Asserts the moderate-liberal commentator: "This case is made particularly sad by Edwards' defense: His attorneys say he meant only to lie and cheat on his wife, not the voters. Prosecutors say he accepted more than $900,000 and, without properly reporting it, used it to hide his extramarital affair to save his candidacy. Edwards counters through his attorneys that he did, indeed, use the money to hide the affair, but only to save his marriage, he argues, not to save his campaign. How does one separate those two motives in the midst of a presidential campaign? Good question. It might take an ego the size of a former presidential candidate to think he and his attorneys can slice the baloney that thin."
More: "But even if John Edwards manages to win in the court of law, he's already a loser in the court of public opinion.It was bad enough that he stood with his wife by his side in 2008 and admitted his affair, asking God for forgiveness, and going through the usual rituals of political redemption undertaken by unfaithful politicians. But he lied when he denied being the father of freelance campaign videographer Rielle Hunter's child, a story that the National Enquirer exposed with a front page photo of Hunter and Edwards holding the little girl. He eventually split with his wife, Elizabeth Edwards, a very popular lawyer and health care activist who was struggling with cancer. She died last December. In the end, Edwards' case may come down to what a candidate can or cannot call 'campaign-related' versus 'personal' when the campaign donations roll in. It's an important question."
Clarence Page: "John Edwards May Beat The Rap, But His Excuse Is A Sad Defense"
