This is in some ways a follow-up to a follow up to a previous diary I wrote about criticizing Democratic candidates for president. Specifically, I'm a bit concerned about MyDD's Matt Stoller's latest "criticism" of John Edwards. What's the latest Edwards flaw according to Stoller? Well, apparently, his house is too big, so apparently, that means he is not sincere about fighting poverty.
Color me disgusted at both his arrogance and strategically poor sense. What is wrong with these politicians that they don't feel the need to live their values? Two Americas is a great message for most Americans, but apparently not John Edwards.
Matt, this is beneath you. There are plenty of legitimate criticisms you can make of our presidential candidates, without stooping to an RNC style cheap shot.
Not living his values? So let me get this straight. In order for a politician to "live their values" they must live exactly like the people they claim to represent. So since Republicans only care about the rich, it's fine for them to live in big houses and drive nice cars. But if you're a Democrat, you'd better not get a big house and you'd better be ashamed if you're wealthy, because you had no right to go out and be successful and then use that money to buy stuff. Then Stoller adds:
I mean, I get the fact that wealthy people live in nice houses, and I don't really care that much. But what is with constructing a massive palatial estate at the same time as you are running a campaign based on poverty?
Matt, the reason he's building a new house is that he moved back to North Carolina from Washington D.C. after he served as a senator. I'm sure if he actually took the time to look at the value and size of houses most presidential candidates live in, he'd find that to a person they live in multimillion dollar mansions. Before Hillary Clinton ran for the U.S. Senate, she bought a house in Chappaqua, NY valued at $1.7 million. So I guess that means she is a hypocrite who doesn't really care about anyone who is not wealthy.
I don't know why, but Matt really seems to have become a contrarian when it comes to our presidential candidates and nothing they do pleases him, especially when it comes to John Edwards. Previously, he took Edwards to the woodshed because he was being coy about whether or not he was running for president and apparently, that meant he didn't have respect for the voters (nevermind that every candidate pretends to be undecided about running when they have in fact made up their minds). I think we ought to be able to talk about Democratic presidential candidates without resorting to cheap RNC hits that are beneath each and every one of us. There is a serious policy debate about where we ought to be taking this country and we need to focus on which candidate will best get the country where it needs to be rather than focusing on something stupid like what kind of house they live in (that's for the MSM to do and us to rightly criticize them for doing so).
Follow-up: Stoller later adds:
FDR was also wealthy. I just happen to think that Edwards is insincere, so I'm not willing to cut him slack as he builds a palatial estate running on the theme of poverty and 'Two America's. You have to admit its tacky.
Oh, so it's ok for FDR to be rich because he passed the "sincerity" test? Matt, John Edwards earned every penny he has through hard work and he remembers where he's from. He has spent the last two years looking into causes of poverty and has decided to make it the basis of his presidential campaign despite the consensus among political experts that poverty is a loser because nobody cares about it. That's insincere? Risking your shot at the White House over a group of people who nobody cares about and who hardly vote? Please. For whatever reason, Matt has a vendetta against Edwards and holds him to a ridiculously high standard that no human being could meet. What more does he want from Edwards? Edwards is running with all of the progressive positions Matt has advocated (no corporate free trade deals, out of Iraq, pro-labor, anti-Bush tax cuts, repudiated his war vote) and has not triangulated himself against the Democratic Party as Obama and Clinton have done on previous occasions but instead of giving him credit, Matt just decides to pick out minor and insignificant "flaws" and blow them out of proportion in order to claim that Edwards is "not sincere." This is really just silly and detracts from the serious issues in the next election.