Elizabeth Edwards stood by her man, and rightly so, when he admitted to the affair. It was months later, when John Edwards' admitted to having fathered a child, that his wife separated from him. I make no criticism of Mrs. Edwards. I am just laying down the time line.
A quote from OpenSecrets.org:
Edwards first acknowledged an extramarital affair with campaign videographer Rielle Hunter in the summer of 2008, months after he pulled out of the presidential race.
Then in January, after publicly denying it for months, Edwards confirmed that he is the father of Hunter’s young daughter, Quinn. Edwards and his wife Elizabeth, a breast cancer patient who stayed by her husband’s side when he originally acknowledged the affair, have since separated in the wake of this newest development.
Does ANYBODY out there want to counter my assertion that the problem here was not an affair... the problem was the child.
John Edwards and Arnold are no sleezier than Bill Clinton... although Clinton was more judicious in his choice of sexual acts... and certainly not in the same league as Ted Kennedy who f***ing drowned a young woman in a car accident and did not bother to attempt to rescue her... the Feminist Left had no problem doing business with him for decades after that incident... apparently drowning a young woman is somehow less of an offense to these sh*t heads than fathering a child...
Please find a feminist to counter my assertions, or better yet, to have the courage to confirm them.
Let me do some math for you on this subject.
Do you have any idea of how many No Tell/Motel rooms there are in this country? Any idea how many adult female (and male) sex workers are plying their trade in the U.S.? How many clandestine trysts took place last night? By mathematical necessity, there are an awful lot "cheaters" out there. Are they all sleezeballs? Should we fund an "adultery squad" in every Law Enforcement precinct?
Does anybody read Freud anymore? Anybody wonder what the driving force behind building huge companies, and real estate empires, and recording platinum albums, or making $20 million per film as a movie star, or becoming Governor/Senator/President? Anybody think these guys do this so that they can limit their sexual opportunities? Really!!??
Men are already refusing to marry, or a marrying very, very late - and with a 95 page pre-nup agreement - and even then they divorcing early. What is it the Feminists/Left hope to accomplish here with John Edwards? In their grab for power they seem oblivious to the very serious unintended consequences of their actions. The marriage market is not a vacuum! For 30 or 40 years, men watched - in horror - the mangling of married men in divorce court... and long before the end of that period the pre-nuptial agreement comes into being. Is that a coincidence? These agreements essentially wound the clock back to the late 19th century as far as the non-asset/non-earning (or lesser earning) spouse was concerned... did the Feminist/Left see that one coming? Nope. Then men decided not to marry at all... What was "gained" by Feminist/Left in the radicalization of family law since the 1960's was literally destroyed in just a few short years by the marketplace... today's women are worse off financially than their mothers and grandmothers, with 3X more of today's 40+ women having ZERO family or husband to turn to than 50 years ago... tell me again how this helped women?
The Edwards thing might go right over the heads of a lot of men... but not those in the economic establishment. They are not as dumb as they look. These men WILL respond. These forces are not released in a vacuum. Nothing will be gained... actually much more will be lost.
And another nail will have been driven into the coffin of the body politic and the Constitution.