Local (Raleigh) Columnist offers to trade 'cribs' with Edwards

[mnhtnbb]

I have to say, first, that I was astonished at all the uproar regarding
Edwards' home. I recently finished Elizabeth's book, and I think
it's important to put the Edwards' compound into the context of their family life. Family is EVERYTHING to them. You cannot read Elizabeth's book without coming away with a sense of how deeply wounded she was by the death of Wade. As she says, breast cancer was nothing--she'd been through the worst life had to offer.

I haven't read John's book of essays about home, but I gather he makes the point of how important family life is.

They have the money to build the home that reflects what is important to them. You can criticize them all you want for being excessive, or insufficiently green, but I'll bet you they would trade that place in a New York minute if it would bring Wade back to them. Instead, they have tried to create the best home environment possible for their remaining family.

Here's the take of a local columnist, Barry Saunders of the News & Observer:

One of America's great religious leaders, Rev. Ike, famously said, "The best thing you can do for the poor is not be one of them."

Unfortunately for John Edwards, if he wants to become our next president, the best thing he can do for them is sell that big house, move his family into the projects and stuff cardboard into the soles of his shoes.

Will that make him more palatable to some people? Don't bet on it.

For more: http://www.newsobserver.com/712/story/537705.html

[Dover]

1. It's doubtful that a man/woman of lesser means would be permitted to run for prez.

There is a gaping hole of class divide between those who would rule and those who 'serve'.
This is NOT a small issue. The system is rigged in such a way that those in leadership positions are from the top tiers of wealth, that those from this tier who have committed criminal acts are not accountable in a justice system which serves them. We have a Congress that determines its own salary! My wouldn't THAT be nice for the average guy who can't even get a raise in his minimum wage! And on and on....

The argument is not about bringing down those living 'the American dream'...a shallow one having to do with personal power and ownership....it's about the increasing evidence of the split between classes. Of flaunting privilege at a time when so many are falling through the gaping class divide.
How can Edwards consider selling himself as a Wendy's kinda guy or an environmentalist, with that albatross of a house? Get real. People notice these things. And it's not just Edwards. He has simply become the posterboy for a barely concealed rage. A pot on the boil.

And to me it looks like more than just another big house. It looks like a compound a la the Crawford Ranch (Bush's ranch is ironically much more eco-friendly BTW!).
It says that Edwards already anticipates a very bright future indeed! And with all the questions and concerns involving the validity and potential for manipulation of our election system, it looks downright suspicious.

[FrenchieCat]

2. You mean like "Done Deal"?

Funny, cause I've been thinking the same thing. Considering that John Edwards is the only southern WASP male running against 3 minorities who will water down any minority vote.....it is likely that he would win, unless we get some other WASP Southern males running (like Clark) who can make the race competitive again (for everyone in addition to Edwards)....thereby giving everyone a chance.....even if the media will still only bring us constant news on the top three "front runners" only. Maybe that's why certain minorities who had earlier promised to run were talked about day and night until they succumbed to feeling that they had a chance.

Edwards building a compound......while
Attending some pretty unsavory meetings with APAIC and the likes, rattling sabers on Iran.......it may all be a done deal made up to look like democracy.
http://www.totallyjewish.com/news/world/?content_id=5400
http://www.cjp.org/content_display.html?ArticleID=178593
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=10399

That's my conspiracy theory; :tinfoilhat: Although a pretty plausible one, I might add!

[marions ghost]

4. "3 minorities

who will water down any minority vote"...could you please explain that? Or rather explain how you think that will work?

[Clark2008]

6. Richardson (Hispanic), HRC (female) and Obama (mixed/black).

And, I don't disagree with Frenchie. She means that people in the political miniorty will split their votes between the three of them - or possibly will.

[marions ghost]

7. OK thanks

while I would agree that Richardson and Obama will draw heavily from their respective minorities, I don't think Hillary will particularly, so that's what confused me. I didn't realize Hillary would be included in the usual sense of minorities.

I don't know any women pulling for Hillary. The two people I know who are solidly behind her are male.
I'm not sure if there is a female factor for Hillary. She attracts a certain type, male or female, IMO.
Also, so often women will go for the male candidate if there is a female choice that I can't really go along with this assessment. This is the first time I've ever really thought about Hillary being a "female magnet" candidate. Are feminist groups supporting her?

What's your take on that.

[FrenchieCat]

8. I think that enough women will vote for her because she is a woman....

To think that a woman would be offered on the ballot, an historical first, and to think that women wouldn't do what many minorities will do in reference to Richardson and Obama is inaccurate in my op.

Of course there will be crossovers...but in terms of the mass numbers, I do believe that there will be a lot of what I am talking about at work. Edwards stand to profit the most from this, as there will be many cross over for him.....like minorities thinking that a minority cannot win and casting a vote for who they think could probably.

Read this for starters......as it is a deeper analysis of what I have just mentioned.
http://www.rapidfire-silverbullets.com/2007/01/2008_candidatestoo_much_of_a_g.html

[marions ghost]

9. thanks for the link

OK so some people are saying they think HRC will get a boost from women, like it's just a common assumption. Hmmmm.....

Then why don't the people I know reflect this assumption at all? NObody I know is excited about HRC or these other historical firsts (I'm talking about average people, some liberal, but not political junkies). They seem more like...oh please, (pained expression) just get a responsible adult in there who can fix this mess...don't care what sex, creed or color. My theory is that people are so jaded with the whole negative experience under the current regime that they are beyond caring and may actually just be thinking "who's the best candidate?" I don't hear any talk about voting for HRC in the education and research circles I'm most exposed to. I suspect she is more popular in the legal and business world? Just WHERE is this "base of women" for Hillary? Like I said I know more men who are pulling for her. Admittedly my focus is narrow. I am curious as to why anyone would see HRC as drawing support from women more than she would draw from men.

[FrenchieCat]

10. It's in the numbers......the masses that is. I know that you know that

the activists don't add up to as many as we would like....which is why Howard Dean came in 3rd in Iowa. The masses that get their news from television and read a headline or two....those busy raising children, working and making ends meet.....

These folks don't even tune in till a couple of months before the election, if that. Until then, they just hear the passing media noise without much paying much attention to any of it. Well, those people.... and there are more of them than they are of us; although you are not running into them, many of them vote.

[marions ghost]

3. well it seems the topic

touched a nerve...that large raw nerve between they who have too much and they who have not enough...

I don't think it would be wise for Edwards supporters to try to play up the "family" angle in defense of the house. It comes off as 'we're just like you' condescending BS.

For MOST people family is very important. For MOST people the death of a family member is the worst thing they go through. But for MOST people, a 6 million dollar complex does not embody the typical concept of "home." If you take the argument in that direction it has the reverse effect. It speaks to a need for some kind of ostentatious, rather selfish over-compensation for the sake of family. If this house is symbolic of family, then most people will feel inadequate by comparison--they cannot provide "the best environment possible." I wouldn't go there if I were the Edwards'political strategists. Ick. It doesn't ring true. More like truthiness.

If I were the Edwards, I would call the "house" exactly what it is--a multifold investment above and beyond the way that people usually invest in family. The constituency would be more sympathetic if it were seen as the locus of where the Edwards' various service-oriented projects begins...emphasizing their prior and potential gifts to the country & the world. It is an investment-- in the Edwards' future as big players in the political arena, in their various projects for which they legitimately need home office and entertainment space, in recreational space (they can certainly save on vacations and gym memberships) --and it is also a very savvy investment in real estate pure and simple (just bidness y'know). It is not a direct investment in "green" building or living simply. OK register disappointment in that.

I'm hoping the bigger picture vision is there but it's all the more imperative to ask how much Edwards CAN do for the poor, how much CAN he do for the floundering fearful middle class, how much CAN he do for the environment & energy problems, which he says are important to him (among other things). If Edwards were just an ordinary private citizen, this estate thing would seem pretty overblown and piggy. (Southfork NC Style). But I am for giving Edwards a chance to do whatever he CAN do for us if his heart is truly in it. My internal jury is out pending further information.

Although I'm an Edwards supporter on many issues, I admit when I saw the house photo I immediately thought..."uh oh..." (yikes!) BAD timing. But we also learned something about one of our candidates too. I was not at all surprised at the dismay from within the liberal ranks at DU and elsewhere. It is justified IMO. But I'm not going to write Edwards off on account of it either. The debate does define some of the major challenges he will face as the going gets rougher.

[Clark2008]

5. Are we still talking about his house instead of his hawk-like position

on Iran?