Kaus: [1]
A paternity test seems inevitable, no? [Update: Edwards has volunteered to take one [2]. Make sure it’s not Mudcat Saunders who gets the DNA from the kid.] If Edwards wanted to snake out of this scandal, the cunning way to do it was always to build up press anticipation of a paternity test and then have the test come back negative (after which the press will forget that he still cheated). He may have now lucked on to this strategy by accident. But paternity isn’t the key moral question, it seems to me. It’s whether Edwards treated his wife as honorably as he unsubtly [3] boasted in the campaign (plus his subsequent coverup, and what it involved). Whether Edwards continuted the affair after the recurrence of her illness is one factor in making that judgment (and paternity would be damning evidence in that regard, given the timing). Whether he thought he was the father, and continued seeing Hunter for that reason, is more important than whether he actually turns out to be the father.
I dunno, Mikey. I still maintain the issue is the press and how this was being handled by them. It strikes me that one one entity in all of this with less credibility than Edwards and ironically, less creds than the National Enquirer, is the MSM when it comes to Democrats and their misdeeds.