Verified by 
If you are an academic, like I am, when you are faced with a piece of bizarre data (like how does a Presidential candidate allow himself to cheat on his wife in the middle of a campaign AND not even use a condom), you search for a theory to explain what has happened- as opposed to just writing this guy off as one stupid, self absorbed, jackass. For example, if you are a socio-biologist, you might think that the drive to reproduce is so elemental that it creates a passion so strong it overwhelms anything that might get in the way of the conscious brain's desire to protect itself from a highly inconvenient paternity. Thus, you would say that even though John Edwards should have been the most wrapped in rubber philanderer on the planet, subconscious drives allowed him to take his chances during intercourse, or believe his lover if she told him he couldn't get her pregnant - instead of using a condom that he could depend on protecting him).
Psychoanalysts might reach for another theory- unconscious drives, stemming from guilt, the desire to escape the "rat race" or the pain of his family ties that are consciously or unconsciously self destructive. People do this all the time- drink too much, eat themselves into oblivion, or set up a situation that is guaranteed to blow up in their face. This kind of self punishment comes from self loathing, or other emotional states that need to "pay" for their happiness- or unexpected success.
A sociologist like myself is not unimpressed with these explanations, but looks at both the situation and the gender of the players, throws in some class differences and comes up with another way to look at it: Superficially at least, John Edwards was quite a catch. Rich, famous, good looking, and living in a dazzling universe. Could his mistress depend on his infatuation when he had all these things going for him? No, so she chose the best way to take the decision for commitment out of his hands: she got pregnant. Of course this lady was looking for a way to have his child-and of course, he would underestimate the intensity (and perhaps desperation) of her desire- and her ability to carry out this scenario. Why don't I think it was an unconscious desire of his to create a pregnancy? Narcissistic as John Edwards is, I still don't want to consider the possibility that he would plan (at any level of consciousness) to have a child with his mistress while his ailing wife was still alive. If he did do that, I'd just have to label him a monster and move on to some other more interesting question.
So, assuming he's not a monster- I'm guessing he thought he could keep this affair under wraps as long as his wife was alive (there's the narcissism part) and felt in control of the situation. Bill Clinton also felt that way; I think...this state of mind may just be generic to powerful men...they underestimate their lovers craftiness and overestimate their own ability to handle anything on their own terms.
Now comes the final act in what has turned into an almost Greek Tragedy. His marriage to Elizabeth cannot bear the weight of these revelations and facts, and they have separated. No one can see inside the marriage itself and perhaps there were many good reasons to end it under normal circumstances. But these are not normal circumstances- she is deathly ill, he has publically humiliated her, and his children will also have to live with the legacy of this period of his life. Rumor has it that he was already looking for a house with his mistress -and his wife was assisting. I hope that's not true.
John Edwards has no class. That's for sure. There are just so many sad aspects to this story, and he has yet to look good in any one of them. But at least one important part of it could have been avoided with the use of one low tech condom and just a little self control. The story would be sad enough without the addition of a baby with his mistress; but introducing the baby into this melodrama makes his actions infinitely more cruel and stupid.
