned that she was going to die, found that she had lost the love of her husband...and then faced a media that tried to take away her respect by blaming it all on her. How brave does a body have to be? I would wager she had had enough...and told John to do what he wanted to do. If you are dying, some things are probably not that important. My mother told me when I was very young, "Cathy, choose your battles wisely". I think that is what Elizabeth did, John and the presidency were no longer the priority. I woul wager that she has chosen to live in peace.

I am inclined to believe that both Hillary and Elizabeth suffered through grief. Who can even say when it ends? I don't know. But I do know what it feels like to grieve. So, whether she is right or wrong I apologize to Hillary, and I dismiss any cruel conversations of Elizabeth and pray for her. I have the five stages og grief following. Have a glance...what do yu think?

1 - Denial Denial is a conscious or unconscious refusal to accept facts, information, reality, etc., relating to the situation concerned. It's a defence mechanism and perfectly natural. Some people can become locked in this stage when dealing with a traumatic change that can be ignored. Death of course is not particularly easy to avoid or evade indefinitely.

2 - Anger
Anger can manifest in different ways. People dealing with emotional upset can be angry with themselves, and/or with others, especially those close to them. Knowing this helps keep detached and non-judgemental when experiencing the anger of someone who is very upset.

3 - Bargaining
Traditionally the bargaining stage for people facing death can involve attempting to bargain with whatever God the person believes in. People facing less serious trauma can bargain or seek to negotiate a compromise. For example "Can we still be friends?.." when facing a break-up. Bargaining rarely provides a sustainable solution, especially if it's a matter of life or death.

4 - Depression
Also referred to as preparatory grieving. In a way it's the dress rehearsal or the practice run for the 'aftermath' although this stage means different things depending on whom it involves. It's a sort of acceptance with emotional attachment. It's natural to feel sadness and regret, fear, uncertainty, etc. It shows that the person has at least begun to accept the reality.

5 - Acceptance Again this stage definitely varies according to the person's situation, although broadly it is an indication that there is some emotional detachment and objectivity. People dying can enter this stage a long time before the people they leave behind, who must necessarily pass through their own individual stages of dealing with the grief.

[bridge]

Yuck! Not cool. I love Elizabeth and John both. Really, perhaps I am crazy here, but I just don't feel affairs (republican or democrat) are fair game for my judgment. Marriages last 30, 50, 60 years and sad things that occur during a marriage such as affairs are just a private thing. How painful for both of them, but not my concern.

[bridge]

Yuck! Not cool. I love Elizabeth and John both. Really, perhaps I am crazy here, but I just don't feel affairs (republican or democrat) are fair game for my judgment. Marriages last 30, 50, 60 years and sad things that occur during a marriage such as affairs are just a private thing. How painful for both of them, but not my concern.

[Lee]

Kady commented on August 12th, about the Sally Quinn blog and her opinions about Elizabeth, being able to stop her husband from continuing the campaign. I just wanted to say I agree with Kady's comments totally, she makes perfect sense.
I have just been very sad about Edwards' admitting his involvement with another women, because I really feel for his wife and family. I feel nothing for the
people, John had lost the nomination, he felt he had no chance of winning so he dropped out, not to mention the DNC, Obama and Hillary and many Obama blogger were dieing for him to drop out, so he did. I can't say that the haunting of tabloids didn't help. Which was Oct. 2007 and again before Iowa, 2007. But the fact of the matter is no one knew about the affair except the women Pidgon and those close to the other women. So one thing had nothing to do with the other.