John Edwards and what seperates a man from a boy

"I talked to John (Tuesday) and he's not doing well," said David "Mudcat" Saunders, who served as Edwards' chief adviser on rural affairs. "He's just — to be very frank with you — he's just not doing well. He needs to be concentrating on himself and his family at this point in his life. He's a good boy. He just made a hell of a mistake."

He's a good BOY? Geesh, that comment stood out like a sore thumb to me. First of all, John Edwards is not a boy, by any stretch of the imagination.

He's a good boy? What does that mean?

Is that supposed to make it sound like he shouldn't have to stand up like a man when he is caught with his pants down?

I'm so mad at John Edwards I could spit. He shattered any respect I had for him, and his betrayal went far beyond family. Now, his friend, good ol Mudcat, defends him in such a way as to add to that utterly stupid and demeaning belief that "boys will be boys" even when they are grown men.

Certainly the defense offered by "Mudcat" Saunders will will do little to help people sympathize with Edwards. Doesn't Saunders know that "good boys" don't cheat, that millions of grown men actually do control their ego-driven sexual urges?

Apparently not.