The John Edwards/Rielle Hunter scandal came as a shock to many, but others such as myself have long considered Edwards a phony (as is apparent from my earlier posts under the John Edwards tag). Many other bloggers are now referring back to previous posts expressing their opinion of Edwards. For example Andrew Malcolm has reposted this at The Los Angeles Times:
(Former John Kerry consultant Bob) Shrum’s memoir, published this year, hints at what rivals say could keep Edwards from the nomination: a question of authenticity.
Shrum writes that Edwards, interviewing with Kerry for the vice-presidential …
… nod [in 2004], told Kerry a story about his son Wade’s funeral that he claimed never to have told anyone before — except, Kerry remembered, Edwards had told him the same story the previous year.
Rivals add to that Edwards’ infamous $400 haircuts — he said he didn’t know they’d be so expensive — and the dream house, complete with indoor basketball court and swimming pool, that he and Elizabeth are building outside Chapel Hill, N.C.
They note his shift from Senate centrist to arguably the most liberal positions of the top ’08 Democratic contenders. Even his campaign headquarters, nestled amid trendy restaurants and a Google branch office in an upscale Chapel Hill development, has sparked controversy for its symbolism.
Friends and aides liken Edwards’ personal wealth and commitment to poverty to the Kennedy clan — perhaps Edwards’ true political heroes; he was close with Ted Kennedy in the Senate and would listen to Robert Kennedy’s taped speeches on drives between North Carolina and Washington.
John and Elizabeth Edwards, who are continuing the campaign despite her cancer’s recurrence this spring, prefer to invoke his working-class roots.
“It’s sort of naive, it’s sort of masterfully brilliant,” a former Edwards advisor said. “They think they’re normal people. They think they’re like a soccer mom and a small-town lawyer. They think, ‘They’re normal America, and we’re normal America, and they’ll understand.’ ”
Edwards writes in “Four Trials,” his book about courtroom successes and life challenges, that early in his law career, “I learned that trials are about credibility — and that if a jury is to believe your case, a jury must believe you.”
While Edwards has confessed to having had the affair, the paternity of Hunter’s child remains in question. While Edwards denies he is the father and claims he is willing to have a paternity test, Hunter now states she does not want the test. Considering all the previous lies in this case, the money which has exchanged (regardless of whether Edwards was aware of it or not), and the recent visit from Edwards to Hunter to try to keep the affair quiet, I cannot help but wonder why she is refusing the test. Did Edwards make it worth her while to be the one to turn down the test in the event the affair was discovered, allowing him to make the gesture of agreeing? John Edwards’ entire career, and not only this incident, make it difficult to believe anything he says or to refrain from suspecting the worst.
