Julia, 

It’s wonderful to see you writing something more than answers to ‘questions of the day’ here at WOW, but I’m am truly amazed at the vitriol of some of the comments. 

Your remarks to the girls of Sacred Heart, about the perspective of age, and the recounting of your back porch sharing with Elizabeth, brought tears to my eyes.

I was truly angry at Edwards that he did not drop out of the primaries after his wife’s cancer returned and was deemed terminal (which some of the posters here seem to think does not mean certain, imminent,  death).   After having my last major surgery for breast cancer last June, my fifth in less than three years, it was inconceivable to me that he would even consider continuing his quest for the White House.  I did not believe, even when I saw her on television, that she was completely behind his bid - and she, supposedly, knew about his ‘one night stand’ at this point.

John Edwards hit the jackpot when he met the older, lovely Elizabeth while in law school.  The fact that she is brilliant, and probably coached him through his studies, as well as his law boards, was an added bonus.  He came from very humble roots, and his good looks, athletic prowess, and his intelligence (savvy?) took him a long way from home.  Elizabeth elevated him to entirely different neighborhood.

This extraordinary woman helped him establish a very lucrative career as a personal injury lawyer, while raising their, then, two children, and helped him pursue a political career.  They had a horrible tragedy when they lost their son.  She did a very risky thing to have fertility treatments in order to have their two younger children at age 48 and 50.  There has been much speculation that these treatments contributed to her developing her cancer.  Of course, I’ve been told that by taking HRT, after having a hysterectomy at 42, that I caused the breast cancer that was found at 53 (after clear mammograms every year since I was 40).

While I’m not crazy about the idea of this book (but everyone seems to want to know), I think Elizabeth is only thinking about her children’s future.  She is refusing to publicly say anything too negative about the father of her children, because she doesn’t want them to feel rancor or hate for what their father did.  I truly think she is making sure that their future will be secure (as in all proceeds of her book will go to them).  Sure, she could care less about his ‘love child’s’ parentage.  It really does not affect her, but I am sure that by her restraint in interviews and in her book, she getting some guarantee that her children will not suffer financially from their father’s indiscretions.  I think that it is obvious that the other woman and her child have been living the good life, certainly from funds funnelled through Edwards’ associates.

Let’s not, as women, judge Elizabeth Edwards.  If her husband’s continued presence in her life, her home, as a caretaker for her, and father to her young children - who will soon lose their mother - is working for her, then let her be. 

Thank you, Julia, for a thoughtful look as this very tragic, very modern drama.

Joanne

PS - Couldn’t get reservations at the the Monteleone during the holidays (booked for a wedding), but we had a cocktail there and admired the lovely red cyclamens in the window boxes.  Will make every effort to return!  Thanks for the heads-up.

If the timetable tells a story, one would presume a baby born end of February is conceived in May. It was in May that Elizabeth Edwards was honored in NYC and it’s funny that JRE threw a tantrum that weekend, probably got an excuse to be away and we all know what happened after!

Ladies, here’s the problem with "letting her be"—she’s not letting us be. Whether on Oprah, the Today Show, Larry King, etc., she is the one exposing her private life to scrutiny to promote her book.  As a result I think we are entitled to evaluate what we learn of her.

Really, I don’t give a hoot whether Elizabeth stays with John.   The only person I care about here is the one year-old child who is entitled to have her father in her life as an active parent.  Financial support would be a start but is not enough.  She deserves to know who her father is and have a relationship with him.  That is every child’s right, and the needs of innocent children must trump any adult’s feelings of wanting to deny the situation.

 Think about it—if a man cheats on his wife and a child results from his dalliance, is it really morally acceptable for the father to not be financially and emotionally involved with the child because it would upset his wife?  Isn’t that pretty reprehensible?  I’m glad that the courts do not think this way, or there would be no child support laws.

Elizabeth herself said that women should have respect for each other.  I would take that further and say that we should have even more respect and concern for the wellbeing of children.  As women, we have a moral imperative to refuse to be in a relationship with any man who is a deadbeat father, whether financially, emotionally, or both.  Elizabeth should absolutely not go around proclaiming what a wonderful man John is and being an active wife while paternity is in question and this child is unparented.  And yes, I make this case based on the assumption that she is John’s child, considering that he himself is "not sure" whether she is and she looks just like him.   I also highly doubt he’d be sneaking into hotel room after midnight to see the baby if she were not his child.  

What a wonderful legacy Elizabeth would leave to her children by showing compassion for this innocent child, very likely the sister of her own children, rather than referring to her as "it", continuing to make dismissive comments, and supporting a man who is not fulfilling his parental obligations. 

I was honestly surprised to read how insanely narcissistic Edwards is!  Wow, just wow.  

It’s not my place to judge Elizabeth’s decision to stay with her husband because after all I’ve never walked in her shoes—my life has never been anything like hers, so my standards are useless in this situation.  Elizabeth is doing what she feels is necessary, and that is great.  If I don’t approve I have the option of turning off the tv, not buying her book or reading about her.  

As for the child, Elizabeth has enough on her plate to deal with, and I don’t blame her for not caring/getting involved with that situation.  On this point, I will "judge", and say that it is John’s mess completely and he needs to be the one to support and do what needs to be done in that situation.  

Elizabeth’s time is finite, and like her I would do whatever the hell I wanted! I’m sure she has made sure that her children will be taken care of financially—despite John’s diddling around.  But perhaps, the sales from her book will make doubly sure that HER children are provided for—no matter what he does in the future. 

Your article  brings up an interesting point of consideration..one which I personally never really thought of…that some of the strongest women stay, as oppose to leave, yet as a culture we usually consider the woman who leaves the cheating husband as stornger , more courageous, and more self respecting ..I think you are right, as we get older we learn not base our judgments, our decisions, and our lives on assumptions or conclusions predicated on perspectives, especially public perspectives.  All of life is a trade off… I think Elizabeth Edwards has made a choice to provide the most harmonious environment for her children as she can, and if that means forgiving her cheating husband, and keeping the family together while she battles breast cancer,  then thats her bargain to make and we should all respect it. 

Elizabeth Edwards aside, completely - what she does, or doesn’t do should really be ignored by us. Personally, I cannot wait until I read that a cultural pattern exists, "they stand by their women in political life … " Enough of the excuses. It’s gone on for over 2000 years, and it has to cease. Wake up women! 

We don’t have to lose, marginalize, compromise, live alone or with abuse, but we do have to change. And, we do have to help others in abusive situations - and John Edwards is one scary male (he is not a man!).

An extramartial affair — "cheating" — is now the unforgivable sin for a politician. The bad character it reflects disqualifies them.  How does that square with the fact that two of our biggest political saints —- Martin Luther King, and John Kennedy repeatedly bedded young women during the height of their political carrers.  How about FDR?  LBJ? 

Devil’s Argument. Elizabeth was very sick and probably incapable or undesiring of a regular sex.  To satisfy his sexual needs, and try to protect Eiizabeth’s feelings, he attempts to have a discreet affair.  Is this worse than McCain cheating and then dumping his first wife because she was disfigured from an auto accident.  How about all the dozens of politicians who have deserted their first wives (and children) before they got their trophy sexual partners?  Would it have been more honorable for John to have deserted his terminally ill wife than to have a discreet affair?  OK, it would have been more noble if he had remained monk-like.  But do we expect that of anyone else in America today, where good sex is considered a Constitutional right.