Did you ever stop to think about Edwards' "Two Americas" thusly:

[Bicoastal]

As someone who grew up poor and powerless, only to succeed through hard work and perserverance and become wealthy and influential, John Edwards is uniquely qualified to talk about both sides of the equation. He understands the haves and the have-nots better then a politician who only knows the America they were born into. Moreover, he is an appropriate figure to represent both parties--those he came from and those he has caught up to over time.

Gee whiz, if a self-made man like Edwards isn't permitted to allow his family the comfort and high quality of living he was denied growing up, what's the point of achieving at all? What's the point of trying to dig your way out of poverty if people are just going to hate you for being rich? Frankly, I don't see a conflict between Edwards' stylish digs and his crusade for America's poor at all--because as a success story, Edwards himself sets a good example for people he champions. The rich may not always be admirable, but I never knew a poor person yet that admired poverty.

Besides, if I grew up poor (which I didn't) and became rich (which I'm not), I would buy the best house in the county for my family if I had the chance, and I'd be stupid not to. Wouldn't you do the same?

[xchrom]

1. complaining about edwards house

is like complaining about a blow job that was never any of MY BUSINESS any way.

it's personal -- he wants to live a in a big house -- big deal.

[Old and In the Way]

2. Indeed, I would.

I see no contradiction in Edward's being a champion for the have-nots while he enjoys the fruits of his personal success. It wouldn't be my personal style, but this would be a pretty dreary country if we all had to conform to one set of lifestyle choices.

[LiberalEsto]

3. Nope, I'd get the best education in the country

for myself and my family

and then I'd build the most sustainable, energy-efficient, off-the-grid home that I could.

[ruggerson]

13. And that's your prerogative and right

just as his is to build the house HE wants to build.

[venable]

20. his house has the highest energy rating

they did that.

[zulchzulu]

4. FDR and The New Deal

Not that I think Edwards can compare to FDR, but FDR was very wealthy and had come from a long line of wealthy ancestors.

He could have just moved on and demanded that the robber barons be allowed to own it all and that the working masses stay in the gutter. He didn't. He proposed and fought hard to get The New Deal in process.

Can a wealthy man also understand the plight of the poor? Of course!

[Tom Rinaldo]

5. In terms of media spin though

JFK and FDR were both safely moved into their grand mansions and estates well before they first ran for President. John Edwards is building what appears to be the largest home in his metropolitan area after he first rose to fame by championing the poor. That is the seemingly incongruous part to some.

I agreed on another one of the many DU threads about this that this is a non issue of an issue from a policy perspective. If John Edwards is sincere in his desire to help the poor that is all that matters, and I have no reason to challange his sincerity on that. But his new House is perfect Jay Leno material, and count on seeing pictures of it in Republican attack ads if Edwards gets the nomiination. But if it wasn't this they would just use something else. This isn't exactly a major blow.

Since primaries can get ugly some times it wouldn't shock me if it shows up then also, but I sure hope it doesn't. We can't control the Republican Noise Machine, but we should be able to keep our own debates focused on issues that matter.

[Adelante]

16. "a non issue of an issue from a policy perspective"

I disagree with you, Tom. The next president, we have to hope, will take the country in a direction away from over-consumption and toward sustainability. Very much a policy issue.

[KingofNewOrleans]

21. Edwards is building the largest house

in a college town (county) with 120,000 people. If he was really trying to fit in to the community, he would rent a cheap apartment and spend most of his money on beer and pizza.

[sandnsea]

6. Both his parents worked

He did not grow up poor. He grew up working class. I don't relate to anybody who thinks working class is poor. It's not.

Oprah, now Oprah grew up poor in a wood shack with no running water or indoor plumbing.

Poor is those kids in Camden. Dennis Kucinich living in a car was poor.

John Edwards worked his way to success, but he started on a solid foundation and I'm sick to fucking death of people saying the man was poor.

[chimpymustgo]

7. Let. It. Go.

Please.

[sandnsea]

8. Oh.Bull.Shit.

If we're ever going to have a fair economy in this country, we at least have to get on the same page about the definition of poor, working class and affluent. John Edwards was in no way or shape poor. But at the same time, the affluent are oblivious to how few in this country are in their income bracket. It's important because blurring income brackets is the key way Republicans convince workers to vote for them.

[JVS]

41. We're not going to do either because it isn't fun

:eyes:

[Skwmom]

18. Some people are really fed up with the constant b.s. spin from the

Edward's camp - and I can certainly understand why.

[venable]

34. show what's spin and what's stating opinions and support

if you have a specific example, I'd be interested to hear it.

[venable]

22. have you heard the term 'working poor'?

there are millions in our country.

[sandnsea]

43. lol, yeah, and the Edwards were NEVER among them n/t

[McCamy Taylor]

9. If the Clintons were viewed by Americans as "rich" no one would have bought "Whitewater" for a sec.

There is something to be said for being a Kennedey or a Kerry. No one tries to slime them with with John Solomon real estate deal story on the front of the WaPo.

Maybe John Edwards needs to get a little bit richer in the eyes of the American public to make himself completely immune from the most dangerous type of political attack of all for a Democrat, the money slime. Just a thought.

[noamnety]

10. Maybe you would. I wouldn't.

Gee Whiz, if I could afford to waste as many resources as 20 families typically use to reward myself for growing up with more comforts than most of the people in the world, would I do it?

No.

Do I consider that monstrosity to be a "good example" for anyone?

No. It's a BAD example.

I can afford decent new clothes right now. I'm wearing pants and a sweater from a thrift shop, same as I did when I was dirt poor, because it's environmentally responsible. I can afford a new countertop, the old one's ugly. The husband is grumpy because I put my foot down and said no, I'd rather send that money to the relief camp I worked at last year, because my counter is still functional and it would be selfish and wasteful to just throw it away because something else would be more impressive. So we're keeping the same hideous countertop I've been griping about for the last ten years, because deep down, the thought of spending money on something so superficial is sickening.

[KoKo]

11. Yep...it's the AMERICAN WAY! And People Respect and Admire that...

It's the way it is..and always has been. After all..who are the rest of us to QUESTION? Polls say most Americans hate "Taxes on the Rich" because THEY FEEL that They will be RICH one day themselves and don't want to cut off the eventuality that they might want to keep their wealth free from the same horrible taxes that the current Rich are fighting against. These polls "seem to include" folks who will NEVER have the possiblility of achieving the Wealth of those who currently are getting Tax Breaks from "BushCo" but, nevertheless, they believe that either they or their children might, in the future, be wealthy enough that they would need these breaks. :eyes:

This says much about the "lack of education" in America.

[beaconess]

12. There's nothing wrong with being rich

The problem is when the rich try to pull the ladder up behind them.

John Edwards is rich - more power to him. But unlike the Bush crowd, he's trying to make sure that all Americans have the same kind of opportunities he had to become prosperous.

I'm not mad at him.

[Skwmom]

17. The same kind of opportunities he had to become prosperous?

I never knew a majority of Americans wanted to become personal injury attorneys.

Edwards is rich because he was a personal injury attorney. Edwards sued obstetricians winning millions even though there was little hard medical evidence that they had caused any injury - of course when your channeling unborn children it's understandable how a jury would be swayed. Thanks to guys like Edwards, who only cared about lining their own pockets, in certain areas ob-gyns are scarce. Nothing like greed without any thought for how your actions will impact others.

[beaconess]

19. Edwards was able to get rich because he was able to get an education that afforded

him the opportunity to make the most of his potential.

And that education enabled him, through hard work (and no legacy, no connections, no bankroll) to develop himself into a damned good lawyer who represented people who were severely damaged by corporations and bad doctors.

It's funny you think that juries - made up of people like you and me - are so stupid and gullible that they can be completely blown away by the wily Edwards - as if the defendants didn't have lawyers (usually the best of the lot, not to mention high priced ones, mind you) of their own.

Edwards - and other trial lawyers - had nothing to do with the shortage of ob-gyn doctors - you should place the blame where it's due: on malpracticing doctors, corporate greed, and insurance companies who rip off doctors and patients, your GOP talking point-laden post to the contrary.

[Skwmom]

25. A jury acquitted OJ Simpson. So yeah, I do think juries

can be manipulated. Plus when you have a child as a client, it's not that difficult to manipulate the heart strings. Plus, didn't Clinton say Edwards could talk an owl out of a tree?

Please stop trying to turn a personal injury attorney into the second coming of Mother Theresa of a person who has lived the ideal American Dream.

Do I think that doctors need to hold their own accountable? Yes.

Do I think corporate greed is wrong? Yes.

Am I a fan of insurance companies? Hardly.

Do I think that lawsuits based more on emotion than facts, with greedy personal injury attorneys willing to do anything to get a multi-million dollar paycheck part of the problem? Yes.

To say that malpractice has nothing to do with the shortage of ob-gyn doctors is b.s. I believe a person should be compensated for their injuries and if a corporation knowingly, with disregard for human life, injuries an individual they should be subject to civil AND criminal penalties. But the personal injury system has run amok.

I don't need the GOP to do my thinking for me. I actually can think on my own, which is why I have a real aversion to political b.s. spin.

Edwards started out as a corporate attorney, only becoming a personal injury attorney after he won a multi-million dollar settlement for a corporate client. So obviously, $$$$$$$$$$ had something to do with his chosen profession.

[beaconess]

28. So, because a jury acquitted OJ, ALL jurors are idiots?

Hmmmm.

Your propensity for gross generalizations and anecdotal justifications for your opinions are quite remarkable - but do absolutely nothing to bolster your arguments.

[Skwmom]

30. That was one example. Nice try.

As far as anecdotal justifications and gross generalizations - I'd say that no one could beat the Edward's camp.

[mtnsnake]

14. Edwards is no different from any other rich person who lives excessively. nt

[OHdem10]

15. His generation may the last to live

the true American Dream. The Dream that each generation
has opportunity to be better off than their parents and
their children will go no to an even better life than they.

This is what we tell the poor and middleclass. It is pretty
much an empty promise now but at least Edwards got to live
it. He in turn is looking out for those less fortunate.
This is what the Founding Fathers taught--importance of
giving back once you find your dream.

[Skwmom]

26. Since when did winning millions as a personal injury attorney

become the true American Dream? As far as giving back - Edwards did ZERO pro bono work when he was an attorney (of course according to the political spin he already gave back MERELY by being a personal injury attorney and making millions). Edwards only began to talk about the less fortunate AFTER he started to run for president and needed a platform to run on. You must think that being poor = being stupid and gullible to buy into such b.s. spin. Edwards political team constantly putting out such political b.s. spin speaks volumes about what Edwards really thinks of the poor and working class.

[beaconess]

23. So much playahating

It's fascinating to me that so many DUers - supposedly a progressive group - seem so jealous and hateful toward Democrats who are doing better financially than they are.

It is quite sad, actually - this kind of "if I don't have it and can't get it, NOBODY can!" is exactly the kind of attitude that drives the Republican Party. Who knew so many Democrats harbor similar class envy that drives them to attack anyone who has more than they do, no matter how dedicated those people are to bettering conditions for everyone.

[Skwmom]

27. So now if you don't like Edwards and fall in line with the

rah, rah, spin you are jealous and hateful, and just like the Republican Party (GASP!). Maybe fed up with political phoniness is more like it. After 6 years of the current administration and political spin how much more do you expect the American public to take? FYI - Just because it's coming from a Democratic candidate doesn't make it anymore palatable.

[beaconess]

29. No - but if you attack as viciously as some have attacked Edwards using arguments cut and pasted

from GOP talking points, you certainly fit the bill.

[Skwmom]

31. So if anyone criticizes Edwards, and the GOP has used

that same criticism, then it no longer makes that criticism valid (it's merely mimicking a GOP talking point)? Nice logic.

[beaconess]

32. When the argument is a GOP talking point, it's certainly suspect

The fact that, on top of it being a GOP talking point, it's used selectively against only one candidate (who happens to be the same candidate the GOP has picked to exclusively target) combined with the total lack of merit of the argument in the first place, makes it pure bullshit.

[Skwmom]

33. The GOP exclusively targeted Edwards?

You've got to be kidding me? ROFL. That's why the republican talking heads spend so much time talking up Edwards. As far as total lack of merit - the Edward's is now the anti-war candidate meme even though he co-sponsored the IWR and only changed his mind AFTER support for the war dropped to an all time low and his wife put out a trial balloon comes to mind.

[beaconess]

35. So far, he's the only one they've used this argument on

My post wasn't worded clearly - certainly, Edwards isn't the only Democratic candidate the GOP has targeted. He is, however, the only one they're consistently attacking for being wealthy - and their favorite tool against him is their anti-trial lawyer talking points that they also use in their fight to make sure that large corporations and insurance companies can continue ripping off ordinary people. Given the origin and purposes of such GOP attacks and talking points, Democrats employing them against a Democratic candidate is bizarre, to say the least.

[Skwmom]

36. I don't support a person just because they put a D in front of their name.

That's what gave us George Bush (people supporting him simply because he was a Republican). The Republicans haven't begun to attack Edwards - why would they do an all out attack on Edwards when they can save it for the general election. Of course they have to attack him just enough to give Edwards supporters the ability to say - see they are attacking Edwards b/c they fear him the most (which is just plain laughable).

[beaconess]

37. Were you paying attention in 2004? They attacked him mercilessly

And this has nothing to do with Edwards' supporters looking for something to complain about. It's objective fact. And these GOP attacks were largely based on the same bullshit anti-trial lawyer, pro-corporation, gouging insurance company-enabling arguments that some supporters of other Democratic candidates are now throwing at Edwards. The GOP has laid off of him so far this time around - and why shouldn't they? Dems are doing their work for them.

FYI - I haven't decided who I'm going to support in this race, so this isn't about defending "my" guy. I just can't stand to see any Democrat torn down by other Democrats for such petty reasons, especially when the attacks are so transparent and do little but undercut our own and augment the work of the Republican attack machine.

[Skwmom]

39. Give me a break. Attacking Edwards mercilessly will include the following

1. making his hair video more well known then the Dean scream (which by the way was really unfair to Dean). After watching that video I think it will be extremely hard for a majority of the American Public to envision Edwards as commander-in-chief.
2. making common knowledge his lack of any populist/poverty work prior to running for president.
3. making common knowledge his trial rhetoric (as in "And I have to tell you right now — I didn't plan to talk about this — right now I feel her. I feel her presence. She's inside me, and she's talking to you)."
4. making common knowledge that he CO-SPONSORED the IWR, was cited on the Bush website, and only came out against the war AFTER support for the war reached an all-time low.

When you see them start to refer to Edwards as the personal injury attorney, and slick-Eddie (Clinton's protege in waiting) you'll know the real attacks have begun.

What you call attacks, some may call countering the Edward's p.r. spin machine so the Democrats don't wake up after electing their nominee asking "What in the heck have we been manipulated into doing" and interest in making sure that we actually elect someone who has a prayer of turning this country around.

[beaconess]

40. Thanks for proving my point

Why does the GOP need to waste their ammunition on him when folks on our own team are so eager to take shots?

Nice job.

[tnlefty]

24. No, I wouldn't.

Even if I could afford it I wouldn't do it. I've been environmentally conscious for more than a couple of decades. I don't have a need to make a statement of what I have, which is no where near that amount of wealth, but I do feel a need to conserve and to help others with my limited my funds.

[Clark2008]

38. Edwards didn't grow up poor.

He grew up decidedly upper middle class.

Now, he's much wealthier than his father, but he was never poor, so I don't know that he knows THAT much about it, frankly.

[JVS]

42. Didn't Colbert do research that discovered Edward's dad was a turd-miner in SC?