News-Record.com

I think you misunderstand why Edwards is called a hypocrite. It's not for caring about poor people despite being rich. It's about claiming that his motivation for caring about the poor comes from his upbringing in a poor family.

Edwards never wanted for the basics of life, so he should stop talking like he did.

I think it's great he cares about the poor, but don't delude yourself (and lie to us) about why you do.

Saying you're standing up for the poor is the oldest populist demagoguery in the book, dating back to ancient Greek and Roman times.

People tend to judge one by their actions, (provided they are not token) like how you live and look for glimpses into the true nature of an indidvidual rather than what they say. In this case the $400 dollar haircuts, 10,000 sq. ft house and the "primping video" probably speak more to people than the establishment of "foundations" that appear to be campaign finance vehicles etc. Or like a newspaper editor editorializing that people should be forced to bus their kids to a dis-advantaged inner city school that is on academic probabtion hoping people won't notice that he lives in the suburbs and sends his child to his local school with a good academic rep.

It's not rocket science.

If you're referring to me, I do live in the suburbs. But I have no children in the school system. I have no children.

Do you mean you have no children or have children but they are grown and are no longer technically such?

I had a stepson who graduated from Northwest High several years ago.

Yeah, it's the fake "I feel your pain" thing. Wingeing about global warming and then building a 28,000 square foot house. Rallying against Wal-Mart and then strong-arming them for a PlayStation instead of waiting in line like the common man. Taking a cool half mil from a hedge fund so that he could "learn how hedge funds relate to poverty." He's not even a good phony.

I don't cut him much slack in those other areas. But I'm still glad he's speaking so directly to the plight of the poor.
Who else is?

The report does not say the problem isn't serious -- just not to the extent that some say it is. It also argues that a get-tough approach on the law enforcement end is ineffective without a similar or even greater emphasis on prevention and intervention.

Not me. I wish he would remain silent forever on all subjects big and small. Clinton I wish would remain silent because of her annoying Yankee accent. Obama for Democratic nominee!

And just to set the record straight, Allen, you did cut Edwards some slack on PlayStationGate, which you suggested, contrary to all evidence, was something less than a naked abuse of power in an effort to procure cutting-edge gaming equipment.

I am one who finds Edwards' image problems indicative of a suspicious manipulative strategy. Being part of the hedge-o-money crowd means he has wandered far from any roots he could ever claim about being from the working (or working poor) class. If he had a plan to tax stock earnings higher than wages, and donated his own windfalls to causes to effect long-tern change to more equitably distribute wealth (and ALL economic policies DO distribute wealth...including tax incentives for corporations, wink-wink loopholes, etc.), then I might be less incredulous about his gargantuan home and the rest.

Warren Buffet, by the way, lives a very banal life, in terms of his physical surroundings and car, for example. Gates, of course, went through a profligate phase before being coaxed (by his wife and Buffet, among others) to trun major philanthropist.

A letter read on NPR's "Morning Edition" today took the program to task for citing Edwards' $400 haircuts and huge house versus his stated concern for the poor in a recent interview.
The writer noted Lyndon Johnson, FDR and the Kennedys as wealthy people who championed the poor and assailed the charges of hypocrisy as illogical.

Lyndon Johnson only "championed" the poor because he figured out how to institute a program whereby Federal money could be used to make the poor dependent on the government and therefore "buy" their votes for a promise of continued "money for nothing."
It's called welfare, and has created more "poor" people and enslaved our minorities like nothing ever seen before.
Lyndon Johnson "championed" himself and the Democratic party. The Dems continue to "champion" those same programs today to buy votes for their party.
Edwards is a smug, snotty, smarmy elitist in the same vein as Leona Helmsley. To him there's two kinds of people: people like him, and the "little people."

So, who speaks for poor people, Jaycee? Who should?
Are they a legitimate issue? Should we care about what their concernss and problems are?
Is their poverty their own fault and their prescription for success simply to work harder and pull themselves up by their proverbial bootstraps?

Define "poor," Allen.
Are you talking about invalids, mentally infirm, elderly, or people otherwise physically unable to support themselves?
Or are you talking about the bulk, those who choose not to work because our government makes it more profitable to remain "poor" as long as they keep voting Democratic to keep the free money rolling in?

I believe the main reason Edwards is being called out on the Poverty issue is that he has produced little in the way of new ideas or solutions to combat poverty. His short stints as our Senator and at UNC's Poverty Center give little confidence that he is serious about the poor and that he used those positions to further his presidential ambitions.