ossobuco wrote:Let's assume for argument purposes that she wouldn't have been for the affair in the first place, say as a concept. Though some marriages are different, I'll propose that as a given.
But given the reality of a child - if the child being his is a reality and we still don't know that, do we? - she might be for a) his responsibility to care for the child, or, b) his need to make payments to mollify the situation, re the child's care and the woman's support.
All pretty nightmarish for any couple, and in particular for them, given her health situation and his fame, with privacy hard to obtain. Not to even get into the probably multiple emotions.
Let's say I think he was a cad, if all true, re the affair. I still don't know that this meeting, assuming the meeting is true as well, was a so-called assignation. I'd think of it as equally likely to be taking care of business and visitation of child.
Most of us have been cads at one or another time in our lives, in some way or another. It's too bad, I think, for all involved except the Enquirer to have it play on the world stage.
Re Edwards possible career as AG, that seems like no dice, but it might have been no dice anyway.
If true, it reminds me a little of Spitzer, the NY Governor. And to some extent Bill Clinton. And others across party lines. Some playing with fire for fun. I think that penchant will always be with us, whatever the decrying. It might even make the world go round part of its route.
Of course it's possible that Mrs Edwards, for some strange reason, sanctions her husband's infidelity, but is it likely?
Of course it's possible that Edwards was visiting the woman and his/her son in a hotel to give her cash in an envelope and to play Dad to the boy in the wee hours of the night, but is it likely?
The boy may not be Edwards son (at present there is no evidence that he is) in which case it is a bit more creepy to realize the woman brought him to the place of her assignation.
Many of us have been cads, but only a few of us consider themselves special enough to lead us all. Since all of us have not been cads, it would seem we could find worthy leaders from the segment who have not, and that we should not feel restrained from expecting better from those who leads us.
The flaws of John Edwards do not begin and end with this possible infidelity If he was the man he claims to be he would not be hiding, pale faced, in a hotel bathroom for 30 minutes while he frantically figured out an escape route.
This is the dilemma of neophytes like Edwards and Obama: With no substantive record of accomplishment to recommend them they advance on the merits of their rhetoric, and the claims of their character. History has shown us that the former is a virtue shared by saints and monsters alike. With only character left to promote, it had better be pretty clean.
If you don't have a real problem with Edward's apparent infidelity, fine. I disagree with the standards you expect our leaders to meet, but you think and feel what you will. The big question is how did you react to the revelation that Newt Gingrich was engaged in infidelity while his wife lied on her death bed? Did you, at any time, suppose that Mrs Gingrich might have sanctioned Newt's cheating ways?
Gingrich is a brilliant man who is deeply flawed. Edwards is a mediocre man who is deeply flawed. In neither case does their attributes raise them above their flaws. Neither should be president, and neither ever will.
