Whoa

Found via THIS, Washington Post writer says that Elizabeth Edwards enabled her husband.

Taken out of context ...

In this case, Edwards says he wasn't in love with the other woman, it ended in 2006, the baby is not his, he told his wife every painful detail, she forgave him and anyway she was in remission from cancer so it wasn't really all that bad.

But um ... how does not loving the woman make that any better? I'm not clear if the writer is saying it's better that he didn't love her, or if Edwards' is saying it's better ... but I think its awful.

Anyway, not her point and certainly not mine.

This simply can't go on. 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?

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.

Yes, I want to smack John Edwards across the puss. But more than that I want Elizabeth Edwards to do it for me. Not just for me but for all of us.

Whoa. That's all I can say. I can't really believe she wrote that.

But, and this sort of plays into what I wrote earlier this morning, men don't cheat because they are afraid of their wives. What utter hogwash. As if Elizabeth could hold a gun to his head and say "Do not cheat on me! Do not run for President because you cheated on me!" And what nonesense that if he had been afraid of either of those consequences (or any consequences) he would have acted differently.

Men refrain from cheating because they love their wives. And they don't love any other woman in that way. Sheesh. Look at your vows people.

John Edwards is the only one who can control John Edwards. His wife can not control him. She can only love him, support him, co-pilot with him. If he decides to grab his wheel and thrust it into the ground, the best she can do is hold tight to her own controls and hope she has the strentgh to keep the plane in the air to save herself and her children from crashing.

Articles like this are what enable Edwards, because they project his failings and bad choices onto his wife. And they also set that most beloved movement [feminism] back more years than anything on birth control or yearly income. Repeat after me ladies ... you can not control your man. No matter what brainwashing technique you think you have, you can not make him stay faithful, you can not make him take out the trash, you can not make him a good father, you can not even make him wear purple socks if the man does not want to wear purple socks.

You can only trust, pray, and have faith that the man you have choosen has a good heart and will make good decisions. Absent of that ... you can only decide how you are going to react to anything that he does.

John Edwards is a hypocrite, and I feel sorry for him. And I also don't believe for two nano seconds that he's not the father of that baby. Riddle me this, if he weren't the father, and this affair happened in and ended in 2006, why was he seeing her in hotels in Beverly Hills in 2008? Hmmm ... anyone? Media? Anyone?

And holy moly the comments on this WaPo column are awful. From blaming Hillary for the Monica affair to Elizabeth is getting too many free passes because she has cancer.

I swear ... women are the hardest judges of other women. Edwards career is over ladies. It's not as if he's still running or he's eligible for VP now. I'm sure we can find something else to talk about.