Two words:
Hillary Clinton

She taught a whole generation of political wives, that if you'll just grin and bear it, you too can become a senator/cabinet secretary/presidential candidate.

There is also the Muslim Brotherhood connection, power is the goal.

I agree the marriage is about political power, and so long as there is a chance of getting thru it and garnering more power she will stand by him

I doubt Hillary Clinton influenced an entire generation to Stand By Your Man.

Power is a potent aphrodisiac.

Though in Anthony Weiner's case, it is particularly perplexing. Anthony Weiner is a political has-been. His stint in the HoR is as far as he will ever go, politically. And his flaccid numbers in the polls for the New York primaries show this. His is presently trailing behind Democratic front-runner, Christine Quinn. Go, Christine.

I recently posted about Anthony Weiner on my Facebook wall, and one of my friends came back with some really thoughtful and insightful comments, so, I thought I would share them here. He deserves a larger audience. The following is the exchange between me and my Facebook friends. (Names have been redacted.) I should invite "Patrick's Friend 1" to post here. (And no, you can't ask for him to start posting here to replace me! I know that's what some of you are thinking, and the answer is no. You're stuck with me.)

Patrick: I don't understand why he pronounces it that way. He's apparently of German descent (on both sides), so the name should be pronounced WINER or VINER. WEENER (actually VEENER) is "Wiener."

Patrick's Friend 1: Pre the 2011 sexting scandal, Weiner was one of the smartest, most aggressive voices from the left. Despite the goofy last name, he was always on point, funny and dominated just about every discussion/debate of the issues. His voice gave the left a much needed set of nuts (I know). I was happy to hear that he was running for office again. I knew there would be some issues from the past, but I thought that with the present day hyper polarization of the parties, he'd still be effective at finding that seemingly elusive shared middle ground. I was wrong. I don't care about sex scandals. What happens inside and outside a marriage is none of my business. I'm pretty adamant about that, have always taken that stance, but this recent Carlos Danger nonsense has me questioning my own stance. It's still none of my business, but at a certain point a vice becomes defining, obstructive, and Weiner has moved well past that point. We've always had political sex scandals and we always will. I had just hoped that we'd move to a place where they were funny for a minute and then people would go on with their jobs. No resignations, no kowtowing to morality. Just move on and do the job. Weiner, with his continued and much publicized vice, is now severely damaging the possibility of that ever happening. I still don't care what he does, but the fact that he can't stop, control it, or at least cover his tracks to keep it from constantly being in the public sphere seems really incompetent. No matter what his strengths were, they've been overshadowed by his weaknesses. In allowing that to happen, he's damaged a cause I really care about, which is the evolution of public opinion/reaction to sex scandals.

Patrick's Friend 2: Is anyone REALLY going to vote for this clown?

Patrick's Friend 1: What sucks is that on one side we have Bloomberg on his way out, as matriarch of the nanny state in full effect, who's every action became an example of govt overreach. Then on the other we have Weiner, who's every action becomes an example of bad taste, poor judgement, and putting what's in your pants ahead of everything else. If I was a candidate, I'd be looking at the NYC mayoral race like a turkey shoot. Even if a candidate didn't win, the amount of damage that could be done in a short time by targeting both of those clowns is almost irresistible. It would be worth the campaign costs just to take those shots. Bloomberg can't run again, but his outlandish pet projects have made people forget that he started out as a Republican. He's now the poster child for massive government and being a whiny nag at the same time. In political speak these days, that means Democrat. It wouldn't take much of a leap to tie all of Bloomberg's "independent" actions to the left.

Patrick's Friend 3: Weiner doesn't know when to pull out

Patrick's Friend 4: Weiner is an idiot and I'm a Democrat.

Patrick's Friend 1: I read some psych evaluation of his press conference on Slate. The psychiatrist was diagnosing him (strictly using his behavior at the conference) as bipolar. Described the highs as feelings of invincibility, like he was not only entitled to do what he did but imagined he would never get caught. Then the lows, like the press conference, show someone who comes across as bored, detached, unwilling to acknowledge the weight of his problem. Sounded pretty accurate. Then throw in the compulsive, repeated behavior and you're looking at a world class addict, someone that needs help, and the only way to really address that problem and get help is to step out of the limelight. The more attention he gets, the more entitled he'll feel and the more compulsive his behavior will be. I'm not trying to excuse it by saying he has some disease, this guy needs to get his act together. He fell into the classic power and entitlement routine, topped it off with some really embarrassing behavior that became public, and now he wants to act as if it's not a big deal, that we should all move on even though he obviously hasn't. Time to step away from the race, step away from everything, and go get some help treating that massive ego.

Patrick: I've been thinking about what you said about Weiner's vice defining him, and I've concluded that you're probably right. I think years from now, historians will look back upon Bill Clinton's impeachment and see it as the Republicans being ridiculous and petty. Weiner, on the other hand, will likely be seen as the flasher who made it to Congress. And I believe he's already gone as far in politics as he ever will.

Patrick's Friend 1: With Clinton, I think a lot of people can identify with or at least sympathize with an affair. It happens all the time and as much as it's frowned upon, it's still a pretty normal thing. I can't claim to have insight on the present day sexting scene or how prevalent it is, but the permanence of the images, as well as the written out dirty texts, make this whole thing a lot harder to forget about. I don't see anyone stepping up to say they can sympathize or identify with his actions. It's a little too "out there" for most people. None of us seem to get it. Rewind to Clinton and I remember consistent support for him. The intrusiveness of the Ken Starr investigation + its disrespect for the office was far more frowned upon than the affair. General consensus was to leave it alone, unless you were part of the outraged moral majority. With Weinergate, there's no leave it alone option. It's everywhere. The 2011 images are still, regrettably, burned into our minds. Add new images, new texts, Carlos Danger(!!!), the comedic perfection of his last name... its just too much. I hadn't looked at the polls pre Weinergate 2, but apparently he had a solid lead. That's disappeared, but the fact that he was ahead, with 2011 not very far in the past, seems to show a pretty forgiving public... until now. That needed to stay in the past.

Patrick: And it's not like Clinton was the first president who had an affair. And the Starr investigation was a witchhunt from the beginning, and I think people recognized it. It was supposed to be about Whitewater, but when that came up snakeeyes, they just decided to keep digging until they found paydirt.

Thank you, Amy, for not falling into the loons who seem to think his wife is a radical Muslim. Because radical Muslims are just so notorious for marrying Jews.

I don't know about this case in particular. I'm confident that, in
some cases, the couples have an agreement about what is and is not
allowed. In a case like that, the woman could stand by her man
because he hasn't violated her trust by going beyond what they've
agreed to.

For a politician, this non-strict-monogamy agreement could never be
referred to in public. It would be the kiss of death and lose more
votes that the impression of being a philanderer would. Think
motherhood, apple pie, and strict monogamy.

Well, now it seems Huma herself is being investigated. Ain't we got fun.

Sunk cost fallacy?

Three words: access to power. These aren't marriages; they are just arrangements.

I think some of it might be the sunk cost, but over and above that, I think it's more about self-image and damage control.

In their minds, I think they've convinced themselves that this is as good as it's going to get.

I'm with Ron. We don't know what type of arrangement they have for their marriage and it's possible that she really doesn't care.

I think it is safer politically to "stand by your man" than to admit you don't have a "traditional" marriage, even if you are a liberal.

Live in DC. No matter what camp politicians here sit in, they all want the holiday card with the pretty spouse, two kids, and golden retriever. But previous comments are absolutely correct. Many of these marriages are business or social arrangements, and love has very little to nothing to do with it. These folks live in the same house, with bedrooms on separate floors. But they're all smiles when they step out that front door.
Which is fine, if that's what they want. I just wish they'd call it what it is.
Oddly, when you look over history, marriage for love is a modern industrialized nation notion. Usually marriages have been all about power, money, and social status.

"Usually marriages have been all about power, money, and social status."

And oddly, they seemed to work better than those that are "all about the love".

As Dennis Miller described the Clinton Marriage:

Forty percent of voters would probably support [Hilary]. I’d like to think there’s 60 percent who wouldn’t. Most people know that the Clintons are just career politicians, but it’s amazing to me that some people really believe in them. Bill and Hillary’s marriage couldn’t have been any more about convenience than if they’d installed a Slim Jim rack and Slurpee machine at the base of their bed.

I think Huma Abedin thought her husband would have a chance to make a comeback. That's why she hasn't dumped him, yet.

This is the same motive as Teresa Heinz Kerry. She was married to H. John Heinz III (of Heinz ketchup fame) and was a republican Senator's wife. Then married Kerry, a democrat. She doesn't care about the politics, but the power.

It's not like he's powerful right now. And honestly, with this second scandal, I think he's sunk his ship even though he is a Dem, so I don't see her staying for the prestige. I have no idea why she would allow herself to be trotted in front of the cameras AGAIN. I don't care if my man was about to be President: you humiliate me TWICE, I'm gone. And taking half of everything with me.

Amy, my hubby is gone a LOT. I think it's great. I see these couples who are all like"we've never spent a night apart" and I wonder how on earth they aren't stark fucking raving mad and killing each other. I think they go a long way towards explaining the high divorce rate. Of course, time apart can be overdone, but some is a necessity.

My mom left my dad once the last birdie flew the nest, and then remarried. She regrets the remarriage. If anything ever happens to my current marriage, there won't be another. I will Amy and Gregg it all the way.

1) Weird though this sounds, I'd have more respect for Anthony Weiner if these sex scandals had involved actual sex. The sexting, selfless and fake names just seem sordid and juvenile. There have certainly been great politicians and other major figures who have succumbed to some of the temptation offered powerful men -- Martin Luther King Jr. (one of my heroes) comes to mind. I have many issues with LBJ, but they focus on his role in setting up the hydra-headed welfare state, not what he did in the bedroom. But sexting? Facebook messages? Carlos Danger? Continuing this after getting caught? THAT'S his addiction -- with apparently no actual sex involved? I agree with Patrick's friend -- he's forever going to be Carlos Danger above everything else.


2) I understand that some politicians -- many, in fact -- have sham marriages and "understandings." But you know what? If you hold yourself out as a conventionally married person in order to further your wealth or power, I'm going to expect you to behave like a conventionally married person (or at least be smart enough not to get caught). There's a reason I view Tiger Woods very differently from George Clooney.

There are politicians who don't get married. Fred Thompson was unmarried for years after his first marriage -- in which he married his high school girlfriend after she got pregnant, they stayed married as their several kids were growing up, and then split after the kids were grown -- broke up. He apparently let no grass grow under his feet. I once read that this could be an issue for him if he sought the presidency, and thought, "Oh, please. Virtually no one will care, BECAUSE HE WAS SINGLE." Then there are politicians such as the Clintons who effectively communicate, "Hey, our marriage is complicated, do you really want the sordid details?" Generally the electorate says, "No," unless a dead girl or a live boy are involved.


3) Patrick, there do seem to be connections between Huma Abedin and radical Muslim entities and groups. I doubt the issue will ever be investigated by someone without an axe to grind on either side, so we'll probably never get The Truth. That having been said, if I were part of a conspiracy to further the acceptance of a radical group, and I wanted to maintain the facade of being a moderate member of that group, I'd do everything possible to marry someone who the group appeared to oppose, preferably someone who had his own issues that would make him easier to control. (Short version: Can you think of a non-sinister reason why she'd agree to marry that schmuck?)

(In case anyone is wondering: Yes, I am married. No, it was not part of a Papist conspiracy. Just want to clarify that for the record, especially since he has been known to visit this blog...)

Why assume she's been betrayed? I think they're enthusiastic partners in a racy sex life and he got caught in something they were doing. Her standing beside him says:

1) In her view she was not betrayed, 2) when caught, she's not the type to run for cover while he takes all the flack, and 3) getting caught is part of the fun.

http://pixel.nymag.com/imgs/fashion/daily/2013/04/10/10-huma-abedin-anthony-weiner.o.jpg/a_3x-horizontal.jpg

Maybe she's the one who posted Anthony's dick pics.

marion: "Weird though this sounds, I'd have more respect for Anthony Weiner if these sex scandals had involved actual sex."

He got caught sexting. We don't know what he's getting away with.

Why would she stay in a marriage with a man like Weiner?

Maybe she's in it for the money.
Maybe she's in it for the power.
Maybe she's just as kinky as he is and is in it for the crazy sex.

In my post, "selfless" should have been "selfies." Blasted autocorrect.

I tend to think anyone who had had actual sex with Anthony Weiner would long since have come forth for the payday. That having been said, I've been wrong before. With all three major NYC newspapers gunning for him, I think if there's anything left to come out, it will be uncovered.