I agree that it shows him as lame. He made a lot of money chasing ambulances, and as noted, he lives in a mansion. He's a rich boy, and he doesn't need our money in order to lose in the primaries.

Max, your comments are incredibly shallow and tiresome. Is making a lot of money somehow more offensive than inheriting it? Is representing the rights of malpractice victims morally wrong? Are vows of poverty required as a condition of supporting, or helping, the less fortunate? Surely Edwards would deserve your opprobrium more if, for example, he stood in opposition to access to health care for poor children or favored legislation that would leave victims of medical malpractice without recourse in the courts. Apparently the only rich folks that get a pass are the ones that are openly greedy and selfish.

Max, I agree with you, and I'd add that the first-first-man-to-be has made >$40mm giving speeches in the last 7 years to wealthy special-interests who wanted to pay him off both backwards and forwards - gambling on the value of future access to Mrs. Clinton.

Allan, John Edwards is a rich folk from contingency fees before being a Senator and from Fortress off-shore tax haven private equity investments afterward.

Read a brief recap of Edwards' legal career highlights: here.

When the threat of malpractice (rather than medical necessity) causes a radical increase in C-Sections - is that morally right? What about setting award history using heart-wrenching rhetoric ... or inventing a line of legal logic that causes the state Legislature & Governor - representing all the People - to shut the door on it afterward?

Edwards' legal career made health care more expensive and less available for children and his political career is a continuation of that.

But if you seek a more reprehensible example of greedy and selfish rich folks who deserve local opprobrium, look to the glitz & glam Newhouse family - the out-of-state (NYC), multi-billionaire, monopolistic, union-busting owners of The Oregonian.

Bottom line, he isn't getting many (enough) in donations. The only way he can stay in the race is to take the 'public' money. If he continues with talk like his latest about being the only hope for the black man, he should continue to drop in the polls. Regardless of whom the democrats nominate, I won't be voting for them.

I think the guy is toast, but I'll just sit back and let youse guys hash it out.

John Edwards is a rich folk from contingency fees

Yeah, fees he actually earned by hard work. Compared to the Chimp, who'd be managing a McDonald's, at best, if he hadn't been born into money.

Yes Jack, our current prez sucks. Is that your key argument for supporting Edwards or was that merely a defensive response to criticisms of your guy?

Admit it, you neo-cons are scared crapless of John Edwards. Don't worry, the Dems are going to nominate Hillary the Crook, whom you should be able to defeat with ease.

Interesting poll results at BlueOregon -- three matchups between the top 3 Dems and Guiliani, Romney, and Freddie show John Edwards with the greatest overall advantage against all three--by a mile.

I think the GOPers are salivating at the thought of running against Hilary and are encouraged by the thought of running the "Southern Strategy" all over the country against Obama -- but they hate the idea of running against Edwards, which is why their comments about him are so full of bile.

Absolutely. Edwards-Kerry would have beaten Bush. And Edwards-Obama would win big this time. But we're still dealing with the old f*rts in the party, like Clinton, Gore, Kennedy, Biden, and they won't get off the freakin' stage. Which is how a Fred Thompson type becomes POTUS.

I have recently read an interesting article about "institutionalism," the major premise of which is that in hierarchical systems, the people at the top would rather see their institution fail with them at the top than succeed with someone else at the top. I think of that whenever I think of Democrats nominating Hilary Clinton, snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

"Admit it, you neo-cons are scared crapless of John Edwards."

Ah, I see. Don't care for Edwards? You must be a neocon who feels threatened by the Democratic candidate running in third place. That must be it, Jack.

Reality check: Edwards polls much better in Oregon than he does nationally.

Admit it, you neo-cons are scared crapless of John Edwards.

Nimbly sidestepping the gratuitous label, yet not an Edwards fan, I'd have to say that, contrary to your assertion, after contemplating an Edwards candidacy, I am still, resolutely, full of crap.

comma, comma, comma....

I'm not sure about Edwards and neo-cons, but I'd surmise he doesn't rise to the level of inspiring fear ... even if you wish he did, Jack. However, voters are generally put off by fear-inspiring authoritarians.

The constitutional doctrine of "delegated powers" is supposed to limit citizens' fear due to reckless use of federal authority by defining what Congress may consider.

If only Congressional politicians who swear allegiance to the Constitution - especially those running for President like Senator Clinton, Senator Obama, and Senator Edwards - would actually abide by its limits.

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter."

I suspect it's the DNC who really fear him, thus they give him no support.