If men can't help themselves then why should we put them in charge of anything?

I mean really. Edwards made a conscious choice here folks. And his wife had to deal with all the ramifications of being cheated on while dealing with a potentially fatal disease.

Does that preclude that Edwards could have done some good for this country? No. But he made a choice to do something that if caught - he knew it would destroy not only his professional effectiveness, but damage his marriage possibly beyond repair.

He bears the total responsibility for the fall out. There are always "other women" out there. Just as there are always ways to cheat in other aspects of life.

I've no idea why these wives stay. Perhaps their lives and identities are so intertwined with their husbands that the disruption seems worse than the humiliation.

@dick dworkin

I was being retorical when I wondered why men should be in charge of anything. Personally, I think men and women can make excellant leaders dispite personal failings. Of course, not all men and all women are capable either.

I was trying to make an objection to this argument that Edwards should be excused because it is (1) biology (2) society (3) powerful men have access to pussy (4) reaction to his wife life threatening disease (5) reaction to his wife getting fat (6) any other excuse besides the fact Edwards made the conscious choice to do what he did.

If we excuse men because "they can't help it because of XYZ" then it stands to follow that we put men in charge of things and fully accept them to make these same bad decisions when pussy is available.

Men and women made conscious decisions when it comes to loyalty and sex. No excuses.

First of all - women like sex and often cheat on partners they swear to be loyal to. Men are as a rule, more promiscuous, so more men cheat than women. And take into account that women are more likely to "work through it" than men, so the personal consequences are often less for men than women.

Secondly, who is saying that men have to comply with 'womens rules'? They often are breaking the very rules they wanted to begin with.

If men or women want to fuck around why not be upfront about it to their significant other? If the action is hidden and lied about, then the reality for the "betrayed" one is distorted to the point they may be making decision based on a fiction. That is the second wrong. The lies exist because the cheater wants the services and respectibility the official relationship provides AND the dangerous illicit affair. This I believe is often referred to wanting the cake and having it too.

I don't care that Edwards is a politician, a relative or Joe Blow down the street. I consider his actions beneath who he was presenting to us. When you cheat on your loved one, you are a cheater. Period. I've known plenty of women who cheat too. They are cheaters as well. And most men I know are devastated and angry when they find out. Like women are.

No one is asking that men, or women, abide by rules the other gender has set up - just that men and women abide by their own word and sense of integrity. If you swear that you are a faithful loyal partner - then act in accordance. Do men really need a men's group (Promise Keepers) to help them keep their own word?

I don't think you are really saying that men are incapable of keeping their own word, are you? Integrity is not a woman-only invention.

Once again - I was being rhetorical and a little sarcastic when I said that if men can't help "it" then how can we trust them in charge of anything.

I think Clinton was (or could have been) a good President. He was a lousy husband.

I think Bush is a lousy President and there is good probablity he never cheated on his wife.

I still think Edwards could do good and there is a place for him.

Being a good husband and a good leader are not things that HAVE to go together.

I just don't buy the rationalization that is being proferred. Sorry. Just don't buy it.