True. Very few of them though.

And who have been raised to serve their country instead of their friends.

As for changing the subject, #9, I think a discussion about how to address poverty in American – and who may or may not have some ideas about it – is worth considerably more of our time and effort than just slamming John Edwards (or Mitt Romney, or anybody else).

Your values may differ.

I admit it. I am biased against liars and hypocrites. Kerry’s problems weren’t swiftboats, his problem was people that knew him witnessed what he did as opposed to what he said he did. Same with Edwards and Al Gore, for that matter. But Gore isn’t running for the presidential nomination, Edwards is.

I don’t care about his wealth, nor do I think it is an impediment to efforts to help others. His character is an impediment to his doing anything for anybody else. Here again, look at what he does, not what he says he does. You would have thought that as Kerry’s running mate, he would have learned the lethality to a campaign of exhibiting hypocrisy that cannot be hidden.

So even if you make a case that all of them are hypocritical to some extent, you also have to take into account that Edwards is too stupid to learn, unless he is talking to dead babies.

If I knew nothing about him and just watched him do his preacher routine I can see how people might be drawn to him. But his legacy paints a very different picture.

Is this a philosophical issue or do you like Edwards the candidate?

Edwards has a 28,000 square foot mansion on 100 acres and he’s calling everyone else selfish. Oh, I know, he’s saying “our” but he doesn’t mean it, or else he wouldn’t be living in a 28,000 square foot mansion on 100 acres.

Meanwhile, one of those poor people in the other America lives next door, and Edwards describes the neighbor’s place as slummy.

As with environmental activism, such as that practiced by Mr. Gore, critics look for perhaps the only vulnerability, which is the claim of hypocrisy.

I grew up in a poverty-ridden area of the Appalachians, Harlan County, Kentucky, and I can say from experience that no one can advocate better for the poor than one who has managed to rise above obscurity and economic deprivation. Absent advocation by one of their own who has made it, the poor have no capacity to effect beneficial change by their own hands and minds.

Thing is, they aren’t campaigning as the guys who will solve poverty in a generation. They aren’t talking about the two Americas. They aren’t the ones who said “I think that Jesus would be disappointed in our ignoring the plight of those around us who are suffering and our focus on our own selfish short-term needs. I think he would be appalled, actually.”

Hence, there’s no “do as I say and not as I do” hypocrisy. (At least as far as poverty. They’re politicians, though, so I’m sure they’re hypocritical about something else.)

Non-sequitur, as usual. Typical change the subject move.

I could care less about Romney & McCain. We were discussing Edwards who is the biggest phony in the race.

But please go on about Edwards’ “sacrifice”. Does he screw his face up and show how much that sacrifice hurts? Like he does in the courtroom?

I want to see some recruiting from Hannity, Limbaugh, Ingraham, Boortz, and the well-known ill-mannered weasel, Mark Levin. And throw in a few country singers, too. But don’t hold your breath waiting for them to help with the problem of repeated deployments.

OK, one more opportunity to answer the question for Rachel and me?

Ok, that’s over the line.

And I too would like an answer to the question: how should a very wealthy candidate work for the poor in a way that involves sacrifice?

And please give examples of how current wealthy Republican candidates (e.g. Romney & McCain) have done that.

True, it is akin to diagnosing neurological states via videotape.

The only thing that Mitt Romney has in common with John Edwards is that they are both males. And they are wealthy.

The problem with John Edwards is his legacy of hypocrisy. Channeling the final thoughts of dying babies is a disqualifier. He is not qualified to lead. If you believe in him make a case for him.

Now, how about the answer to my question on how wealthy candidates should work for the interests of the poor in a way that necessitates some of their own sacrifice?

There is no hawk in surrender. Edwards is an ostrich. Al-Qaeda approved.

Of all of the Democratic candidates I am surprised both of you defend John Edwards. Obama has more qualifications and Hillary has more balls. By far the least attractive Democratic candidate and the people where he lives cannot stand him.

Is there a bigger hypocrite in this country than John Edwards? If you think Edwards is paranoid now, wait until February. He will be in his full narcissist glory then.

So is Edwards a Chickenhawk?

Edwards is also over-promising to a ridiculous degree. He’s going to make people in wheelchairs walk again, cure Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s and juvenile diabetes (link) and eliminate poverty in a generation. And that’s just the beginning!

At Democratic debates, John Edwards always complains about Hillary leaving the toilet seat up.

John Edwards wishes he were Superman – mostly for the tights.

John Edwards believes in global warming because “Whew, is it getting hot in here or what? You boys wanna take them shirts off?”

John Edwards uses the “No More Tears” shampoo but cries anyway. Not because it stings, but because he gets wistful at the thought of his hair losing its perfect form while he washes it.

Before attending law school, John Edwards briefly considered becoming a gynecologist so that he could do self-exams.

That is some cold stuff.

But he could be talking about the liberal media establishment in general, and the hillary war machine in particular. After all, they are the backbone of the Hillary campaign.

That doesn’t make Edwards less of a girl or Hillary any less of a hideous beast woman-man-thing, though.

I love it! LOL!

That’s cold.

“Fluffy bunnies have John Edwards slippers”