Why is the scrutiny for hypocrisy so particular with Edwards?

[jpgray]

It's clear there's some bad use of money and time there that goes against what he's saying, but I find it hard to believe that Boeing/General Dynamics/etc. stock isn't owned by other candidates that would make them a profit from the Iraq War in direct conflict with their rhetoric--hell, even Nader invested in those companies, including Occidental Oil, Boeing, etc.--so why is Edwards' hypocrisy getting out more? Why is the script that he's a hypocritical dandy when image-based spending is high on other campaigns, and the chance of a politician investing hypocritically is essentially one to one?

[ClassWarrior]

1. He's the Rape-Publicans' biggest threat.

NGU.

[jpgray]

2. Is there any evidence for that? I know he does well in most matchup polls

But I don't know if that's enough to really figure out what's going on.

[Yael]

5. He is the candidate that can most attract the right and indies

They don't trust Hillary, Obama is too new (and has made some rookie mistakes). Edwards is at the top of his game and they know it.

[AspenRose]

36. Yep, especially since he "looks like" quite a few of those in the right

....and it would be easier for some on the right (especially in the south) who are fed up with the neocons to warm up to him based on that.

The GOP's tendency to use racist and sexist codewords for Senators HRC and Obama would not work with Edwards.

[Yael]

3. Because thats all they have

[jpgray]

4. It's interesting they don't go into his Senate term to mine for hypocrisy

There's plenty of it there.

[RaleighNCDUer]

11. Yep. They can't really attack his positions, so they try to turn trivia

into issues.

[DURHAM D]

6. I am afraid it is the hair and house.

It is not fair but it invited scrutiny.

[jpgray]

7. But image-based spending from other candidates is quite similar, I'd wager

And I bet Hillary has a a bit more than a hovel. So why is it particular to Edwards?

[DURHAM D]

13. His house is new since he left the senate.

So, it is "new" news. Also, if they built the house for "image-based" reasons they sure show the wrong image if they want to talk about poverty.

The hair cut thing - that would not have been a big deal it if had not been paid by the campaign. Personally I think a staff member may have just made a simple mistake but when running a national campaign you just can't have those kinds of mistakes.


With regard to the New York house - Bill paid for it.

[jpgray]

14. That's intensely stupid. JFK and FDR wouldn't be able to run today by those standards

On that note, why isn't Ted Kennedy being regularly derided for the same reasons?

[Yael]

18. He isn't a threat

The whole game is changed now since the days of FDR and JFK. It is all about image and soundbytes and with the emergence of the netroots as a HUGE political football, this election will be even more different than the ones just 4 and 8 years ago.

Information is much more accessible and much less controlled in the hands of the people as opposed to what the media chooses to report on.

[DURHAM D]

28. Look - did you mean to call me stupid?

I explained how some of JE's action were being played and made it clear I didn't not think it was fair. What's the matter with you?

[jpgray]

37. I'm calling the idea that wealth and luxury precludes someone from helping the poor stupid

[saltpoint]

8. Because Edwards would roll back their damned tax cuts Dubya handed out.

An Edwards White House would force the haves to acknowledge their dark complicity in the class war.

And that makes them real edgy.

If the same level of scrutiny were applied to Ronald Reagan's foreign policy, to use just one Republican example, no one would be able to pretend he was a conservative saint. He's given to us as a kindly old mage on a horse, wise and calm and serene and pragmatic, yet nobly tough on the damnable Russians. When in fact he was a demented kook, a man of extraordinarily limited learning and percpetion, illogical and incomplete, with a vision of society that was unworkable except in propaganda tracks from Bill Kristol and Pat Buchanan.

Edwards represents meaningful reform that will come too close to the for-profit market model and would require a re-evaluation of corporate values in relation to individual states.

They'll do all they can muster to stop him.

[jpgray]

10. Unequally applied standards were ubiquitous in 2000--Bush's ranch is one great example

Buying that thing in 1999 and running as a "cowboy" seemed the height of phoniness, yet Gore was cast as the phony. Time and time again, the negative "image" criticism is on Democrats. Why is that, exactly?

[saltpoint]

15. Very good example, yes. Bush as a "cowboy." As the stoic "rancher."

The Brush-Clearer, the Decider, the War Chieftain.

What a crock.

Voters went for Dubya in large numbers (although I feel Gore won the election). I think U.S. voters are lunkheads. That is, large numbers of us vote in high school for the most popular kids for student council without much thought to what is expected for that position or what impact it might have. Presidential elections run dangerously similar. Stevenson ought to have been our president, but we liked Ike and his infectious smile. I think Al Gore and John Kerry are resented by many U.S. voters because they represent intellectual accomplishment and seasoned perspective, which are not our cultural long-suits. We like 30-minute sitcoms, news soundbites, advertising slogans, and that's about all we can handle.

We think intellectuals are dreary. We'd just as soon have a beer with Dubya. He's a regular guy. He's a cowboy from Texas!

There's a powerful and dangerous anti-intellectual tradition in U.S. culture that shows up first and foremost in our political choices.

[rodeodance]

22. and flip flop applies to dems more often also

[Mojambo]

9. Edwards is picking at the tender scab of America's ugly brand of capitalism

And what it results in for millions of formerly middle class people.

He's gotta be taken down.

Unfortunately he's exposed some meaty flesh for the slings and arrows, but I still support him.

[jpgray]

12. But his senate term hardly is representative of an attack on our brand of capitalism

While first senate terms are usually conservative, I'd think that such reasons would have to be based on what he's saying now rather than what he's actually done.

[Yael]

16. What exactly are you pointing at in his senate term? The IWR?

[jpgray]

17. I was thinking more about the votes for the China trade agreement, etc.

What would you hold up in his Senate term as proactive fighting for the poor?

[Yael]

19. Not a thing

Like Al -- that plank came after his senate term. Just as Al came into his own and proved himself, Edwards is doing the same.

He isn't a trust fund baby -- he made his own wealth and that (to me) is much more credible with his message.

[jpgray]

21. I don't see wealth as being at all inconsistent with fighting for the poor

It's bizarre to me that some DUers do see it that way. A sole Senate term is an imperfect measure, but based on that I don't see what people can be so terrified of unless it's that he's putting poverty back in the national debate, which is -great- for him to do. No matter what his intentions/history are.

[Yael]

23. I don't think its inconsistent either

In fact, I would argue that it is people of means who have the means to help. The poor need a voice.

I think I am a bit confused here. Is this thread about the (R) scrutiny of Edwards or that of our party members?

[Mojambo]

20. That's a fair take

I would say that his work on poverty issues after his Senate term inform his current campaign far more than his limited legislative experience.

No, he didn't get anything done on these issues in the Senate.

[Botany]

24. Because he scares the other side the most

"they" don't want to run against him ....

[amandabeech]

25. As a trial lawyer, he won huge verdicts against corporations for their

faulty products and against bad doctors for their outrageous mistakes.

He's been taking on the crooks all his adult life. He's beaten the heck out of them.

And fundamentally, he's really not one of them. His dad didn't belong to the country club. Rather his dad worked himself up from the shop floor, but was unable to crack the top ranks in some places because he lacked a degree. Edwards has the big house and the big wallet, but there's not much evidence that he joined the club. That scares the WSJ/Fortune/Forbes bunch to high heaven.

[iamjoy]

26. The Attacks From The Left

puzzle me more than the attacks from the right. Although I do ponder why Hillary and Obama (for example) do not get the same scrutiny from the media as Edwards, it's just the way the media plays. I don't attach any special meaning to it.

I wonder about the attacks from the left, who were outraged at attacks on Gore's supposed hypocrisy, but join in those on Edwards.

[jpgray]

27. People who -really- support a different candidate can stoop pretty low

And that goes for any candidate.

[Bitwit1234]

29. Where did Romney manage to accumulate 250 million dollars

Remember he bought a company fired every single one of the employees and hired new ones at half the salary....just for starters.

[Pastiche423]

30. Because his hypocrisy is so easy to see?

[jpgray]

38. The only non-hypocritical candidate I can see is Kucinich

How could any candidate justify their portfolio, their lifestyle, and their expenses on image? For almost all politicians, all are unjustifiable.

[Pastiche423]

42. Yeah but, johnnyboy makes it easiest

since he is the most hypocritical of them all.

[jpgray]

45. I would love to see Al Gore run, but the media created his "phoniness" out of almost nothing

While there are charges of more substance to be made, the hair and house thing just seems patently ridiculous to me. Do you see a similar phenomenon at work with Edwards, or is all that negative coverage totally different from what Gore received?

[1932]

31. Because the change he wants to bring and is capable of bringing will transfer too much power

from the people who have it (the people criticizing him) to the people who don't have it (the people who are targeted with the spin and lies)

[KittyWampus]

44. Oh give us a freaking break. Edwards is a MODERATE. He will not challenge the defense industry

and unless a Democrat is willing to confront the MIC, they are just rearranging deck chairs.

He pretends to be more of a populist then he ever was or has any intention of being in office.

There is not one thing in his record to suggest his presidency would be as 'left' as you imply.

[jpgray]

46. Those desk chairs can mean a hell of a lot to millions of people

SCOTUS, minimum wage, social security, abortion/human rights--the list goes on. I can't get big picture enough so that none of that matters to me.

[1932]

47. I don't see any other candidate express the same interest in change with the persuasive abilities

to bring it about.

I think this is OBVIOUSLY what is causing the OBVIOUS problem the MSM has with his candidacy.

[AnotherGreenWorld]

32. Another candidate would have to go out of his/her way to look as ridiculous as Edwards.

How can a serious person support this man?

[Yael]

34. Um, because he is the only one out there making any sense?

[jpgray]

39. Ridiculous for spending money on hair, houses, or investing in morally questionable areas?

You'd be hard pressed to find any mainstream candidate who doesn't do most if not all those things.

[saltpoint]

43. I have a few serious moments now and then.

I'll be supporting the Democratic ticket in 08 and John Edwards in the primary.

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.0
==================



This week is our third quarter 2007 fund drive. Democratic
Underground is a completely independent website. We depend on donations
from our members to cover our costs. Thank you so much for your support.

[bemildred]

35. Edwards could win. nt

[jpgray]

40. As far as I can tell, any of the top three could win.

[Zomby Woof]

41. Because he acknowledges poverty exists

No mainstream (that is, not of a third party) candidate since RFK 40 years ago has made poverty the central theme of his or her camapign. He could live in an outhouse under an overpass in Kentucky and they would go after him for something - anything.

Throw the fact he is a trial lawyer in the mix - one of the professions traditionally tabbed as "we love to hate" - and it makes him a very seductive target for the ones running the show.

Plenty of candidates speak of helping people, better jobs, etc, but Edwards uses the "p" word. I am completely convinced that is what's at play.

[saltpoint]

48. Yes sir.

:hi: :thumbsup: :yourock: :applause: