CJR's Megan Garber thoughtfully examines the phenomenon of politician's wives standing by their men, as they confess their sexual infidelity. I admit I thought the same thing Garber focuses on in the latter half of her piece: Why should Silda Spitzer stand by her man as he intimates to the public that he probably betrayed her trust? ("Probably" because we don't know what goes on in their marriage, even as we don't know what went on in the Clinton's to this day.) I don't mean this as a criticism of Ms. Spitzer, though, I see via Garber's article how it could be perceived this way. I simply mean, why not let these guys sweat and stammer uncomfortably on their own for a couple of minutes while they explain themselves before the country, before the world. Why drag the innocent party into the spotlight to be scrutinized as well? Wouldn't the decent thing be for the one who's drawn the spotlight upon himself to insist upon standing within it alone?
So I'm a little cynical about these situations: I can't help that the spouses in these situations are often being used by their husbands as an initial stage in their campaigns to rebuild and restore their careers. I don't mean it as a criticism of the women, but of the men, who have already wronged their families, and are now using them as props. Is that too harsh? Feel free to straighten me out in the comments.