Why is he insulting the entire nation, past, present and future, by running for the position of leader of the free world?

It’s a position for men like Andy Jackson, George Washington, Eisenhower, Grant. It’s really not a career choice at all. It’s a vocation. It’s a calling. Lincoln had that calling, likewise Washington. Likewise Reagan, who even had dreams about living in a white house, when he was much younger, as he related to Peggy Noonan. In the dream he was shown a white house, which was a home he was comfortable with, at a price he could afford. The dream was recurring. Ms. Noonan asked him when he was the President if he ever had it since assuming high office. And he thought for a moment, and then said, no, he hadn’t. Which struck him, even as he made the observation.

GW too, had a premonition, which he confided to his pastor, BEFORE he even ran for the Texas Governorship. I wish to God he recalled some of that now. For he’s dodging the responsibilities of his office. He could be the first AND LAST leader ever compared in a single tenure to both Winston Churchill AND Neville Chamberlain, AND WITH CAUSE.

Men like Clinton, they never had that calling, likewise Kerry, again Gore.

We have to demand that men who want to be remembered, who want the treatment, Air Force One, Hail to the Chief, ruffles and flourishes, that men who simply want that, and the library, NOT RUN.

If you don’t feel it, or like Gingrich, if you don’t KNOW you’re the man for the job, KNOW you’re the man to handle the MULTIPLE challenges confronting this nation, then we have to find a way to socially pressure you to stay the hell out of the race.

The times are getting too dangerous for "two-dimensional preening."

Why is Edwards running? Let me explain.
While there are way,way too many lawyers in our politics, he is, to the best of my knowledge, the only one with a career of plaintiff’s medical malpractice trial attorney, in which he represented the pitiful, injured at birth, for 40% contingency awards (plus expenses)-against the fat cat doctors. His job was, and is, to persuade juries to vote for him. He knows -KNOWS- jurors are not very smart: he picked them from the jury pools.
In running for the nomination, he is simply playing to a very large jury. His Two Americas theme is simply the malpractice trial writ large.
That’s why his huge new house on 100 acres-the most expensive house in Orange County, NC, which includes Chapel Hill-is not "important".
He is running for a larger award this time, but this time his firm is not fronting his expenses... his contributors are.
Edwards doesn’t have to win, but if he does, WOW, what a score!

Oh, I’m pretty sure Clinton felt a calling to be prez. He fit our 90s zietgeist so well...as if the spirit of the nation willed him to come forth. And truth be told, there will probably come a day when we will long for a Dem prez who has his sort of basic competence (sans the out-of-hand libido) and semi-moderate instincts.

But whatever, the main thing is this: what a sad day it will be if the Dems let this insufferable jerk Edwards become VP, or even a cabinet member.

Okay, I’ll bite - why is he wrong? What again is the issue with John Edwards having a big house, and how might he rectify that to your satisfaction?

And what exactly does happen inside that "physical structure?" It must be really heartwarming stuff, otherwise he wouldn’t have mentioned it, right?

As long as he doesn’t criticize other people with big houses, I don’t have a problem with it. But he comes perilously close to saying that it’s only O.K. to have a big house if you vote Democrat. With apologies to the folks at Bonny Doon, John Edwards is a "Big House Blue" who doesn’t approve of "Big House Reds."

"Physical structure, physical structure, be it ever so humble, there’s no place like physical structure...."

So the problem is he somehow implies it’s wrong to live in a large house unless you are a Democrat, though he doesn’t actually say anthing of the kind.

For such a paper-thin talking point, this is getting a lot of traction.

If John Edwards went around the country saying that those who earned lots of money could spend it lavishly, so long as they had "good values," would Democrats regard him as a plausible national candidate?

Thank you, Joe. Does anyone argue Edwards is not a socialist? I’m 90% serious. Regardless, as Joe pointed out he is running on a platform of "Two Americas" in which the rich live in splendor at the expense of the poor. The problem, piker, is that John Edwards is one of the rich. But as Joe pointed out, he can only maintain his Two Americas rhetoric by pressumably assuming it’s OK to be rich so long as you are fighting for the poor.

Which of course is a load of crap and the reason why none of us like him. It reminds me of the study showing how great the disparity was between the amount liberals and conservatives give to charities - conservatives blew the liberals out of the water. When confronted with this fact, Rosie O’Donnel said she didn’t give more because she believes it is the governments’ job. It’s the old "Of course I’m allowed to live this way because I want the government to help the poor people to live this way too" argument. Very chic.

If the conservatives give away more, perhaps its because conservatives tend to be be richer. As I’ve said, poor people tend to want social change because they can’t do any worse; rich people want to preserve the status quo because it’s working for them.

Andrew, it sounds like your objection is Edwards is that he advocates for the rich helping the poor; then you go on to say that conservatives help the poor and that’s a positive thing. You’re an Edwards man! : )

I’m not. Personally my gut feeling is he can’t be trusted. I’m for Obama. But his weird passive/agressive talking point about the size of his house - it’s like saying that the war is wrong because George Bush never fought. The two have nothing to do with each other, yes?

That last paragraph, corrected:

I’m not. Personally my gut feeling is he can’t be trusted. I’m for Obama. But this weird passive/agressive talking point about the size of Edwards’ house - it’s like saying that the war is wrong because George Bush never fought. The two have nothing to do with each other, yes?

I’m all for the rich giving to the poor, but it should be on their terms in the amount they want. It’s their property, after all, what gives you or anyone else the right to tell them what to do with it? And you seem to conveniently ignore the fact that Rosie gave excuses for why liberals don’t give more - even the rich liberals don’t put their money where their mouth is (they expect the government to do it for them, it seems). I’ll see if I can find the study, I’m pretty sure conservatives gave more even proportionally (but I can’t remember for certain).