Wow. The Edwards story has suddenly appeared on the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the networks — everywhere. John Edwards has somehow become newsworthy again.
Another note on the paternity matter. The child is obviously what made the story radioactive for Edwards. Without the baby, it was just an affair, which is hazardous enough for a politician but far less damaging than a “love child” story. When there’s a child involved, an affair is forever. It was even worse because of Elizabeth Edwards’ illness — otherwise Edwards would not have stressed to ABC that his wife was in remission when he began the affair.
Now, though, there is the issue of who will support the baby. A few minutes ago I mentioned the issue of court proceedings and paternity tests. If Edwards is not the father of the child, but Hunter still wants to press the issue, there could be a test; Edwards wins, and that’s it. But there is another, perhaps more likely scenario: There will never be a paternity test, never be proof of the fatherhood of the child one way or the other. If Edwards is in fact the father, it would certainly be in his interest to reach an agreement with Hunter to satisfy her demands without any further-career-damaging proof of paternity.
For all those reporters who have suddenly become interested in Edwards: It’s a money story now.