news-record.com

Two prominent women dominated the Democratic National Convention in Denver this week while a third, who had originally planned to be there, remained in seclusion in Chapel Hill.

At center stage in Denver were Hillary Clinton and Michelle Obama. In seclusion at the family estate in Chapel Hill was Elizabeth Edwards, a much-admired figure whose cheating husband has tarnished her, too.

She and John -- the former U.S. senator, two-time presidential candidate and John Kerry's vice presidential running mate in 2004 -- were no-shows at the convention. He was even supposed to have been a super-delegate who would address the convention.

Then came the shocking sex scandal -- John's infidelity, the questionable paternity of his mistress's baby, the alleged hush money. Among Democrats he became as popular as leprosy.

And 59-year-old Elizabeth? The innocent wife usually gets unswerving sympathy. She still does. She is the wife of a cheating husband, the mother of three children and is battling incurable cancer.

But as more information surfaces about John's affair, questions arise: What did Elizabeth know, when did she know it and why did she encourage his presidential bid?

John said he confessed in 2006 and told her the affair had ended. He officially launched his presidential campaign in 2007. She campaigned for him.

It's one thing for her to stay in the marriage because she has two young children and incurable cancer. But it's another for her to promote him for president. Maybe the couple remembered how Bill Clinton survived the Gennifer Flowers scandal that erupted during Clinton's first bid for the presidency. And maybe they thought they could pull it off, too.

Even so, Elizabeth is savvy and knew the media, especially tabloids, would probe every cranny of a presidential candidate's life and possibly expose the sex scandal. It would harm her children and herself. Why did she take that risk? Did political ambition blind her?

Elizabeth has largely gone silent. Her brother and close friend have told People magazine that she kept quiet about the affair to protect the family's privacy and to hold the marriage together. Elizabeth wrote in her blog that John "is an imperfect man but was seeking to redeem himself." She wrote that she shared his political beliefs and thus supported his presidential bid.

But that explanation did not satisfy many. One critic called the cover-up of the affair "a bomb waiting to go off." Another former Edwards enthusiast said, "I thought it was very naïve on both their parts. It would be very sad if he were the nominee of our party right now."

No wonder Democrats are furious with John, and some are angry with Elizabeth, too. They accuse the couple of putting their own political ambitions ahead of the party's welfare.

Sally Quinn, writing in her Washington Post blog, "On Faith," framed the issue a bit differently. "Think of the people they betrayed -- yes, THEY. These women, these political spouses, have to stop enabling their husband to behave like this. Because as long as they do, the men will continue to cheat, lie and betray. ... This kind of thing hurts everybody. Most important it hurts women. It paints all of us as pathetic victims, or potential ones in any case."

But are Elizabeth's critics being overly hard? In my opinion, she was naïve and reckless to encourage her husband's presidential bid. But I feel deeply sorry for her and wish her well.

Observers have always thought the Edwardses were starkly different. He was a political opportunist with a smiley face while she had the brains and gravitas. Thus many admirers are disappointed in her lapse of judgment yet still feel desperately sorry for her.

Meanwhile, Hillary (she knows about cheating husbands, too) and Michelle took center stage at the Democratic National Convention. One wonders if Elizabeth was watching from Chapel Hill and wondering what might have been.

Rosemary Roberts writes a Friday column. E-mail: rmroberts@triad.rr.com.