@ossobuco,
ossobuco wrote:
My qualms have to do with her going ahead and promoting his campaign when it is the nature of politics here in the US to vilify a candidate who has both fooled around and lied about it (which I take as separate issues), and with the nature of the press being what it is, the chances of this all being discovered were pretty good to just about certain. Thus, had this all been exposed after Edwards obtained the nomination.. well, Mc Cain would be president, in my estimation. So, she as well as he went ahead with the campaign knowing about this possibility. Not brave, but stupid, and not, finally, for the good of the country, from the democrats point of view... but high risk activity. I don't like them for this. Of course, if a spouse fooling around would not be considered by the public as a rule out situation for the presidencial candidacy, this, um, charade, wouldn't have seemed necessary to the Edwards.
Absolutely. You're describing personal attributes that smack of self-indulgence and narcissism. In her interview with Matt Lauer, Mrs. Edwards stated:
MS. EDWARDS: You know, I guess there are all sorts of reasons [why I didn't leave him], but the big reason is that, you know, I promised I was with him for better or for worse. This was a lot worse than I had ever expected, but I thought, you know, that meant something when I said it. It still meant something. And, you know, it sounds odd, but except for this very big thing that he had done that was bad,
I thought I was married -- believed and believe now that I was married to a magnificent man, you know, somebody who truly cared about other people.
. . .
MR. LAUER: Well, but it's -- I'd like your opinion on this. Sally Quinn writes, "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."
Maureen Dowd wrote this, and this is harsh.
"John Edwards' political career is over. Now St. Elizabeth has dragged him back into the public square for a flogging on Oprah and in Time and at bookstores near you." She goes on to write, "The book is just a gratuitous peek into their lives, and one that exposes their kids by exposing more dregs about their personal family life."
They're very different critiques.
MS. EDWARDS: They are very different, yeah. And so, in terms of responding, first of all, I agreed to write this book long before there was any stories about John's indiscretion. And I intended to write just a book about my experiences prior to that.
When I found out, and for a large part of writing the book, I only knew about a single night, a single moment of weakness. And that, though it was difficult to accept, you know, I could -- I certainly knew that most everybody who seeks to lead us, and most everybody who just seeks to be led, have weaknesses, moments of weakness in their lives. And I didn't think that that was a fatal flaw. But I was wrong.
MR. LAUER: So you're telling me that, had you known the whole truth, you might have decided not to write the book?
MS. EDWARDS:
No, but I probably would have been more adamant about his not running than I was. His running -- the whole time he ran, I only knew of this one thing.
* * *
Mrs. Edwards' focus was clearly centered on herself and how her husband's alleged indiscretion affected her. She doesn't appear to consider how his infidelity (regardless if it was a one-time indiscretion or an affair) could derail a national campaign if her husband had won the Democrat party's nomination and squander the hopes of millions of Americans. If either Mr. or Mrs. Edwards truly cared about other people (more than themselves even though they think of themselves as "magnificent") and what was good for America, then they would not have embarked upon a run for the presidency.
, i don't get it either
