Emily, I agree that modern women don't really want a Don Draper, but at least he's a way better fantasy than fellow affair-havers Mark Sanford and now John Edwards. First, Sanford had that lame Appalachian Trail excuse and the even more embarrassing press conference. In a New York Times article over the weekend, it was revealed that Edwards promised mistress Rielle Hunter that he would "marry her in a rooftop ceremony in New York with an appearance by the Dave Matthews Band." What is wrong with our chronically unstylish philandering politicians?

Say what you will about Don, but at least he was discreet, and embarrassing Betty is the last thing he'd ever want to do. Both Sanford and Edwards have maximally humiliated their families with their dalliances. It now appears as if Edwards is the father of Hunter's child, as people have been speculating all along. If Edwards had been honest when his affair with Hunter had first emerged, if he had said, yes, this is my child, it would have been awful for Elizabeth and his children, but at least it would have been only briefly in the public mind. But he didn't do that. Instead, this farce has been drawn out for months on end. If Edwards didn't come clean in order to save his political career, it was a stupid move. Americans hate being lied to, especially repeatedly and over moral issues. Has any American political career survived an out-of-wedlock child?

Tags: Elizabeth Edwards, John Edwards, mark sanford, mark sanford affair, rielle hunter

Jess, here's what interested me yesterday. (Besides the Dave Matthews band detail. Now that's a way to abuse your power in bed: "No, honey," he says seductively. "I didn't mean the CD. I meant the actual band.") This story seems to be breaking open new legal territory, with the argument that hush money to a mistress might have to count as campaign donations. But then there's this other Bleak House twist. At the end of the Times story was this interesting passage:

It could also shift Ms. Hunter’s image from that of a predatory celebrity stalker (Mrs. Edwards told Oprah Winfrey that Ms. Hunter met her husband after waiting for him to come out of a New York hotel and telling him, “You’re so hot.”) to that of a mother concerned about her child’s rights.

Several questions: Do we believe that's what she's after? And is this common legal territory, seeking "rights" for your child from a father who won't acknowledge her? And does "rights" mean something more complicated than financial support. Legal ladies, please advise.

Tags: John Edwards, rielle hunter

• 
• |
• 
• |
• |
• 4

Jess, there have always been politicians who have fathered out of wedlock children. Grover Cleveland more or less acknowledged fathering a child out of wedlock (who might not even have been his), and during his lifetime Jefferson was accused of fathering some of his own slaves—a charge that’s now generally believed. However, I agree the dragging out of this drama only makes John Edwards more of a public joke. Perhaps there have been delicate legal and financial negotiations that have held up his acknowledgment—but he can’t really be thinking he can rehabilitate himself politically. Humiliating a terminally ill wife is hard to spin. Hanna, the detail that struck me most in the Times story was the news that Rielle Hunter is moving to North Carolina! Is this with the Edwards’ family reluctant acquiescence or is she making this territorial move in order to demand recognition that her child has to be part of her father’s life?

Photograph of John Edwards by Chris Graythen/Getty Images.

Tags: John Edwards, rielle hunter

Hanna, I don't think legal rights are what Rielle Hunter's after. (Although I can tell you that the relationship between the child and John Edwards may be covered under North Carolina General Statutes Chapter 49: Bastardy.) Even if John Edwards were to die intestate, an acknowledgement wouldn't change much. Given the circumstances, I'd imagine any probate court would agree to DNA testing in the unlikely event the Edwards estate were to need to be divided up according to the intestacy rules, or that another person made an unclear reference—to, say "the children of John Edwards" in a will. Beyond inheritance, it's hard to see what the child gains—the right to be in on a decision about whether to pull the plug on John Edwards, if circumstances required? The right to pen a tell-all memoir without fear of legal repercussions?

I agree with Emily that what Rielle Hunter seems to be after is less legal than societal. We could give her the benefit of the doubt, now that her daughter is getting older, and suggest that she's trying to normalize the situation for the girl as best as she can. After all, a baby can seem like a pawn—easy to move around and produce at opportune moments. An eighteen-month-old is sitting up, grabbing at things, and probably saying a few words. Maybe Ms. Hunter is looking ahead to the questions her daughter will ask, and hoping that proximity to John Edwards--if he is the baby's father--and his family might mean that the girl can grow up with her unusual parentage no more than just another fact of her life, at least for a while.

Or maybe she just wants to stick it to him.

Tags: John Edwards, John Edwards love child, rielle hunter