Mickey Kaus stares in disbelief at Elizabeth Edwards’s claim that it’s perfectly normal for her husband to visit his former (?) mistress and hold a child that isn’t his, telling Oprah, “You don’t know that many politicians. We do it all the time. Holding babies is what we do.”

With John Edwards under investigation for misusing campaign funds and Elizabeth Edwards’s book tour offering the horrific fascination of a slow-motion car crash, it seems to be a good moment to contemplate what we can learn from this stunning mess.

The Edwardses warns us of the risk we take when we “fall in love” with a politician — and I don’t mean in a romantic sense, but when we conclude “I can trust that person, I know that person” based on some interviews and speeches. Some of the men and women who enter public life are indeed honorable, honest, decent folk. But the power, the fame, the adoring crowds and trappings of high office attract another type of personality as well. They attract personalities like the kind of man who is not merely willing to risk his entire career and family’s well-being for the company of another woman – an all-too-common failing — but a man who is willing to tout his support of public financing for contraception because of its importance while (insert the ritual, pro-forma, chuckle-inducing qualifier here) allegedly having a child out of wedlock. He, of all people, was willing to go out on the campaign trail and urge voters to make their selection based on who they trusted the most.

We have a woman who urged the nation to vote for her spouse in part because she vouched for what a wonderful husband he was.

The couple surrounded themselves with staff who attacked those who asked about truthful allegations, and who now are willing to claim, retroactively, that they would have sabotaged his campaign from within rather than let him get the nomination. Yet at that time, we didn’t see anyone resigning, or saying, “I can’t be party to this lie; I’m going to go work for Hillary or Obama.” They apparently were willing to sabotage the man who signed their paychecks, but not to give up the actual paychecks.

Many of us find this kind of thinking incomprehensibly alien, perhaps eerily and disturbingly close to some of the characteristics listed on the Hare Psychopathy Checklist. And it would seem to be a good reason to be wary before putting any political figure on a pedestal.