And if Edwards was a Republican (the party of the rich) it wouldn't be a problem for him either (at least in the primaries). The appropriate comparison is to Clinton and Obama.
I had the unformed impression that John Edwards was unusually wealthy for a presidential candidate.
Fucking liberal media.
1: That's what `funny how... ' meant.
The "problem" isn't that Edwards is wealthy, it's that he's wealthy and talking about poverty. HA HA STUPID HYPOCRITE DUMBOCRAT.
Also, Al Gore uses electricity, and Michael Moore complains about the health care system, but is still fat.
Mitt Romney is Bain Capital. He's not just rich, he's hugely rich. (I don't think this is even a problem, but the double-standard on reporting is particularly appalling in Romney's case, although if you think Giuliani should be beaten with sticks and driven out of polite society for his ghoulish profiteering on the backs of the 9/11 dead you may find that example slightly worse.)
Well of course it doesn't come up... they're not proposing to do something about income inequality, ergo no hypocrisy.
Hillary! is also in the same range (and that was as of 2005):
In 2005, she was ranked the 14th-wealthiest member of the Senate, with personal assets ranging anywhere from $10 million to $50 million, according to a personal financial disclosure report filed at the outset of her 2006 campaign for reelection.
Snarkout is really Zombie Andrew Carnegie trying to deflect attention from his plot to use his untold millions to endow libraries so that his eventual victims' brains will be tastier.
The problem of our age is the proper administration of wealth, that the ties of dinnertime may still bind together the undead and poor in delicious relationship.
Does Giuliani's money all come from his security business and speaking fees?
Also from the mafia, and lobbying clients.
Here's a better thing for lobbying clients to link to.
Don't you just hate when you can't pin down your wealth to +/- $15M? Like, should I use cash for this gas fill-up, or throw it on the credit card?
Yes, but Edwards made his money as a DAMNEDABLE TRIAL LAWYER, whereas Giuliani made his money the old-fashioned way ... raking up speaker's fees while blowing off the Iraq Study Group.
("Damnedable" looks wrong but matches how I've heard it pronounced; it's not actually a word I think I've had occasion to write before, which is odd when I look back at the last 6 years.)
For those of us unable to take Edwards seriously, the Onion reports.
if Edwards was a Republican (the party of the rich) it wouldn't be a problem for him either
Are you saying that Edwards is a class traitor?
Yes, as has been said, Edwards' wealth is only relevant because he is talking about helping the poor. Giuliani and Romney are talking about helping the rich - so it all makes sense.
The coverage of Edwards on both the haircut and house fronts has been awful. Ha, ha, rich people sometimes aren't dicks.
18
No, I am saying Republicans are friendlier to rich people than Democrats.
10: Brains are like veal calves -- they're only tasty when constrained.
Ah, Gary to the rescue -- but there is definitely an idiomatic or slang usage of "damned-a-ble," with the second "d" quite audible.
I kind of pronounce the 'd', but I've never seen it spelled any way but Gary's.
Hey check it out. Marc Ambinder explicitly explains that making fun of John Edwards's haircut is valid and newsworthy because his claims to care about poverty contradict his actual existence on earth as a non-poor person, whereas making fun of Mitt Romney's makeup treatments at Hidden Beauty of West Hills is not newsworthy because it doesn't conflict with the cohesive "is incredibly rich / only cares about the rich" Romney image.