The Edwards house debate shows how juvenile and selfish some are

An extremely wealthy man who lives in the lap of luxury and buys palatial estates blathering on about helping the poor? Hypocrisy! Murder! He's essentially killing the poor with his own hands, isn't he? Drive him out and burn him at the fucking stake, right? Well, unfortuantely I was talking about FDR, who has done more for the poor of this country than any politician before or since, and he did it all in what some here would consider the most disgusting state of hypocrisy: he was rich, filthy rich, lived very luxuriously and as opposed to Edwards was born with a whole drawer of the Sterling in his mouth.

Based on the arguments we're all seeing in GD, FDR had -no right- to fight for the poor. Why? Because he wasn't "doing enough" in his own personal life, with his personal finances. While that was certainly true, what he did in his public life far overshadowed all private acts of philanthropy ever heard of in this country. But according to DU, having a big house makes you unacceptable as a fighter for the poor. FDR should have sat down and shut his big fat rich gob. Well that's idiocy, and the millions who were lifted out of poverty by this man should make you ashamed of your immature, simplistic, black & white thinking. I don't give a shit how much money some politician makes--talking about the poor makes a difference, and I am not so purist as to preclude someone from fighting for the impoverished in this country based on his bank account or car collection.

This reminds me of the Iraq debate, where some DUers demanded all those who voted for IWR should shut up about criticizing Bush on the war, since they hadn't "earned" the right to do so. That's a lot of fucking nonsense--there are some issues where we need all the support we can get. It's not about being emotionally comforted by a neat little Hollywood philanthropy story, it's about making a real difference for the poor, and we need the help of rich folks and especially politicians to make it work--the very people you're shouting down. The very people who made such a huge difference in the past. One needn't be rich to make a difference about poverty, but one needn't be a fucking monk either. This reminds me that some DUers care more about their own exclusive ideas of "good" and "bad" than they care about making a tangible difference.

And maybe this ridiculous "controversy" will blow over and I can stop hiding some seriously annoying threads. Thank you, jpgray.

in the past may not be the level of hypocrisy that will be tolerated today.

I'm glad his "level of hypocrisy" was tolerated. And so were millions poorer than you.

Funny how you speak for me and don't know me.

But feel free to claim his "level of hypocrisy" should have precluded him from doing anything. He did so much, and at a time when his wealth and luxury was offset by extreme poverty on a level far exceeding today's.

I think I know a little bit about hard times.

How do you find the gall to say that FDR had no right to fight for the poor simply because he wasn't living an ascetic existnce himself? Isn't it possible that even those who live in luxury should do their utmost to help those in need even if they won't give up their superfluities?

than you're an asshole.

:shrug:

Fucking morans.

are those who are rich and pretend to help the poor.

Edwards exacerbated it by building his Taj Mahal.

By buying a house? He can't make much of an impact that way, in his private life. He can make a -huge- impact in public life--if he passes a bill that raises the minimum wage or insures that people have affordable health care, that makes a bigger impact in helping the poor than a thousand fancy houses could do to hurt them.

Aggregation is the problem.

Edwards is a symptom of the problem.

:shrug: Now you really have me confused as to what your point is. Edwards's house has no real affect on poverty and income disparity in this country. It's true that it is symptomatic and evidence that Edwards has luxurious tastes, but it makes such an infinitesimal difference to anything that I can't see it as a big concern. Now, what his -policies- would be in office could make a huge difference, because they are magnified by his office in a way his private decisions are not. It would be nice if the two were totally congruent and harmonious in every way, but if he has to give in to luxury somewhere, I'm glad it's in his private life and -not- his public. That house directly affects almost no one, but a bill providing affordable drugs could affect millions positively. So that's why I don't particularly care what kind of house he has.

That he did not speaks volumes.

I suppose none of them should speak about combating poverty. How many acres is too many? How many master bedrooms makes one a hypocrite? Do you see how silly this is?

eom

Consigning poor people to continued suffering because any of the politicians who might help via legislation don't live simply enough is absolutely ridiculous in its selfishness.

decrease the disparity between the rich and poor how precisely?

Edwards is a symptom of a larger problem.

www.lcurve.org

this house, how would it have helped mitigate the disparity between the rich and poor?

Themselves.

and pretend it's metaphor, then can't even explain how it would be better if he hadn't built the damn house.

You have no argument at all - just a lot of irrational hate.

to smear Edwards at every given opportunity... Me thinks thou does protest too much!!!

... has goal-posts that can be moved around at will. The nerve of that guy!








:eyes:

I'm curious...

What is the precise square-footage allowable for a house before the 'Hypocrisy' label is applied? On what is this determination based?

Also, are we not ourselves hypocrites because we have warm grub in our bellies, a PC from which to post from, and a place to live while so many others on this planet have absolutely none of these things?

What is the precise amount (relative or absolute) we are to give in charity before we are allowed to concern ourselves with the problems of wealth distribution before we are also labeled as a hypocrite? On what is this amount based?

:shrug:

:eyes:

Look at Warren Buffet, one of the richest men on the planet, who still lives in a house purchased for $31,500 over 40 years ago.

And HE doesn't even espouse "poverty issues" as Edwards does.

And yes, I realize that he can make a big difference in poverty issues.

Just don't expect me to bow down before him after this ostentatious display.

Please explain.

eom

How did building his house increase the disparity between the rich and the poor?

Be specific.

And showing poor judgment in building his Taj Mahal.

You have metaphorically been spewing shit on your keyboard.

eom

of an honest response, yeah, the joke is on me.

3rd world starvation, or AIDS in Africa.

eom

given your relatively wealthy lifestyle.

This reminds me that some DUers care more about their own exclusive ideas of "good" and "bad" than they care about making a tangible difference.

That is as succinct and accurate a statement as I've ever seen on here. I wish I'd been the one to write it.

Dumbshits - here's how it works: tell us exactly how many square feet of house is acceptable for a Democrat. Also let us know what is the absolute upper limit of value for a house, and for assets, and for income. If we're not allowed to own an SUV, can we have a pickup? Can it be a dualie? If we don't have air conditioning in it, can we have the reinforced suspension?

Can I make $120000 a year and still be a liberal? $125,000? $50,000? If I make less than the upper limit, am I allowed more square footage in my house? If I make more than the upper limit, can I make up for it by owning a much smaller house - so if, say, I make $20 million a year making films, can I still be a liberal if I live in a 100 sq. foot studio apartment in a poor section of town?

Why don't you holier-than-thou jackoffs just spell it out for us, so we don't have to live in the ambi-fucking-guity any more.

Tell us, please - exactly and precisely what a "real" liberal is?

Fuckwits.



Nice post, jpgray. :yourock:

And to answer your specific questions, "real" liberals are required to live in environmentally-friendly, biodegradable mud huts no larger than 500 square feet. They must drive solar-powered cars or ride a bicycle. If you are genuinely wealthy (in the upper 5%), you have to wear hemp-fiber pants.

:yourock:

:toast:

I can't imagine Gore ever living in that sort of house, given Gore's values.

Clearly, Edwards does not share Gore's values or the values of many other environmental progressives.

I think he should still fight for both. All the more -because- he has nicer things than most.

FDR was in office. I bet you my house FDR would have moved into a modest house to protect the environment if he knew it was important to do so.

You're rich as Roosevelt .... you're just CHEAP Cosmo!

Just sayin'!

SNAP OUT OF IT!

Here in LA there are billboards all over town advertising for the Oscars. What the theme this year is great lines from movies. They BETTER have that line! It's a classic.

Moonstruck is my all time favorite movie.

Thank you. :-)

I think there are good points and bad points on BOTH sides. My main problem is that this 30,000 sf house is NOT consistent with our message of living modestly and caring about the environment. If Rush Limbaugh drives a SUV everyone on DU goes ballistic but John Edwards can cut down almost 50,000 trees and everyone jumps to his defense. Come on! You don't see the hypocrisy????

Al Gore in his book and movie which so many on DU love to brag about, talks of living modestly, green and using as few natural resources as possible.

I am not that upset about John Edwards house and that is what is bothering me about myself. I have done a 360 degree turn on this issue since yesterday because I knew I was being a hypocrite.

Also, the story about John Edwards 30,000sf house is now catching fire on all the Republican blogs and over at Freerepublic! This actually could do just enough damage to Edwards that it could cost him a close election.

Last month I heard that John Edwards had about 40 to 50 acres of woodland taken down on his property. I also heard that he had to cut through a lot of red tape to do this. The county in which he lives has a lot of strong tree ordinances in place.....Orange county is the "bluest" county in the state, and there are many active environmental groups in the area, including the Triangle Land Conservancy.

Since I am active in some of these groups and consider conserving Green Space a top priority in this fast growing area, I don't appreciate it when anyone, whether a real estate developer or an individual, gets "special privileges".

John Edwards was never particularly friendly to environmental groups when he was a Senator. So I guess I'm saying that when he starts talking about global warming, etc., I will have the right to take his words with a grain of salt.

If you find more about that, can you post it?

I'll bet you twenty bucks here and now that it's twice as big as mine.

This perception that many are trying to force - that John Edwards is lighting cigars with semi-extinct animals and driving a bulldozer over the Last Tree On Earth while Al Gore lives an angelic existence in a house designed by Ed Begley Jr. is nothing short of ridiculous.

So somebody post a pic of Al Gore's house so we can get a copy of it to John Edwards. Then Edwards can tear down the house he just built, build one exactly like Al Gore's, then everyone will be happy.

- as

What now bothers me about Edwards is the sabre-rattling talk about Iran. I'd been leaning his way, but I am now back to uncommitted as to those who have announced.

I'm not a huge Edwards fan, but it warms my heart that someone is making poverty a -central- issue in his campaign, and the people who say he should shut up because his house has too many bathrooms or whatever really need to get over themselves.

I couldn't care less about his stupid house.

raging about Edwards house adds nothing substitive to the debate.

ignore

that WE DO NOT KNOW IF THIS IS REALLY A HOUSE. We will look down right stupid if this "project" is some sort of a retreat, etc. I don't think he is that stupid but again, I hope I am right about this.

Edited to mention that IMO since he is rich, he can do whatever the heck he wants with his "lana". I think we are helping the freepers with his criticism.

For hosting guests, having meetings, and other such things.
All that space isn't really for his private living. If he had built a 3,000 square foot house instead, he couldn't really hold large meetings, dinners, and other events or have multiple guests stay the night like he probably will at this place.

http://blog.johnedwards.com/story/2007/1/26/15303/2358

We built a highly energy efficient house. In fact, our home is Energy-Star rated. Energy Star is an EPA regulated designation for homes that are at least 30 percent more efficient than the national Model Energy Code. In building we made sure we had effective insulation in floors, walls, and attics. We chose efficient heating and cooling equipment and high-performance windows. Our builder paid close attention to making sure the construction was tight to seal out drafts and moisture. The day the independent inspector came to evaluate the house, we were on pins and needles while he tested our home's energy performance. As he packed his equipment, he gave us the good news: we are an Energy-Star home!

______________________________________________

The time has come for us to start living modestly. Perhaps Edwards could have moved into an existing 30,000 sf house and made it green?

The legislation or policies that someone supports can and will. I'd love for politicians to be wholly consistent in private and public life, but if they have to be heartless assholes, I'd rather they be such in private life. In public life, the power of the office magnifies their decisions to affect many more people. This is why I don't have a problem with Ted "Nantucket" Kennedy fighting for a higher minimum wage--that will do infinitely more good to the poor of this country than his luxurious private life ever did harm to same.

and he should set a better example. We all need to try and do more. A few weeks ago my Unitarian Church did a play on being green.

Just because Edwards is likely to do a lot for the poor and the Environment doesn't mean he should be let off the hook for doing his part with the way he lives his every day life.

But his taste for fine things doesn't directly keep food away from a hungry child. It's public policies and legislation that do that sort of thing, and no sort of real estate is going to stop me from supporting those who want to put a big spotlight on combating poverty.

Am I that concerned with Edwards big house? Not really? Do I think he should have bought a more modest house and not cut down all those trees? Yes, but as long as he works hard for important issues I am not going to beat myself up over his weaknesses. We should all strive to do better with the environment now that we are teetering on the brink. Everything we do is important and effects the world around us. I like Edwards but I think he may have undercut his message of "Two Americas" by showing which America he would rather live in. If he gets the nomination you can bet the Republicans will be relentless in attacking him on this issue. They already are! He would have been much smarter to buy a modest house and kept his message pure and not left the right any openings to attack him!

:D It certainly would have been wise to buy a modest house, but doubtless even that would displease people: "Who is he fooling, trying to live modestly? He stays in luxury hotel X on the campaign trail, he drives a BMW--he's only doing it for politics... etc." In fact I think Ralph Nader of all people has been accused of just that--buying a big house for his brother and staying there much of the time while maintaining a modest place for the sake of publicity, etc. To me it's not that important.

I don't give a frig about his house - I just can't find where he did anything substantial as a senator to help Democratic causes, like poverty and such. He did help Big Banking and the push for the IWR though.

That's my concern. I don't care about his house (it looks like a set of Lego houses to me, though, with the red and green roofs. LOL!)

The same can be said for Senator Ted Kennedy, another Democratic hero, who was born with more money than I'll make in my lifetime. Yet he has dedicated his career to helping the least favored among us, often championing policies that would increase the taxes of he and every member of his family. I've never seen anyone crapping on his parade though...

Edwards will continue the same ole supply-side crap, perhaps with a few cosmetic adjustments and a little faux-populist rhetoric tossed in. That doesn't even BEGIN to compare to the New Deal. Anyone who thinks it does -- well, doesn't think much at all.

Me, I kind of like the house threads. Aside from the entertainment value of panning bad architecture, they give us a chance to point out Edwards' AIPAC toadying and his warmongering toward Iran.

Which is what seems to be going around.

that have the words "house", "home" and "Edwards" in the title. Is that possible?

For those who possess empathy, living poor is not necessary to help the poor.

feel no need to display their wealth.

Or perhaps you meant to say "flaunt", not "display".

Pretty goddamned hard not to display one's wealth. I do it every day by driving my car, by having clothes that aren't in tatters, by eating, and by having eyeglasses with a current prescription. Oh, and I own a coat and shoes and sometimes I go outside and take pictures with my digital camera.

I'm not "wealthy" by any means, but I know a few billion people around the world and America who WOULD consider me wealthy simply because I have the above, plus access to disease free clean water, and health care.

"Wealth" is a totally relative term. Sure, it's easy to point the finger at a gigantic house like Edwards'. Not so easy to point the finger at ourselves and point out our own lazing in opulance at the expense of the rest of the world. I hold no pretenses that I am safe from the same accusative finger that people are finding it so easy to point at Edwards or other rich people. Let's face the truth - all of us on DU have more money, more wealth, more opportunity, and more rub-it-in-the-faces-of-the-poor than 95% of the world.

Do you have Internet access? Then welcome to the ranks of the world's most elite wealthy people. Now, stop displaying that wealth, please. Or have you no empathy?

Flaunt is a better word, stronger, more precise...

He had worked hard to earn them, but he was for the poor, he will never forget how hard it was for him to get where he is, heck people two lawyers in a home, should be able to get what they want, the two togeather spent 16 years in school. It is now wonder we democrats get beaten, we kill our own selves, we don't need the republicans to do it for us... Roosevelt, was a wealthy man, that certainly didn't stop him from helping the middle and lower class workers in the nation. What do you want a pauper, would a man with that much education with nothing to show for it look a little lazy. Edwards like any poor guy that has pulled himself up by the bootstraps are proud of them selves, but lets do a little thinking, I just bet that John Edwards is going to use that house for some thing other than just living there, he has small kids and probably needs a nanny, plus there are parents to look after.. Give the guy a break.

some people believe 'equality' means economic equality as well, and take a more marxist view.

Any group of people selected at random across society, like any healthy political party is bound
to be, will incorporate rich and poor, if it is a just party, members of all demographic segments.

Some militant marxists would tax and usurp space, and others don't accept the complex fact that another
man's life is his own, and that our culture really is become a plutocracy... new wealth must show itself.

and start making so much sense. :hi:

Doubtless now I'll be labeled an "Edwards diehard" and every post will be suspected. :rofl:

john edwards pulled himself out of nothing and we can't tolerate this

same reason why small minds hate bill clinton

it's one thing for the rich to have nobless oblige -- this is why no one objects to FDR having a nice home except the truliest nuttiest nut -- but a large element in this society just can't stand to see a poor person or a person of "no" family background pull themselves up

it just won't be tolerated, in america we hate the idea that a person can escape and improve themselves, and the louder we talk about bootstraps and "opportunity," the more we hate that rare individual who succeeds at the bootstrapping and using the opportunity

i really wonder about people sometimes

edwards deserves every square inch of the finest home he cares to buy, he earned it

we should be in the business of giving people dreams, not crapping on dreams

as far as the 50,000 trees, there are trees and trees, if he cut down 50,000 junk pines, then he probably greatly improved the landscape as far as small wildlife, shrubs, and wildflowers -- too much of the south is "pine tree desert" and devoid of value as habitat and of no value to anyone except the paper mills

"To help this jungle grow
First we had to pave it"

(From Contras, Kings and Generals.)

Cutting down diseased or insect infested trees does help the environment, by SAVING other trees. Cutting down dead wood standing and thinning a forest WILL help the other trees. Sheesh! But, I guess a blanket statement shows something....not sure what, though.

Broader picture, yes. But let's be real. He wasn't removing diseased trees, or thinning a forest. There's nothing in the clearcutting he did that helps the environment.

You put absolutely NO context in your statement - so your post is ABSOLUTELY dishonest, because it was an ABSOLUTE statement. DUH! Show me ONE word in your post that "put it in context". You can't, because your statement was FALSE. Period. False. Absolutely FALSE. A damned LIE. Read your OWN statement before you start insulting other DUers!

As I said, it's true in a broad sense, but within the context of discussing JOHN EDWARDS clear cutting the woods on JOHN EDWARDS' property, a statement defending tree removal on the grounds that thinning or removing diseased trees can help a forest remain healthy seems irrelevant at best, deliberately misleading at worst.

It's quite clear from the photos that the clear cutting had nothing to do with infestations or disease or thinning.

made a statement. And it's not like they won't plant other trees in that space - trees ARE a renewable resource, after all. Besides, I'm looking at that land in the context of what's happening in Michigan - we are losing ALL our ash trees - many millions so far - due to the ash borer. We've already lost most of our birch trees due to the birch borer. It's costing this state milions and millions to locate all the infested ash trees, because most homeowners are too ignorant to know what kind of trees they have, let alone determine if it's infested or diseased. The trees of this world are facing a far greater danger from global warming than the trees clear cut from john Edward's land. There's the leveling of entire forests for cattle farms - the Amazon is expected to be gone in a few years. But even more dangerous is what global warming will do - introduce new pests and diseases which will kill many forests, especially those single species forests, which are more vulnerable.
I'm talking about what's happening to our planet, not some acreage in NC.
And, in case you think I don't know what clear-cutting looks like - they are currently clear-cutting a NINETY acres woods across the street from me. Then, they're turning it into a One Hundred and Fifty Acre gravel pit!!! (We protested and the town council laughed at us. Laughed. Two historic homes will also be destroyed for this purpose.) At least the critters disturbed by Edward's clear-cutting still have plenty of woods left, unlike those where I live.

Species diversity is a good thing.

just like your garbage man earns his pay every week, and quite frankly, works a hell of a lot harder than John Edwards. That Garbageman will never be able to afford a 30,ooo ft. compound, but is his work any less valuable than John Edwards'?

Anyway, Edwards has his money, and yes, he can spend it any way he likes, but when he spends it on something as frivolous as a McRanch, I find it difficult to take any of his "poverty" rhetoric seriously.

it's his money not ours that he is spending and I dont care if he lives in an apartment, mobile home or a 900 room mansion---its his money he earned it, he can build whatever he wants unlike the bush crime family who has used OUR money to enrich the lives of themself and their cronies. There are too many issues for us to worry about besides what someone is building to live in. Its none of our business if we arent paying for it then we have no right to bitch and whine about it. I know what poverty is I am a 48 yr old college student living on 12k a year (down from 65k)I learned real fast how to do without...its not a forever thing just an life lesson.
We can either work as a team and figure ways to make life better or we can be the 'haves' the "have nots" and "the members of the whimpy whiner club" and personally I would rather be on the side that is working together to make sure everyone has a decent life.
So stop pissing and moaning about things you cant change and take that energy and work towards things you can change.
<end of my rant> thank you and have a good nite.

most forget that the founding fathers were not poor men who raised up against the rich. Blame the way history is taught in the country. A lot of people think that G Washington and the rest were poor farmers, hard working people. In reality G Washington was a rich white plantation owner who got rich off the hard labor of his slaves. John Hancock, made his wealth smuggling tea. Ben Franklin made his riches a number of ways, mostly from running a printing press then writing books like the farmers almanac which he sold. Even honest Abe, who was born in a log cabin, which I take as meaning he was poor,by the time he was elected prezinut not only had Lincoln become wealthy he had also married into wealth.

Most of these stories about the great leaders were started to show the voters that these people were from poor working stock just like the voters were to help them get elected. In modern times these election stories were used to show school children that through hard work they too could raise above lifes hardships and become prezinut. Is it any wonder after what Reagan ran at america that some of these people who weren't around during the 50's or 60's don't think a rich man will look out for those less fortunate then themselves?

It's nice when someone is that wholly good, but if it were a requirement for doing good, hardly any would be done.

right now!!! What right have they to still live large even if they have given billions to charity??? :crazy:



:sarcasm: in case any have missed it.

made all his wealth. He raised four kids there in Omaha and he's never left. I've seen pictures of his home. It kind of looks like a ranch house. His kids all turned out well and are amazingly non-materialistic.

Oh, you probably know that he started out as a Republican, but under the influence of of wife, he now considers himself a Democrat. :)

made lots of money prosecuting docs who committed malpractice. My relative grew up poor, put himself through school and med school. He and Edwards beat down the big guys and won judgements for people whose babies had been damaged. Neither of them had money handed to them, they earned every dime by helping people. They didn't plan on hitting the jack pot, they just did. Get off it. Stop buying this crap about Edwards. He's a good guy.

no matter how you slice or one's ideological attachments the level of corpulence we are talking about here, Edward's house, is beyond grotesque. The war's that are being fought in our name are for one thing and one thing only- Resources. If we even pretend to be against these wars then it must translate into action. Protests, rallies, demos, civil disobedience yes. But tied to all of this is the violence of our everyday lives of conspicuous consumption that require copious amounts of resources in order to prop these "lifestyles" up. Understanding this one must see how that serves as an engine for these wars. Once you understand this you must act with conscience. Is it not your obligation? And particularly if you claim to be a leader.

And we've not even touched upon the ecological consequences of such a plutocratic existence. That in the days of radical climate change.

It's irresponsible.

I'm not arguing that there's nothing wrong with a luxurious lifestyle--there's plenty wrong with it. But to argue that the privileged and those with lots of superfluities should be morally barred from trying to help the poor at -all- if they don't do it -enough-, that I find ridiculous. No one seems to mention Ted Kennedy's palatial Nantucket holdings when his fighting for a raise in the minimum wage comes up. Why is it so particular with Edwards? But bottom line, one person's house isn't going to make a difference for millions--progressive legislation to fight poverty will. Making the former a bigger issue than the latter is beyond ridiculous.

we should be looking at all of our congress folk and consider whether our interests are really, or even can be, their interests. I'm also very suspicious of charity. MLK and others warned us of its insidious nature.

If Ted were running for Prez he would probably be scrutinized but then again the Kennedy's are America's royalty.

Another question that relates is what are our conceptions of being poor and wealthy and how those have been shaped. This sort of opulence on display by Edward's furthers that type of diseased ideology. Are we to try to lift all boats to this certain preconceived level? If you look at that it is really a recipe for further ecological catastrophe if not an outright irreversible move towards omnicide. It's just too much. Our children will be cursing us.

The solution is to make it possible to live with less. Frugality and simplicity are now seen as aberrant behaviors. Affluenza holds the day. People take for granted their middle class lifestyle and see it as normalcy. It's been fully internalized with little examination into what it entails. It is a form of punishment towards the future.

But the latter is of course absolutely necessary, and the way we live today is utterly unsustainable. It is perpetuating a rich-poor gap -between- nations as well as within them as economic clout goes to finding cheap labor and keeping it cheap. That means no labor regulations, no environmental regulations--a lot of inertia to keep poor nations poor and their leaders susceptible to economic influence. Not to mention our energy expenditure, etc. That definitely needs focus and you are right to bring it up.

Cause and effect.

If you screw over the environment, people eventually die. Your choice is a false one - if you don't prioritize sustainable living, you haven't prioritized saving lives.

But faced with the decision to use money either to keep a starving child alive or to fund alternative energy research, I'd be hard pressed to choose the latter.

You'll see that the vast majority of the posts completely lacking in reason have a signature or username containing a certain candidate... When you pick who you donate to, volunteer for, or vote in the primary ... just remember that many voters are a reflection of their candidate.... Don't vote Clark!

But I don't see why rabid spinners reflect on the candidate necessarily--there were people -scarily- obsessed with Howard Dean in '04, but he was still a great candidate. For example, I don't see myself supporting Edwards in the primaries as of right now, but it's still very early.

In some ways it's good because it helps keep us honest, but it can also distract us from real issues. Edward's house is pretty far down on the list of stuff that I'm concerned about. I don't think less him for it any more than I think less of FDR because of Hyde Park or Teddy K because his father made a pile as a Wall Street speculator and stock manipulator. None of this affects whether or not I have health care or whether or not we get out of Iraq, or whether I my partner and I will ever be allowed to marry.

I apologize