John Edwards is finally, while predictably hiding behind a spokesman, admitting what everyone in this country with an IQ over 70 already knew: that 2-year-old Frances Quinn Hunter, daughter of former Edwards' campaign videographer Reille Hunter, is his child. (http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/34963767/ns/today-today_people/?GT1=43001).
This "revelation" comes in advance of- you guessed it- a tell-all book by Andrew Young, the former Edwards' campaign staffer who originally claimed to be the child's father despite reports by The National Enquirer that Edwards actually was. The publication had alleged since October 2007 that Edwards was having an affair with Hunter.
Of the reports of the affair and paternity of the child, Edwards had said at the time, while still running for the Democratic Presidential nomination, "I don't respond to tabloid trash that's full of lies."
Only upon being caught and photographed by Enquirer reporters visiting his "former" mistress and her child at the Beverly Hilton in Beverly Hills, California did Edwards admit the affair- in an interview on ABC's Nightline, which, conveniently, aired opposite the opening ceremonies of the 2008 Summer Olympic Games. He still maintained that the child was Young's, raising a philosophical question: If a politician lies in an interview and no one sees it, is it still a lie?
Edwards' spokesman, "close friend and personal adviser" Harrison Hickman, maintained in an interview with NBC's Lisa Myers that the timing of the Edwards announcement had nothing to do with the upcoming release of Young's book, and that Edwards could not respond personally due to an ongoing investigation into allegations that Edwards illegally misappropriated campaign funds to support Hunter and her child and to prevent the scandal from going public.
Young also alleges that Edwards offered him a bribe to maintain the pretense that the child was his, and that, at one point, Edwards directed the campaign worker to find a doctor to falsify the DNA test results in order to exonerate himself of any extra-curricular hanky-panky. Rumors have recently been confirmed that Edwards and his wife, Elizabeth, have separated. Edwards denies any legal wrongdoing such as misappropriation of campaign funds, and why shouldn't anyone believe him?
Should anyone care? True, Edwards is no longer a politician; however, keep in mind that John Edwards was, until recently, one of the biggest stars in the Democratic Party, a U.S. Senator, a former Vice-Presidential nominee in 2004, and a Presidential hopeful in 2008. After dropping out of the primary and endorsing Barack Obama, Edwards was said to be a leading candidate for the Attorney General nomination should Obama win the White House.
The Edwards affair raises a myriad of questions regarding the character of our elected officials and resurrects the arguments over whether someone who would violate an oath sworn to their spouse can be trusted to honor their oath of office, "protect and defend the Constitution," and deal fairly and honorably with their constitutents. Edwards has repeatedly lied to the American people, and, finally, incrementally, conceded only as much of the truth as he has had to, and only when efforts to conceal it proved futile. If anything, Edwards is a case study in just how arrogant and deceitful many of our elected officials have become, and the sense of self-righteous entitlement that so often accompanies high office.
Yet the much bigger issue has to do with the credibility of the (liberal) mainstream media- who have virtually ignored or downplayed this story at every turn for more than two years. So much for journalistic integrity- while that "tabloid trash" publication, The National Enquirer reported the facts, "credible" media outlets buried the Edwards affair by treating it as a minor story, ignoring it altogether, or offering themselves as a forum for Edwards' repeated denials and half-truths.
One has to wonder why a story that has everything- money, power, sex, lies, illegitimate children, corruption, the works- has still not been fully been exposed in the mainstream press.
At best, the mainstream media has been intentionally asleep at the switch on this story, much as it has stories such as the ACORN corruption scndal. At worst, it has been accomplice to Edwards lies and deceptions in the same way a friend of a philandering spouse might pretend to know nothing about his indiscretions- "No Mrs. Edwards, John was with me the whole time. We were having drinks with Katie Couric and Charles Gibson, and we must have lost track of time..." Yeah, right.
In either case, the real story is no longer Edwards himself, but the failure, and the potential breach of trust of the mainstream media.
At this point, one has to question not only its credibility, but its priorities- its agenda. One has to wonder whether it is more committed to shaping public perception to manifest its ideology than it is to reporting the facts. One has to wonder whether these same media outlets might willingly deceive the Public in other areas. For example, might they paint a far-Left Presidential candidate as a centrist? Might they have other priorities? Might their job description have changed?
P.S.- Prediction--- we will learn that there were other women before Ms. Hunter. If you recall, Edwards met Hunter in a hotel bar in New York City; he subsequently hired her as a campaign videographer. According to Edwards, the affair did not begin until after she started working for his campaign. That may or may not be true, but Edwards wasn't in a hotel bar talking to women he didn't know because he was scouting for campaign videographers. And Elizabeth hasn't left him because he's been upfront and honest with her to this point, either, and she knows at least as much as the public does. The more this unfolds, the worse it looks for Edwards, and don't expect it to get any prettier any time soon.
