Edwards earned his fuckin' money and the last time I checked,

[WCGreen]

we live in a capitalism driven society....

The point is Bush has that big fucking fake ranch down in TexAss and he never once did anything legit to earn his money...

That's the point that we should be making...

Not how much money Edwards spends on his house....

[CaliforniaPeggy]

1. Well said!

Bush and his ranch!

He's had everything in his life handed to him......


John Edwards, on the other hand, has worked hard for his home...

He is a true public servant, IMHO........

K&R

[donheld]

2. Our country was founded by people in shacks

George Washington and Tommy Jefferson

[Porcupine]

36. Monticello 11,000 sq ft (including cellars)

So the actual living area would be closer to 9,000 sq. ft.

Does Edwards think he's three times the man Jefferson was?

Just asking.

[leftofthedial]

3. and he's really letting us all know which one of the two Americas

he lives in.

[Auntie Bush]

18. I said the same thing on another post so you know I agree.

Maybe he should have built a smaller house and used the saving to help build some very modest small homes for a few dozen families in NO...especially since he "USED" them for his campaign announcement. Too bad he didn't put his money where his mouth was. Re really missed the boat when he didn't say I'm building these (X#) homes with my own money for the people of NO and I'm doing it to make a small dent in the 2 Americas. He'd have had every vote in and LA and far beyond. Now that would have been a great political coup.

I've always wondered why more rich politicians don't do more obvious charity work...and that included Kerry and all those millionaire Republicans. Just donating to Charity in general doesn't make headlines...this would! Whoever does this first is going to have a real advantage. I just hope it's a Democrat. I'd like Clark to do it, but
I don't think he has enough money and is already in debt from his last campaign...but Hillary sure could. Dems want to help the disadvantaged and what a good way to put their money where their mouth is. They could promise to do the same for many (X) years or a percentage of their salary for a life time...then it wouldn't seem as just a campaign tactic.

[chimpymustgo]

22. Please stop. Edwards gave at least $300,000 for college scholarships last year.

Along with his work to raise the minimum wage in numerous states and unionize workers.

*********

John Edwards: Poor are treated immorally in the U.S.
Daily Record and the Kansas City Daily News-Press, May 29, 2006 by Charles Emerick

John Edwards questions the morals of a country that lets millions of its own people struggle daily to survive.

At the Legal Aid for Western Missouri's Eighth Annual Justice for All Luncheon last week, the 2004 Democratic vice presidential nominee continued with the theme that nearly carried him to the White House.

-snip-

Edwards also hopes to rally support for his College for Everyone program, which offers scholarships for high school graduates who attend college.

Earlier this month, Edwards passed out more than 100 scholarships totaling $300,000 at a North Carolina high school. More than 70 percent of the graduating class took part.

We can do this all across America, he insisted.

Additionally, he called to raise the nation's minimum wage.

Nobody can live on $5.15 an hour, he said.

Nearly all in attendance Wednesday applauded the former senator's statements and his criticisms of the current administration.

Jane McQueeny, an employee of the U.S. Department of Education, said Edwards has plans that can improve the country.

He was very inspiring, McQueeny said. He has a vision for our society. We have so much in this country and we do so little with it.

-snip-
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4181/is_20060529/ai_n16432826

[Auntie Bush]

24. Sorry, I didn't mean to pick on Edwards. He's a fine man and I would

happily vote for him should he win the primary.

However, did you read the rest of my post? I suggested ALL super rich Democrats do the same as a campaign tactic. I didn't just pick on Edwards. He unfortunately was the one who inspired the idea. Dems need to make their help of the poor more public. You just proved it. I had no idea he had done all that and others don't either. There needs to be a better way to make donations more public and God bless Edwards for doing g what he does. I'm sure other politicians have done tons of good for the poor. I just wish everyone else knew. Thanks for the information on Edwards. I'm sure everyone who reads your post will think better of Edwards as there has been a lot of complaints...I do!

Here's the rest of my post so you won't think I was picking on Edwards.

"I've always wondered why more rich politicians don't do more obvious charity work...and that included Kerry and all those millionaire Republicans. Just donating to Charity in general doesn't make headlines...this would! Whoever does this first is going to have a real advantage. I just hope it's a Democrat. I'd like Clark to do it, but
I don't think he has enough money and is already in debt from his last campaign...but Hillary sure could. Dems want to help the disadvantaged and what a good way to put their money where their mouth is. They could promise to do the same for many (X) years or a percentage of their salary for a life time...then it wouldn't seem as just a campaign tactic.

[roguevalley]

4. bush's place is wrong and edwards is right? how about, neither is?

not in this world, anymore. I personally hope, as an older person, that we can ALL change our ways so that your whippersnappers like you will have a chance at a good life like I've had.

[WCGreen]

5. I'm almost fifty and live in a three bedroom tract house....

I don't begrudge anyone who works hard and get's what they can...

[high density]

6. The problem is that it's coming from Mr. "Two Americas"

If you can't see the problem with that, then welcome to DU hypocrisy once again. It seems to float out every time a Democrat does something stupid (acts like a Republic) and people on here do all sort of contortions to make it fit into their belief system.

I don't vote for a presidential candidate based on what their house is. It's great he's rich and he can provide for his family like this. But he's the one with the PR firm trying to define himself as a populist or whatever. It becomes even more insulting when they have Elizabeth Edwards post on her blog that they're putting CFLs in the house and they bought a Ford Escape Hybrid. Are those honestly supposed to offset this mansion some how?

[ShortnFiery]

7. Well put. Don't you see, it's not "the wealth" but "the spending" that bit him in the ass? n/t

[depakid]

21. Going to work for a Wall Street hedge firm doesn't help the message

either.

It's unfortunate the way in which this stuff came up, but minus the distortions, it seems to me fair game.

[Faryn Balyncd]

8. Focus on this instead? "So Americans can be educated to come along with 'what needs to be done' ....

"So Americans can be educated to come along with 'what needs to be done' with Iran." - John Edwards


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=49201&mesg_id=49201


http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Edwards_Iran_must_know_world_wont_0123.html



What a contrast:

A slick lawyer who does not appear to have learned a thing from his experience with the IWR.

And a tough general urging a more cautious, deliberate approach.















GORE / CLARK 2008

[venable]

15. Focus on this: "the greatest danger to world peace is Israel bombing Iran"

quoth John Edwards.


Educating the American people means just that, it does not mean bombing.

[Faryn Balyncd]

20. Thanks, venable...... great words....

(Addendum: Venable, upon re-reading your succinct comment (#15), it dawns upon me that I may be exhibiting a irony-impaired state...... ie, that you comment may have been a chide to John Edwards, & an attempt to get Edwards to re-focus on a previous, more balanced, position.

Consequently, I perhaps mis-interpreted your post as a defense of Edward's recent beating of the Iran war drums.

If so, please accept my apology.

I would, however, still be interested in the source of your quotation.)



_____________________________________________



I would be most encouraged if I heard such statements from John Edwards now.

I, like others, was attracted to Edwards as a 2008 candidate precisely because of his clear criticism of the Iraq War, and was inclined to forgive him for his support of the IWR in 2002. (Perhaps that is not much. I must admit that I myself made the same error, & my ambivalent feelings at the time do little to erase my error.)

But I am troubled by his recent statements, in particular his speech at Herzliya, the complete transcript of which is at http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Edwards_Iran_must_know_world_wont_0123.html .

It seems difficult to accept your interpretation that "educating the American people" refers to spreading the knowledge that "the greatest danger to world peace is Israel bombing Iran".

Nowhere did Edwards even get close to mentioning to his Israeli audience that there was any danger whatsoever to "Israel bombing Iran". Not only did he not mention it, the entire tenor of his speech contradicted this.

Specifically, his statement about "educating the American people" concerned how to deal with an American public which, concerned about the Iraq war, would be "reticent" about "going into Iran", so that these "reticent" Americans would "come along" with "what needs to be done with Iran."

The entire exchange:

Question and Answer:

Cheryl Fishbein from NY: When you do learning of Jewish texts, you give credit to ideas of scholars who have helped you ask questions, I would like to give credit to my friends and colleagues who have had this same overriding question of shared a existential threat: Would you be prepared, if diplomacy failed, to take further action against Iran? I think there is cynicism about the ability of diplomacy to work in this situation. Secondly, you as grassroots person, who has an understanding of the American people, is there understanding of this threat across US?

A (John Edwards): My analysis of Iran is if you start with the President of Iran coming to the UN in New York denouncing America and his extraordinary and nasty statements about the Holocaust and goal of wiping Israel off map, married with his attempts to obtain nuclear weapons over a long period of time, they are buying time. They are the foremost state sponsors of terrorism. If they have nuclear weapons, other states in the area will want them, and this is unacceptable.

As to what to do, we should not take anything off the table. More serious sanctions need to be undertaken, which cannot happen unless Russia and China are seriously on board, which has not happened up until now. I would not want to say in advance what we would do, and what I would do as president, but there are other steps that need to be taken. Fore example, we need to support direct engagement with Iranians, we need to be tough. But I think it is a mistake strategically to avoid engagement with Iran.

As to the American people, this is a difficult question. The vast majority of people are concerned about what is going on in Iraq. This will make the American people reticent toward going for Iran. But I think the American people are smart if they are told the truth, and if they trust their president. So Americans can be educated to come along with what needs to be done with Iran.

Transcript at http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Edwards_Iran_must_know_world_wont_0123.html

It would be comforting to hear Edwards balancing such talk with statement such as the one you quoted

"the greatest danger to world peace is Israel bombing Iran"
quoth John Edwards.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3080943#3081223

But Googling this quotation did not lead to finding an internet source for such a quotation by Edwards.

I then tried removing the quotation marks.....

then tried Googling "John Edwards" + "greatest danger to world peace" -- http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22john+edwards%22+++%22greatest+danger+to+world+peace%22+&btnG=Search --> still no success.

Could you possible provide a link, or a date, context, or some sort of documentation for your about quotation of Edwards criticizing an Israeli pre-emptive bombing of Iran?

Has Edwards made recent statements criticizing a pre-emptive Israeli bombing of Iran?

Has he changed his opinion that such an Israeli act would threaten world peace?

Or does Edwards think that a pre-emptive attack on Iran is so unlikely that, even though it represents, in his view "the greatest danger to world peace" that there is no need to mention his belief when discussing, with an Israeli audience, what is needed to get a "reticent" American public to "come along" with "what needs to be done with Iran"?

[venable]

31. Charles T., you interpreted it right

I was showing that JE had more complex, and more pacificistic views that some say.

I'll have to find the link a bit later....I provided it on another thread. It was stated ten days ago at a fundraiser in LA, in front of a group of Pro-Israel types. The article in Variety stated that as soon as he said this a chill fell on the room, and the meeting ended.

It shows he is willing to state the seriousness of any thought of military action against Iran, even to a Pro-Israel lobby.

I was not trying to chide JE. I was attempting to show that he has serious concerns about attacking Iran.

Thanks for you great post.

[Faryn Balyncd]

38. That is good to hear.....I hope that your report does, in fact, reflect his views.......

...and that Edwards makes public a clear strong stand against a pre-emptive attack on Iran, whether by us directly, or by Israel.

But this would seem problematic unless Edwards were to renounce views he stated at Herzliya.

The issue seems to be pressing: Multiple developments suggest that a pre-emptive attack may perhaps be imminent, and that a desperate administration may attempt to bolster lagging support by widening the war:


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3073668&mesg_id=3073668


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3075116


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x59374


The importance of taking a strong and immediate stand against initiating a wider mideast war (and opposing a pre-emptive US or Israeli attack) seems so crucial at the present time as to make the current debate about a 20,000 troop escalation insignificant by comparison.

[venable]

43. here's the link

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117957727?categoryid=...


this at least proves that his views are not as simpistic or easily categorized as was reported in the account of the Herzliya conference.

I do think he needs to temper the language of the Herzliya conference, and am comforted that the event recounted in the above link shows that he is not hawkish.

maybe it's a matter of clarity and language - which is, of course, critical. I'm confident he'll show this.

[Faryn Balyncd]

49. Thanks for the link, but it is hardly comforting.......- - EDWARDS - - on - - IRAN - -

Edwards on Iran

Did Edwards' remarks at a Hollywood fundraiser really nullify his statements at Herzyila?

(by a disillusioned Edwards admirer)




Thanks for the link,Venable, but Peter Bart's gossipy & inexplicable account is hardly comforting.

The report of Ron Brynaert (published in Raw Story January 23) gave a verbatim transcript of both Edwards speech and answers to specific questions at Herzliya. His language was not only clear, but deliberate, specific, and punctuated with reiteration ("we need to keep ALL options on the table, Let me reiterate – ALL options must remain on the table.")

Ron Brynaert did not report that Edwards was "simplistic or easily categorized" or "hawkish"; what Brynaert did was provide a transcript of exactly what Edwards said, and it is the clarity of Edwards deliberate words which many rightly find exceedingly troubling.

If Brynaert misquoted Edwards, a correction by Edwards would be welcome, and seems overdue.

The link you provided, to Variety Columnist Peter Bart's "The Back Lot: The real Hollywood politics - D.C. vibe is bubbling up" is problematic:

Written more in the style of a gossip columnist than a journalist, Bart relates this breathy account, which appears to be the basis for your conclusion that Edwards is "more pacifistic" after all:

"The aggressively photogenic John Edwards was cruising along, detailing his litany of liberal causes last week until, during question time, he invoked the "I" word -- Israel. Perhaps the greatest short-term threat to world peace, Edwards remarked, was the possibility that Israel would bomb Iran's nuclear facilities. As a chill descended on the gathering, the Edwards event was brought to a polite close."



The problems with this are many:

The impression of the account as reported by Bart, apparently paraphrased and without quotation marks, is entirely the opposite of the verbatim detailed transcript of Edward's deliberate, reiterated remarks made at the conference in Herzliya, at approximately the same time.

If Bart's implications in his sparse, para-phased, gossipy account are accurate, then the detailed verbatim transcript reported from the Herzliya conference calls loudly for clarification.



Your post, however, enlarged on Bart's uncorroborated paraphrase, and constructed a direct quote, ("the greatest danger to world peace is Israel bombing Iran" quoth John Edwards, as you posted it {#15}), for some reason omitting the qualification "short-term" one of the very few specifics supplied in Bart's account.

Does a key to understanding such apparent blatant Edwards contradiction lie in the words you chose to omit from Bart's account ("short-term"). Was Edwards actually saying in this Hollywood fundraiser (put together, in Bart's words, by a talent-agency "honcho" whose partner is the brother of the DLC's Rahm Emanuel) that Israel bombing Iran would threaten world peace in the "short-term", but was beneficial in the "long-term"? Was this the reason a "chill descended", as Bart described it, over the "antiwar" crowd in attendance? Who knows?

We can only guess, because, unlike the Hezliya conference (where we can each read,verbatim, Edward's speech and his detailed answers to questions, we have only a Hollywood columnist's apparently paraphrased account of brief & inexplicable Edwards' comments at a DLC-related, Hollywood talent agent's fundraiser.

Without any corroborating testimony, or further details by Bart himself, there seems no easy way to clarify the glaring contradictions between Bart's story and Edward's Herzliya transcript.


. . . . . . . . . .


With Patriot Missiles (of no strategic or tactical value in fighting Iraqi insurgents, now being deployed in the middle east, with a second naval strike force also on the way, with Wesley Clark telling Fox News that the White House is dangerously "laying the groundwork" for war with Iran, it's time we took the threat of a massive escalation into a wider middle east war seriously.





If John Edwards is not on the side of beating the drums for war with Iran, it's time he publicly disavow his statements in Herzliya.



Please, John, say it one more time, "I ---- was ---- wrong!"

[venable]

58. I can't disagree with you, but

I can say that I am inclined to judge it this way:

- Bart's account is breezy, but the sentiment Edwards expresses is still there, and so I don't dismiss it just because it comes in a weird package.

- the Verzliya transcript sounds very hawkish, but I'm inclined (hoping that I'm right) to interpret this as some unfortunate modulations of a basically sound approach - that the military option can not be taken off the table (and few do advocate taking it off the table), and Edwards is stating this TOO FLATLY, ie without the comforting qualifications like that it would be the very, very last resort, and that there is so much that can be done in the interim, non-militarily, that we can all safely assume that there will be a resolution other than bombing. He then, in order to comfort us, should read the riot act about how disastrous bombing would be. So, it's on the table, but it's our duty to do everything possible to make sure it never comes to that.

I just simply can not believe that the man who says it's time we are patriotic about something other than war, who says "I was wrong", who thinks that the war has made us less safe..I can't believe this man means what the we are assuming from the Verzliya transcript.

I'm with you in hoping that he clarifies this as soon as possible.

[Mass]

9. If they were not going around telling that they live like us, this would be a non-issue.

[Ninja Jordan]

11. Edwards ISN'T doing that. He IS telling people that he grew up in similar conditions.

[Mass]

12. No, a few weeks ago, his wife was interviewed and started saying how she was

living like us, shopping at Wendy's and eating at Target, and therefore still understanding people like us.

She was also attacking other Dems because of their extravagant life.

So, sorry, this does not float.

Edwards has always seemed to me somebody who is using his origins to succeed, but does not understand anymore what it means to live as a middle class person. It is OK, as long as he does not pretend otherwise.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Mass]

25. You're right. She said shopping at Target and eating at Wendy's.

No need to call me a liar.

Here is the quote:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1538640-1,00.html

...
It's a different kind of luxury, I think. I know the people whose artwork is on my walls--they're not the old masters. I shop at Target. We eat at Wendy's. Even though we have a lot and I feel very blessed, we are basically the same people we were when we first started out and made, between us, $28,000 a year.
...

Clear enough!!

[JohnLocke]

26. Umm...

You said she said "how she was living like us, shopping at Wendy's and eating at Target, and therefore still understanding people like us."

She actually said "we are basically the same people we were when we first started out and made, between us, $28,000 a year."

Where did she "attack other Dems because of their extravagant life"?

[citizen snips]

29. so you would pefer them driving a Bentley

around town while smokeing expensive cigars with a huge diamond nicklace around Elizbeth's neck. Frankly I don't see your point.

[The Count]

42. The ? was: "You write about the Kerrys' plush lifestyle. How would you describe yours?

Aparently, EE was posing as the loveable pauper as compared to the Kerrys - which prompted that question. September 2006. Some of the 48,000 trees were going down I bet.

[venable]

14. he never said he lives like that, though that's exactly where he comes from

and it is a fact that they do not spend idly - they live like everyone else, except their ranch house has a bigger footprint.

Their home has always been where everyone gathered, when they were poor, and now that they are rich...and they are the same friends gathering there, old friends from high school and college.

he and his wife grew up not well off (she a little better than him, on military officer's pay) and they have never lost touch with that.

the guy made a lot of money fighting corporate malfeasance (he told 90%of the cases that came to him that he could not help them himself, and sent them to someone else - ie the opposite of an avaricious ambulance chaser)

they shop at costco, eat at Wendy's (that's not an act, that's them), and are generally unimpressed with, and turned off by, opulence.

the house is for their kids, and their friends, a real gathering place for normal people - friends and neighbors.

They hang with normal people, though they could hang with glitterati.

They are absolutely salt of the earth, and can not be otherwise.

This is the most absurd line of attack yet.

and BTW -'educating the American people on what needs to be done in Iraq' does NOT mean bombing. He said the greatest danger to world peace is israel bombing Iran. get your info straight before you start sliming someone.

[Ninja Jordan]

10. No kidding. Of all the candidates' wealth to bitch about, WHY EDWARDS?

He grew up in a middle-lower middle class family where both his parents worked. I'm happy for him. People like Kerry, Clinton, Gore etc. were silver spoon babies.

[Doctor_J]

13. That's why the GOP hates him so much

he's wasn't born into his money - he actually worked for it, just like Hillary & Bill. THe wingers prefer people like * who never worked a day in their lives.

[JCastillon]

16. I wish I could live there.

I understand the argument, but I know people who have a lot of money and they are still good people. I don't think this will be a main issue for long.

[mnhtnbb]

28. Ah, an honest post! I think a lot of this is nothing more than house envy.

[fuzzyball]

17. I love his 28,000 sq feet house, especially the sports center

man...can you imagine being able to shoot hoops indoors,
swim, play racketball, jog indoors, any time I feel like?
That is living, man.

[AX10]

23. I would really like to see our discussion aimed at...

clarifying his position on Iran. That would be a worthy and important discussion. This whole thing about the house is not central to solving the problems we face.

[mayflower]

27. Well said...he earned it and has the right to spend it whatever way he chooses....

...just like the Bushes, the Clintons et al. The hypocrisy of those criticizing him for the size of his house is a joke and indefensible. But I guess it just goes to show that people don't want others to have the freedom to choose for themselves. That is the country we live in today. Everyone wants to dictate to others how to live their lives, then follow up laws enforcing their dictates. It is a serious threat to our way of life and no good will come of it.

[Guaranteed]

30. Wait- so now we're embracing this every-man-for-himself stuff?

I thought we were a bit more compassionate than that.

[WCGreen]

34. You have totally missed the point....

Would you refuse a raise just because you felt people at McDonald's don't earn enough money...

Be realisitic...

We live in a capitalistic society that is governed, as in checked, by a democratic form of government...

It is our duty to make sure that the government checks the excess that capitalism brings with it...

Most of the people living in this country have bought the mantra of Reagan which was it's mine, I'll spend it the way I want in order o justify gutting government...

It's men like Edwards who knows where he came from and is willing to fight the fight for those who aren't as fortunate as he...

That's the point...

compare Edwards to Bush, not to other democrats...

[Clarkie1]

35. Where did Edwards come from?

[WCGreen]

37. His folks were working class and he worked his way through

college and Law School...

He is a self made man...

Unlike that dilettante sitting in the White House....

To put it in Molly Ivans terms...

Edwards was born at home plate, took a great big swing at life and hit the fence while Bush was born on third base and thought he hit a triple...

It's the same with Bill Clinton...

The boy worked his way out of poverty and became president of the United States...

[Clarkie1]

45. Was Edwards born in poverty? nt

[noamnety]

62. I can't tell if you're supporting him or attacking him.

"It is our duty to make sure that the government checks the excess that capitalism brings with it..."

Is this house an example of the excess that capitalism brings with it?

[Clarkie1]

32. I think trial lawyers are overpaid.

For the amount of work they do and what the contribute to society. I'd like to see Edwards give back some more. It would make him a more appealing candidate if he practiced what he preached.

[AP]

40. Damage awards aren't taxed. People pay less to their lawyer than

they would have paid in income tax if the money had been earned income.

Lawyers operate in a free market. If someone could do the job for less money, they would.

It's also very expensive to bring a case to trial. A lot of the lawyer's fee goes to covering overhead.

All things considered, I suspect Edwards's clients, at least, felt that he earned his money.

[Clarkie1]

44. Do you think overpaid CEOs "earn" their salaries as well? nt

[AP]

56. "overpaid" CEOs"?

By definition, no.

But you do understand that trial lawyers like Edwards were operating at the other end of the social justice spectrum from overpaid CEOs.

[JDPriestly]

48. What do you know about how much work trial lawyer's lawyers do?

To begin, let's call a spade a spade. Edwards wasn't just a trial lawyer. Trial lawyers include defense lawyers, and defense lawyers get paid by insurance companies -- win or lose most of the time.

Plaintiff's lawyers like Edwards often work on contingency. They only get paid if they win. Every case is a gamble. Do you know how many plaintiff's lawyers lost their shirts and ruined their health trying to prove that tobacco companies were cheating and lying and addicting people to a substance that the tobacco companies knew would kill a certain percentage of the addicts?

Do you know how many trial lawyers have lost their shirts and ruined their health trying to protect the environment? your civil rights? your safety? Plaintiff's lawyers are the people's lawyers. They are our friends.

Nobody criticizes the corporate lawyers. Corporations have huge PR war chests. They would like nothing better than to annihilate trial lawyers who represent ordinary people because trial lawyers keep corporations honest and make them produce products that are safe and relatively healthy.

Edwards has money because he took huge risks and won. He has money because he is more intelligent than the lawyers he opposed at trial, has better judgment than they, was more competent, more conscientious, got along better with the juries and was a better negotiator. We need a man with Edwards' skills as president. Think of it: intelligence, judgment, competence, conscientious, good people and negotiation skills. What more could you want in a president?

I'm not saying he is the only qualified candidate. But his huge house was earned and is merely more evidence that he is well qualified to lead the country -- not the only well qualified candidate, but definitely one of the best.

[WCGreen]

50. Exactly....

And the trial lawyers are always, always with the democratic party....

They do battle with the corporate interests on a regular basis and for a very long time, have been one of the strongest checks against corporate greed...

[Clarkie1]

52. I think it's disgraceful to cut down 50,000 trees just to have a nice lawn.

And I don't think star athletes deserve their salaries either.

Call me crazy.

[AP]

57. So that "problem with trial lawyers" thing was just BS?

It's really about trees?

[meow mix]

33. yah, he's gonna spearhead up a real environmental movement

right after he buys this, uhhh.. house.
dont worry they are phasing out the incandescent lightbulbs as they burn out, with flourescents!

[AP]

39. Time or Newsweek did a long story in 02 or 03 about how green Bush's ranch was.

Electing him sure did great things for the environmental movement.

[KitchenWitch]

41. Thank you WCGreen

I could not say that more succinctly myself!

:hi:

[unlawflcombatnt]

46. Exactly

"Bush... never once did anything legit to earn his money...
"

Very true.

However, Bush did plenty of things where he legitimately lost money. His most recent job failure is as President of the United States, where he's already lost billions of dollars of taxpayers' money.

Bush has once again found a job he cannot perform, and a job where he's bankrupting "the company." His latest victimized company, however, is the United States.

At least Edwards has succeeded at something, instead of bankrupting everything he's touched like Bush.

[JDPriestly]

47. Face it, only the rich or those who are funded by the rich can run for office

Except at very low levels of government, only the rich or very rich can run for office. Edwards can speak up and run because he has money.

He was not born with money. He earned it by working hard, using his intelligence and his good sense to help his clients. Until I hear otherwise, I will assume he earned it honestly.

Trial lawyers work harder than you would ever believe. And to win cases, they have to have not just exceptional intelligence, but excellent people skills. The fact that he could succeed as a trial lawyer makes me think he would make a great president. He is not the only candidate that I like, but his money does not concern me. He was not born with a silver spoon in his mouth. He knows how the rest of us live.

[spooky3]

54. Finally, someone has gotten to the heart of the issue.

Thanks.

I know a former congresswoman who can't run again because she has trouble raising money--even with EMILY'S list help. She (and others, such as Kucinich) could run, but they will only lose what money they have, maybe rack up more debts, and fail to win the election.

If we are going to start ruling out candidates who have earned their own money or have married into it or been given it, we will have precious few candidates in the primary.

As a side point, Edwards has also had to run a growing organization, which gives him entrepreneurial and executive experience as well. He did not make his money as one of a hundred partners at a big established firm.

[JDPriestly]

61. Clinton did not have all that much money of his own when he ran for president

I believe that was one of the reasons that the right-wing looked so hard to find some way to sue him for something not related to his work. They thought they could ruin him by putting him in so much debt for legal representation that he would be disgraced.

As Randi Rhodes tell us, the right-wingers exploit our candidates' strengths. A man or woman of few or ordinary means would not survive the attacks of those right-wing sharks.

[noamnety]

51. the argument about earning his money don't carry much weight with me.

If Edwards had inherited his wealth, he obviously would have kept it, just like Bush did. He pretty clearly enjoys being insanely wealthy, and while he's a philanthropist, he's not one to the point where the charity actually cuts into his own lifestyle. He's not gonna go there. Now, Edwards is creating a new family dynasty so his heirs will be the next generation of those who interited rather than earned their riches.

I'm not seeing the moral superiority in that.

On other issues I see it, he's morally superior as a whole to Bush, by leaps and bounds. But on the issue of personal wealth, no, it's the same damn thing.

What I find particularly troublesome is that his two americas campaign is based on the belief that others should be able to raise themselves to his level, not that the rich have an obligation to own and consume less. The way he talks about it sounds nice, but it's not realistic. People can't all raise themselves to his level; we'd run out of resources, and you can't get to that level without exploiting others. It's like a big pyramid scheme, and you don't get to the top without exploiting the people at the bottom.

Look at what his hourly pay was as a lawyer. If he paid all the people who served him that same rate, he'd be broke, no?

People get rich by paying others less for their labor than what they themselves get paid.

[WCGreen]

53. Well, I know that when you are offered a raise...

You always make sure that everyone else where you work get's the same...

[lynne]

55. He earned a portion of his wealth -

- and he then invested it very wisely. I would think that the greater portion of his wealth comes from investments rather than from actual billed-to-client earnings. He certainly chose his investments well and it lends itself to the next question - Where and with whom did he invest?

[NCarolinawoman]

59. Edwards cut through red tape to clear-cut forty acres of trees.

I am active in the environmental community and I learned of this over a month ago.

So that is where I think something is WRONG. He is proving the point of "Two Americas" in a very strange way. The Tree Ordinances are stringent in Orange County, NC; only the "big-shots" are able to circumvent them. I have seen this happen before.

[KoKo]

60. So...you are saying that we should vote for Edwards because he Earned his Money?

:eyes: I think Bush thinks "he earned his money," too. I think everyone who is successful would say they "earned their money" just like a "truck driver, car mechanic and the rest of us"..think we "earned our money."

Kind of an odd thing to vote for President for, though...

[beaconess]

63. I think the OP's point is that the fact that he earned money shouldn't be held against him, not that

you should vote for him because of it.

[RiverStone]

64. A more important point is...

I don't give a shit whether one is in politics or not, if they are a rethug or DEM - building wastefully HUGE is bad for our one planet earth.

Period.

http://www.climatecrisis.net/