John Edwards Fesses Up-Well, Sort of

Well, the mainstream news media can now talk about what everyone has been talking about the the past two weeks. John Edwards, in an interview with ABC's Bob Woodruff (to be aired tonight on Nightline), has finally admitted that he was involved in an affair with Rielle Hunter. Edwards has been under increasing pressure to come clean during the past two weeks since the incident at the Beverly Hilton Hotel over two weeks ago. Democratic Party leaders have been also applying pressure on Edwards to tell the truth with the party convention-and a possible Edwards speaking appearance-rapidly approaching. Then, this week, the National Enquirer released photographs showing Edwards in the hotel room with an infant in his lap. Edwards realized that there was no way out.

The problem is that there is still great doubt as to whether he is now telling the whole truth. Edwards claims that he was involved in a past affair with Hunter in 2006-when his wife's cancer was in remission (how convenient). Moreover, Edwards is still denying being the father of the baby-stating that the period of his affair doesn't coincide with the birth. The National Enquirer is still insisting that Edwards is the father.

Here are some of my observations:

First of all, Edwards publicly denied the affair while he was running for president. Secondly, if his now-admitted affair with Hunter was over as of 2006, what was he doing at the Beverly Hilton in her room at 2:40 am- visiting a baby that wasn't even his? If all that had an innocent explanation, surely Edwards would have stopped and answered the reporters' questions.

If Edwards is, indeed, not the father of the child, and the real father is campaign aide, Andrew Young, then a paternity test will clear that question up. (Edwards has stated that he is willing to submit to a paternity test.) If Edwards is going to continue denying paternity, then a paternity test should be expected. True, he doesn't have to submit to it, but if such a test is not conducted, then Edwards should not get the benefit of the doubt.

There are other questions worthy of further inquiry. Why was this woman paid over $100,000 dollars to produce campaign videos-even though she was apparently not qualified for such work.

What is the nature of the alleged monthly payment that was being paid to Ms Hunter? Where did those funds come from? Were campaign funds used to pay off and support this woman?

Mainstream news media- are you willing to investigate these questions now?

So now, what are we supposed to believe in Edwards' latest statement? Is he telling the whole truth now? I doubt it. Remember, Edwards also lied repeatedly to his own staff and supporters when the rumors came out. As a result, these people went out and repeated Edwards' denials to the press and others, much as Bill Clinton's defenders and cabinet members did on his assurances that the Lewinsky story was false.

Finally, this has to be another black eye for the mainstream news media. They knew what happened at the Beverly Hilton. Compare and contrast their treatment of that story with the New York Times' front page story on an alleged affair involving John McCain-based on much flimsier-and ultimately unverifiable information.

In the Edwards matter, there are still legitimate, unanswered questions that go beyond the private affair of a man still (arguably) a public figure. John Edwards should have learned by now that lies have short legs. You can bet that there is more to come.