Edwards: Wealth hasn't changed advocacy

[JohnLocke]

Edwards: Wealth hasn't changed advocacy
By Mike Glover--Associated Press
Monday, May 7, 2007
----
DES MOINES, Iowa --Presidential candidate John Edwards said Monday it's silly to suggest that his wealth and expensive tastes have hurt his credibility as an advocate for the poor.
Edwards noted that some of the most acclaimed anti-poverty advocates came from privileged backgrounds, including Franklin Roosevelt and Bobby Kennedy.
"You could see and feel the empathy they had," said Edwards, speaking from his home in North Carolina during an interview on Iowa Public Radio.
Edwards, a former North Carolina senator, has made poverty a central issue of his campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination and recently released a book on the subject, "Ending Poverty in America." He also has formed a center for the study of poverty issues at the University of North Carolina.
His credibility on the issue has been challenged by critics who point to his 28,000-square-foot home in North Carolina and his $400 haircuts. He rejected the criticism, saying a look at history shows that personal wealth doesn't disqualify people from advocating for the poor.
"It feels a little silly to me," Edwards said. "This is an issue I care deeply about."
Edwards is the son of a mill worker who achieved wealth as a trial lawyer.
The mission of his campaign is to ensure that all Americans have a chance for such success, he said.
"It's just where my heart and my passion are," said Edwards, adding that his emphasis on poverty issues resonates with activists, because few other candidates focus on the issue.
"The reality of poverty is a very complex thing," said Edwards. "One problem compounds the next problem."
----
Read the rest here.

[Dora]

1. I intend to have a lot of money some day.

I have ideas, I intend to work hard at seeing them into fruition, and I intend to profit mightily.

I hope that people won't hold it against me.

[jcrew2001]

19. Only if you run for president and try to help others

then people will really hate you.

[BeyondGeography]

2. What this tells me is Team Edwards is worried about the perception problem

and internal polling is suggesting the house-and-haircut memes are actually hurting. Otherwise, why make such statements?

[jcrew2001]

18. Good thing Kerry never talked about his 5 houses in 2004

and only relied on his Vietnam duty to beat Dean/Edwards in Iowa.

[ripple]

3. All of the candidates have wealth

I don't have to have a disability to advocate for those who do, any more than Edwards needs to be poor, in order to advocate for the poor.

It's too bad that these criticisms don't seem to be going away for Edwards, because I think he has a genuine interest in elevating the poor and middle class (what's left of it, anyway).

[loyalsister]

24. nondisabled advocates

actually aren't taken all that seriously by people with disabilities.

Likewise, a simultaneous display of excess and advocacy for the poor smacks of condescension. It just doesn't fly.

[ripple]

26. As a non-disabled case manager and advocate for people with disabilities

I know first-hand that as fucked up as it is, many people with disabilities seek out a non-disabled advocate, so that they will be taken seriously and not be regarded as someone *with a disability* who is merely unhappy with their circumstances.

[Missy M]

4. I don't know why his wealth should be a problem.....

he wasn't given his wealth on a silver platter. He worked hard and earned it and I applaud him for that. He can still advocate for the poor and middle class because that's where he came from.

[CreekDog]

5. Even candidates who were born into wealth can be good advocates for the poor

However, Edwards certainly earned his wealth and status.

Nevertheless, if someone born into fantastic wealth and power decided to use that advantage to speak up for the disadvantaged, like the Kennedys and the Roosevelts, more power to them.

In fact, that is one of the greatest things you can do with a gift you are given, that is, use it for the benefit of others. Back in the old days, this was admirable and expected, unlike now when it is rare and seen as hypocritical.

1984 was a warning not an instruction manual.

[Missy M]

9. I cetainly agree with you....

the Roosevelts and Kennedys are/were advocates for the poor and I admire them for it.

[Sapphire Blue]

6. K&R

Ending Poverty in America

JOHN EDWARDS for PRESIDENT 2008

:woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo:

:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:
:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:
:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

Transformational Change For America And The World - JOHN EDWARDS 08

"I'm proposing we set a national goal of eliminating poverty in the next 30 years." - JOHN EDWARDS 08

Silence is Betrayal - JOHN EDWARDS 08

[GreenArrow]

7. "weatlh hasn't changed advocacy"

Of course it hasn't; the only one Edwards is really advocating for is himself.

Caveat emptor.

[CreekDog]

8. Green: so you are saying, Edwards is running for president

And he is advocating to get elected to that job.

Well, if that was a disqualification, all the other candidates are eliminated too.

So, that would be a stupid disqualification.

So, let's get on to real things, like what his positions are, if they are worthwhile and what his chances of enacting them. Let's do this with Edwards, the other candidates and figure out who to support based on that.

If you want to also think about how wealthy a candidate is, how much their hair costs (does Hillary get to spend more than Edwards, hmmmm?), then add that into your equation. But to make decisions based on these things means that you are too stupid to be listened to because by making these the critical decision points, you have said that all other positions are lesser or equal value to hair and wealth.

And that is stupid. If I choose Clinton because Edwards is wealthy and worked on a hedge fund and has expensive haircuts and makeup, but Clinton is wealthy, worked in business and seems like she spends on her hair, clothes and makeup (word is out from the anti-Edwards camp on whether it's okay for her to spend on these things because she doesn't claim to have been born middle class). Oh yes, and maybe you will pick Obama, he too is wealthy, but not too much, though it is growing. Word is out on whether he spends too much on personal grooming.

Yes, when that bunch of carp starts edging out policies, political abilities and actual (not perceived) character, it all sounds like a bunch of malarky.

Pick the best candidate based on the things they are supposed to do and their ability to do them and their honesty in living up to what they say they will do.

But not based on how much they have in the bank. Egads.

[GreenArrow]

11. you're making too much out of it

and putting it in the wrong place.

My opinion of Edwards is that he is a huckster, and that there is little in his record to indicate any genuine advocacy of the poor. All the poverty rhetoric is feel good stuff intended to attract voters susceptible to such stuff, with the further intent of feeding John Edwards' ego. It's my perception that he's patently fake. That's my opinion, and while time and circumstances may prove me wrong, he's done little to dissuade me of it. As with the smirking and giggling George W. Bush, or unctuous televangelists of the Joel Osteen type, I tend to be immune to the brand of "charm" he specializes in.

As for his hair and house -- I didn't mention them -- these are issues only insofar they highlight a disconnect between his rhetoric and his actions. If he weren't making an issue out of poverty, no one would be talking about either of them. The hair, maybe... a 400 dollar haircut might come across as more than a little effete and extravagant to ordinary people. My decision to not support Edwards does not rest on either of these issues, though I do see them as ancillary evidence against him, given that they a)show a sort of political tone-deafness, and b)say something about his values.

As far as going into his policies, it gets back to rhetoric and record again. There's little consistency, and his passionate support of IWR is an instant dealbreaker.

[jcrew2001]

17. Do you think he'll be a bad president?

And won't care about the poverty issues when he gets there?

Will Obama, etc. learn through Trial by Fire?

[CreekDog]

21. Green: Good thing you call it your "opinion"

Because it is totally unsubstantiated.

-You call him a huckster
-You say his anti poverty positions are to serve his ego
-You "perceive" that he is fake
-You said you may be proven wrong by time and circumstance
-You said that you believe this in part because Edwards hasn't dissuaded you of these opinions thoughts you've come to through no evidence (he hasn't proved a negative in other words --by the way get a clue on proving a negative)
-You also said his hair and house highlight a conflict between his rhetoric and action
(okay, this one is just flat wrong because he has not argued against having either thing, nor has he argued that if poor people wanted such things that it would be wrong)

So, all your attacks are unsubstantiated, one of them is patently wrong. You claim that your opinions are not fair game, because you are not responsible to have correct opinions despite the damage that expressing them does, especially since you admit you may be wrong, proven wrong no less! But if you make incorrect statements, you are responsible for the damage they cause. Next time you are defamed, or your children or family members, see how you feel when the defamer says, "it's just MY opinion and you never proved me wrong anyway."
Utter nonsense.

Finally, you refer to his "passionate support" of IWR. Okay, now you are finally at a point that has some merit, although you will have to substantiate the "passionate" part. Why couldn't you simply start out with this, back it up and let that stand. Instead, you attack him based on things that you admit may not be true.

How ridiculous.

So, since you are doing this, why even take you or your arguments seriously?

[w4rma]

10. A true philanthropist. (nt)

[GreenArrow]

12. .........................

.......................

[gordon1]

13. interesting

thanks for the post on this

[GeorgeGist]

14. Dear John,

It's not just silly, but disingenuous, to pretend that excessive personal wealth doesn't ultimately require exploiting the poor.


:puffpiece:

[1932]

15. Except that his wealth came from shifting wealth back to the exploited.

He was a trial lawyer who represented people who suffered damages from negligence that stemmed from companies trying to increase their profits by not doing small things to protect the public.

[jcrew2001]

16. Does Kerry exploit the poor? are you a socialist?

maybe everyone should just hire a lawyer and sue everyone else. I know of a very good, successful lawyer.

[shireen]

20. he's right ...

it IS silly!

If anything at all, I think it makes him more credible. It shows the depth of his compassion and empathy. None of the other candidates, both Dems and Repubs, have shown any real concern for the poor.

The only other rich Dem that I can think of that matches Edwards's commitment to eradicating poverty is Ted Kennedy. Another rich guy who really cares.

[CreekDog]

22. The uninformed don't like Edwards

Yes, they can't quite put their finger on it, or they can't back it up, but he seems like this or that.

Meanwhile, his defenders use fact, history, actual quotes (not ellipsis and paraphrase) to prove them wrong, or to dispute baseless assertions.

Who should I believe? Who should you believe?

[jcrew2001]

23. Instead of poverty, focus on Economic Growth and utilizing

the financial markets to spur job employment, low interest rates, capital investment in businesses and new technology/industry, college education grants and loan reimbursements, lower gas/oil through energy independence, lower health care. And lower the middle class taxes.

[CreekDog]

25. Jcrew: thanks for your comments

You keep pointing out ways to make our economy work for everyone which is I think what Edwards, and some of the other potential nominees are working for --but Edwards' policies are the most developed thus far.

[illinoisprogressive]

27. I don't care about his money. But, the man is determined to undermine his campaign

I do not support him but, I don't hate the man. I get very frustrated by his major fluffs. I am sorry about what has happened to him.
He really needs to watch out for this as it will drive some potential voters away and if he gets the nomination he could get killed in the general.
Only words to express my concern. I like the man and have nothing bad to say to be mean.