This morning I called out a reporter who said that John Edwards is perceived as a "phony" for talking about poverty when he is so rich himself.
This happened on my local (Cleveland) NPR station's morning news discussion show. Three newspaper reporters from all over Ohio were on to talk about the Democratic candidates, who are going to be in town to speak at a presidential forum sponsored by the United Steelworkers.
A reporter from Columbus said that Edwards has suffered some "setbacks" recently, notably the $400 haircut, and then he made the "phony" comment mentioned above.
That made my blood boil. I can't stand it when reporters express their personal opinion and portray it as the conventional wisdom. And in this particular instance it was even more aggravating since it's such an ignorant opinion.
I called in and when I got on the air, I said something like, "I think poverty and income inequality are very imporant issues and it makes me really angry when John Edwards is attacked for talking about them just because he has great personal wealth." I also said that Franklin Roosevelt was very rich, so does that make him a phony for enacting the new deal?"
The host of the show asked the reporter to respond, and he said I had a good point but that Edwards has a perception problem because people want to feel that their candidates are just like them [good luck with that -- how many typical Americans could ever afford to run for President?] and Edwards is too rich for people to relate to him when he discusses poverty.
I said Edwards shouldn't have to live like a monk in order to be entitled to talk about poverty, and that of all the candidates he is one of the few who actually did grow up like an average American -- he's the son of a factory worker and he put himself through school. The reporter acknowledged that, and even though he continued to insist that Edwards needs to do a better job of downplaying his wealth, the reporter did seem to back down on the idea that Edwards is a "phony."
On the one hand I appreciated that the reporter backed off of his comment somewhat, but on the other hand his refusal to stand by it makes me even madder. Why say Edwards is perceived as a phony if you're not willing to defend it?