John Edwards seems to a man who is consumed totally and completely with himself. He surrounds himself with people who will apparently do and say anything to absolve him of anything and everything.

Consider the following:

1) The brilliant calculation Edwards apparently made by making his confession to coincide with the opening day of the Olympics. A coincidence? Not likely. The result of the timing: the story isn't the dominant headline of the day, nor will it be for the remainder of the Olympics. Edwards is a calculating trial attorney and politician - the timing of the "confession" couldn't have been timed better, for his sake. If this is true, even the "confession" has been timed to minimize the fallout Edwards experiences as a result.

2) When the first reports began surfacing that Edwards had fathered a child with this woman, a campaign aide of Edwards, Andrew Young (who is himself married), falls on the sword for Edwards and claims to be the actual father of this child. What are the chances that two people in the Edwards camp (Edwards himself and Young) were carrying on an affair with this woman? Perhaps more relevantly, no one knows or cares about this aide of Edwards. Why leave the birth certificate blank for the father if it was, in fact, this obscure campaign associate of Edwards? No one would think twice if the name "Andrew Young" appeared on the birth certificate of the child, nor would anyone be motivated to further investigate Young as the father. So why leave the father blank if Young was, in fact, the real father? On the other hand, it makes perfect sense why the name would be omitted if Edwards was the father. The likely story is that someone had to shield Edwards from the political fall-out of this child and so Young volunteers to take responsibility.

3) Now that the affair has been acknowledged, it's also been revealed that payments have, in fact, been made to Ms. Hunter - but not by Edwards himself, and allegedly without his consent or knowledge. We are being asked to believe that another campaign associate of Edwards has had a questionable relationship with Ms. Hunter, this time his former finance chairman Fred Baron. Mr. Baron has apparently made payments to Ms. Hunter for reasons known only to Mr. Baron. What would possess Mr. Baron to pay money to Ms. Hunter? It's difficult to conceive of any reasonable motivation beyond the simplest, which is that money was paid for her to keep quiet about the affair. And how likely is it that Edwards was unaware of these payments? It simply strains credulity. The likely story is that, once again, Edwards needed to be shielded from the fall-out of the child - and so hush money was paid to keep the affair silent, but not by Edwards himself, instead made by a surrogate - once again to shield Edwards.

4) Edwards actually had the audacity to claim that present circumstances have forced him to abandon his position of 99% honesty! He hasn't been lying, in fact, he's been mostly (99%!) honest throughout this process. Does any comment need to be made on the absurdity of this? Has outrage indeed perished, as Webster averred?

--Chris J.