Former Sen. John Edwards stands disgraced before the media and the public with the wall-to-wall coverage of his sexual dalliance with Reille Hunter.
By breaking this story, the National Enquirer, a mere tabloid, stands exalted. The editors and writers involved in the story have become instant celebrities, sought for interviews by the mainstream media. Smiling smugly, the Enquirer’s successful media sleuths pompously publish so-called irrefutable evidence — the sources behind which have yet to be revealed — about Edwards’ vehement paternity denials. Edwards said the timeline of his affair makes it impossible for him to be the father of Hunter’s child.
The Enquirer, nevertheless, published fuzzy photos of a smiling Edwards cuddling the child. The photos were supposedly taken at the Beverly Hilton Hotel, where, according to the tabloid’s accounts, the Edwards had a recent assignation with his mistress.
Edwards has not addressed the Enquirer’s charges, but he appeared on “Nightline” to explain his actions to Bob Woodward: “I went from being a young senator to being considered for vice president, running for president … becoming a national public figure, all of which fed a self-focus, an egotism, a narcissism that leads you to believe you can do whatever you want, you’re invincible and there will be no consequences. And nothing could be further from the truth.”
Edwards’ explanation says much more than the facts about the affair do. It is pathetic that he blames his political campaigns and stardom for his fall. Are we to believe that Edwards was a humble and simple man to begin with, but with the glare of the spotlight an inevitable and understandable narcissism pervaded his soul, making him susceptible to temptation?
From his perfectly coifed hair to his unctuous, boylike smile, Edwards has always been a self-focused, egotistical man — the perfect foil for the 42-year-old Hunter, a New Age and astrology aficionado who thought her illustrious lover had the potential to be a Mahatma Gandhi or a Martin Luther King.
This potential exists only in Hunter’s besotted imagination. Indeed, King philandered, but that does not diminish the grave risks he took with his life and the lives of his family or the moral authority of his message. His towering courage set him apart from Edwards, who in a stunning display of cowardice locked himself in a toilet at the Beverly Hilton to escape from the National Enquirer’s dogged reporters.
And coming from the land where Gandhi was born, I shudder at Hunter’s woefully misplaced hope that Edwards could rise to the stature of Gandhi. Human frailties aside, the Mahatma was an ascetic who lived a spartan life to stay in step with the poor of India. He walked with lepers. King marched directly and defiantly into the face of hate.
Edwards? He travels in style with a fawning entourage. This philanderer Edwards, a classic hypocrite, calls down from his position of luxury for the eradication of poverty.
Edwards’ affair cannot be dismissed as a private matter, no different from the midlife crises of many ordinary men. But if the National Enquirer allegations are true, and some of Edwards’ campaign dollars were funneled to Hunter’s coffers to set her up in style, that is an illegality meriting a thorough investigation.
The personal weaknesses of men like Bill Clinton, Edwards, Mark Foley and many others — including King and Gandhi — should not be ignored, but they must be judged in context. Which men are security risks for America? Is it too outlandish to imagine an al Qaeda Mata Hari sent to extract state secrets from political leaders of this ilk? That this has not happened already is amazing.
