Love Child

Never meant to be? -- Picture courtesy of Wikipedia

by blogSpotter
Senator John Edwards, Senator from North Carolina has a love child. No, it's not the infant daughter of Rielle Hunter his ex-campaign aid. That may be his daughter, but the Love Child I speak of is John Edwards' own self-infatuation. By several accounts, the man is in love with himself more than anything or anyone else. The product of that Love is a Tornado that leaves several wounded hearts and wrecked campaigns in its wake.

Cards on the table -- Edwards was my pick for the 2008 Nomination. How wrong could I have been? I need a better litmus screening for character attributes, obviously. In 1998, I defended Bill Clinton mightily. "There's no way he could've diddled Monica in the Oval Office! There are cameras all over, and he would just know better!" OK, wrong about that one too. What I can say now is, "Stick a fork in him -- he's done". Edwards actually was pondering his future longevity as a 2012 presidential hopeful. With these sleazebag qualities revealed, he'll be lucky to keep his date to speak at the 2008 Denver Convention.

It's really a bad deal for Edwards. How bad? Well when you've already been caught in the cookie jar, one presumes that you're at least done with those cookies from that jar. You won't go back for more, knowing (one presumes) that a throng of hidden mikes and cameras await you. Edwards tip-toed back to the jar. On the last occasion he was chased into a hotel men's room. Edwards said, in all seriousness that his affair was over when in fact National Enquirer has nearly up-to-the-minute photos of midnight hotel visits with Rielle Hunter. Are these policy discussions?

Edwards claims not to be the father of Rielle's baby -- he's willing to take a paternity test. Earlier on, he was unwilling when the National Enquirer made the suggestion. It's now very convenient that Rielle doesn't want such a test (it would be disruptive and intrusive). Adding to this sleaziness is the possible complicity of a campaign aid, Andrew Young, claiming paternity. Adding to that sleaziness is the prospect that campaign funds were used as hush money. Adding a ton-load to all that sleaziness is the fact the Edwards' long-suffering wife is left at home to battle cancer by herself.

Conservatives have a legitimate beef about this – why did the story languish in supermarket tabloid aisles for a full year, before the mainstream media picked up on it? Is it because the Enquirer has a bottom-feeder reputation or because liberal politicians always get kid glove treatment? Either way, it’s a terrible oversight. The story didn’t receive serious treatment until Edwards recently fessed up on ABC; it would’ve been a big mess if he’d received the most delegates.

Now back to Edwards himself. My only question to him is, "Why the paternity cover-up? Why involve Andrew Young?". Mr. Edwards, it's over for you. You're as cooked as stale beef jerky. There is so much lying and duplicity here, it won't much matter who the father is. We already know that you have a Love Child and his name is John Edwards. Nothing else will make a bit of difference.

© 2008 blogSpotter