Usually former presidential candidates are a shoo-in for a plum speaking role at their respective conventions. Certainly John Edwards as the third-to-last man standing this year, with supposed big promises from Barack for a good time-slot in exchange for his endorsement and fiery, progressive antipoverty rhetoric that sparks the base, would be a key (if not keynote) speaker. But the matter of his alleged love child and his lack of response to the story is in the way, big time.
One former DNC chair says, "if there is not an explanation that’s satisfactory, acceptable, and meets high moral standards, the answer is 'no,' he would not be a prime candidate to make a major address to the convention."
Edward's own former strategist agrees:
He absolutely does have to (resolve it). If it's not true, he has to issue a stronger denial. It's a very damaging thing. The big media has tried to be responsible and handle this with kid gloves, but it's clearly getting ready to bust out. If it's not true, he's got to stand up and say, "This is not true. That is not my child and I'm going to take legal action against the people who are spreading these lies." It's not enough to say, "That’s tabloid trash."
After somewhat questionable photos surfaced this week of (perhaps?) Edwards holding his love child (her name is Frances) one professor says speak up or be shown the door, "it would be sort of party suicide to take someone with that kind of scandal and place them up.” Is an Edwards explanation in order?