Ordinarily I wouldn't care about Edwards big house but his theme is "Two Americas"

Those who have and those who don't and how this country is screwed up because of this. Like I said, it's not something I am too concerned with but because he constantly talks about these "Two Americas" and then he goes and makes sure everyone knows he is in the "America" that is well off. I think it takes away from his message a little bit.

I think that house could be used against him in a general election campaign by showing him talking about his "Two America's" then the add cutting to his huge house.

Just my two cents. :shrug:


On Edit: I would still support him in a General election and his is still one of my favorites.

"two houses divided cannot stand" or some such thingy. :)

...about attitude. In essence, about those who are greedy and those who are generous. Those who care nothing about anyone else and those who feel a responsibility to others. He and Elizabeth have proven themselves to be the latter over and over.

NGU.

NGU.

but it will muddy his message just a little bit.

good luck with that. Apart from this most recent election, I have had precious little faith in the judgement or wisdom of many of my "fellow citizens".

than with some DUers. DU is not the world you know.

over at Freerepublic. It was also on the front page of the Drudge report. It's an issue that will most certainly come up in the debates and in campaign commercials. I would bet my house on that.

If it's disillusioned 20% of DUers it will likely impact 20% of all Democratic voters, that is a big chuck of the Democratic voting block. Now that this is all over Republican and Democratic blogs I am guessing Edwards is thinking it was a bad idea. It could cost him the election if it's close.


Not a big deal to me but it was a major blunder on Edwards part.

Working class and wealthy. Everyone knows that. Unlike the future politicans who are born wealthy, Edwards is a self-made man, and is uniquely qualified to speak for both Americas. He sets a good example for one side, and gives the other side its conscience.

This is the very last time I'm opining on a politician's damn house.

He came from an upper middle class family. He was NEVER, I repeat, NEVER poor. NEVER.

I'm so tired of this lie.

"The Edwardses were solidly middle class” when Johnny was growing up, according to a four-part profile of the North Carolina senator in his home state’s most prestigious daily, the Raleigh News and Observer. It’s true that for a few years as a young man Edwards’ father worked on the floor of a Roger Milliken textile mill. But Edwards père (a lifelong Republican, like his reactionary boss) quickly climbed upward, becoming a monitor of worker productivity as a “time-study” man — which any labor organizer in the South will tell you is a polite term for a stoolie who spies on the proletarian mill hands to get them to speed up production for the same low wages. Daddy Edwards’ grassing got him promoted to supervisor, then to plant manager — and he finally resigned to start his own business as a consultant to the textile industry. As a Boston Globe profile of Edwards put it last year, the senator never “notes that his father was part of management . . . ‘John was more middle class than most of us,’” says Bill Garner, a high school friend and college roommate."

He does have one...on a private island. :eyes:

Who really thought Edwards was going to park a double wide on his acreage?? He's a self made, wealthy man who has the luxury of working to fight poverty. Does anyone know why his home is so large? Maybe it has a wing for elderly relatives. Maybe they have lots of guests. Maybe there are home offices. Maybe this is all BS - who has measured the place and how did they measure it? Basements don't count when it comes to square footage. Garages don't count. Barns don't count. Porches don't count. Attics don't count.

...their official offices. And probably the offices for One America Committee too.

NGU.

and probably my last. Just out of curiosity, what size house would be appropriate for John Edwards to buy? I would wager that most, if not all, of the presidential candidates live in homes that are far grander than any that most here at DU could afford and if you can afford that kind of home, more power to you. Does this make any difference in their qualifications for the office they are seeking? I think this whole subject has been blown out of proportion.

At least TRY to look in touch.

He accomplished his mission, anyway.

ignoring the needs of the 'have nots'? Edwards isn't my top pick, but I think it would be difficult to accuse him of ignoring the needs of the poor.

I don't think anyone running for president exactly lives in a shack, nor should we expect them to. They don't need to become a martyr for the cause in order to make sound and effective leadership decisions.

Considering his campaign theme, you don't go out and build an ostentatious house and not expect that reasonable people will view that as hypocrisy.

It's not the first time he's shown questionable judgment, btw.

It's already hurting his message right hear on DU. It's obviously hit a nerve with about 20% of people on DU. I still love the guy but I think he would have done better to buy a more modest 4,000 sf home at least to protect his message.

I was on the other side of this issue yesterday but the thread with the starving child kind of got to me and made me pause and think that perhaps I was being a Hypocrite.

Yourself Quixote!

In my 6 months on DU, this whole house thread reaction is the first time I have questioned being a member here. On balance, I have felt in familiar and supportive company on the vast majority of issues, but not this time.

What has baffled me Quixote, is whereas Al Gore is our straw poll Pres favorite - with his eloquent words speaking of the dangers of Global Warming and ALL we can do (including building smaller and wiser) to prevent it's growth - why are these same people getting so upset at the 20% who have been critical of John's HUGE house + recreation facility etc.?

It just does not mesh, IMHO, that these are the same folks that support Al Gore's message?

I pondered that very question here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x57317

Thanks for sharing both your wisdom and humility as you pondered the question :)



peace~


p.s. I'm going to stay at DU - heck, we all pulled together wonderfully last Novemeber. I think we will again in 08 :kick: :hi:

The first thread on this subject went overboard. It immediately said "Edwards was finished!" and went on to just tear Edwards into shreds. If the first thread had been written to get people to reflect a little I think it would have started a meaningful debate rather than turn everyone against one another. I was turned off by the tone of the first thread and it immediately pushed me to the other side, however as time went on I started to realize that we were not standing behind the kinds of values Democrats so often boast about as you so eloquently talked about in your post.

I agree with what you said 100%! Gore's message seems to be bing ignored here on DU and it's disappointing.

... toward Edwards. IMHO, he tends to be more 'right' than 'wrong.' Nonetheless, such conspicuous consumption seems exceptionally tone deaf, at the very least. (I caution myself to be alert to the populist whose words appeal to me but whose behavior betrays his words. I'm not so smart that I can't be fooled. That's why I refuse to become a partisan.)

Altogether too many seem to subscribe to the "might makes right" operative philosophy of the right, which is indubitably prevalent in the corollary "economic might makes right." When I see so many DUers claiming that the ability to afford such excesses is sufficient justification for indulging in such excesses, I have to seriously wonder just how blindly corrupt we are as a culture that we cannot step outside of such attitudes and wonder how humanity itself can be sustained on this planet and hold to such 'values.'

If such "economic right makes right" then why are so many irrationally upset at smokers how PAY for their 'right' to smoke? After all, if they can pay the tobacco taxes and buy the cigarettes, doesn't that make it 'right'?? :evilgrin:

It seems that we're so embedded in thinking that consumerism is the map to 'happiness' that we've gotten totally corrupted ... in a country that gave us Thoreau, no less.

Wacky, to say the least. :eyes: