One only gets paid "millions" for "suing doctors" if a jury finds that the docors were careless and injured the patient through no fault of their own. If bad doctors weren't injuring patients through their carelessness, John Edwards wouldn't get paid a dime, as such cases are almost always paid out on a contingency basis.

As for the brilliance in finding a $400 haircut, I don't care. What I do care about is how putative political pundits have ursurped the peer review function of the political parties and substituted the "facts" du jour for substance in an ever increasing spiral of negativity. Some in-depth and straight reporting of the various candidates' positions or programs on issues like health care, jobs, education and other issues of real importance would help. Leave the cheap shots to Rush and his ilk.

As for John Edwards, he is articulating a vision of America which is about community, compassion and a commitment to peace. The experiences of John Edwards' life have been a focus of community, compassion and a commitment to peace. Perhaps the Edwards' folks were not as articulate about their candidate due to their closeness but, for me it is enough that his family is strong, his life lead humbly and by protecting widows and children, and he has devoted his life, property and sacred honor to these things.

PS How come nobody talks about how Bill Clinton picked Edwards to defend the Clinton honor in the Senate imnpeachment trial?

One shouldn't have to read an entire book to put a line from a commercial in context. If that's the case, the commercial should be pulled off the air, because it won't have an impact on anyone who hasn't read Four Trials.

Also, I'm not discounting John Edwards' motives during his law career, but it seems odd to say the times of his life where he "faced the worst" were those when he was making millions of dollars from "the worst."

Also, if "the worst" referred directly to his law career, Edwards staffers should have been able to relate that to Dickerson.

I think Beatcal is spot on. One interpretation of Mrs. Edwards' reply is the encouragement of misplaced hero-worship, that somehow the struggles, difficulties, and tragedies confronted by a principal, are somehow transmitted and endured by their handsomely paid agent. I just don't buy it. In fact, it's mildly condescending to equate the discomfort and anguish experienced by a cancer patient to that of their oncologist or surgeon, and then to publicize it as a sort of heroic sang-froid, which is exactly what is being done when she suggests Mr. Edwards' representation of wronged clients somehow qualifies him for public office. I'm afraid that embracing this reasoning may qualify Dr. Frist for the presidency. But, at least those sufferers that he represents may only have to pay a deductible, not 33%, if they are fortunate enough to have health insurance.

There are a hundred reasons to vote for her husband, but picturing this gallant, graceful, kind-hearted and intelligent woman as First Lady definitely seals the deal.

Only millionaires can run for president these days, folks. You gotta pick the right millionaire. John Edwards is it.

Elizabeth. Put the mic down. You are the spouse of a (inevitable) second-tier candidate. Your words, in collusion with John's girlish tendencies, have already cost the nomination. Better shoot for cabinet level position. DHS here we come!

Any chance John Edwards will step up to the plate to engage his critics like this, or is he just sending out emmissaries? Neither Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama have had problems standing up for themselves instead of sending others in their place.

Judging from your post, and your previous exchange with "Man" Coulter, it's clear to me that John is not the only "fighter" in the Edwards family. I haven't yet decided which Democrat to support in 2008, but you can be sure that John is high on my list.

What condesending, offensive nonesense! John Edwards listened and told the stories of all the "hundreds of E.G.s and Valeries" because he got 33 1/3% to 45% of the money, and because he was able to get very rich doing it. Period.

I think the problem with this ad is that it is simply a vague character spot that invites the viewer to impose any underlying meaning on the basically content-free praise that Mrs. Edwards is heaping upon her husband.

In this way, I think John Dickerson is absolutely right (though he's not as articulate about this point as one might like): in the context of an ad that doesn't have any real content, it is perfectly reasonable to infer that she is speaking about Sen. Edwards' personal family struggles.

Her response puzzles me, because I would think that allowing viewers to freely interpret her words in the ad was entirely the point of this spot. Clearly, the intent is to cash in on the fact that plenty of prospective Democratic primary voters see Edwards in a positive light only when viewed through the lens of his wife, though schoolmarmy indictments of reporters doesn't help anyone's case.

Well, 26, I'm not overlooking the fact that Edwards made "only" 30%. Considering the total amount of money he's made, "only 30%" makes me laugh.

"Your analysis of Orwell's 1984 is oversimplified to a fault."

I was only addressing a VERY small part of the world Orwell had created, and by no means "analyzing" it.

"The outer party was far from a middle-class."

I'm pretty sure that, in his own words, Orwell disagreed with you. One theme in 1984 and Animal Farm was that socialism promised to get rid of class and make everyone equal, but failed to deliver. There will always be a top, a middle, and a bottom, because power corrupts. There's many more morals to the story, but that was one them.

That is not to say that the "middle class" in America looks the same as the "middle class" in a totalitarian nightmare... just saying that there's always a middle.

"Further, I'd invite you to actually mount a challenge to Edward's argument that there are two Americas."

Simple!

First, there is the desperately poor, who are, all to often, struggling to raise children. the adults poverty rate in America is 10.6%, the child poverty rate is 16.6%, the senior poverty rate is 10.4%, last I checked. The numbers may have gone higher under Bush, but the ratio hasn't changed: a greater percentage of children live in poverty than adults. Meanwhile, if you look at the statistics, the sad facts are there is a racial pattern to them: unemployment and poverty is higher amongst blacks and mexicans than whites. The either rent, or have subprime loans. And haircuts in this America are free because they are done by a friend or relative.

Then, there is the middle class, which is by no means doing well, but, the kids aren't in poverty, and the parents are far more likely to have college degrees, and often student loan debt, a normal mortgage, stuff like that. They do exist, but on average they're older and perhaps a bit more overweight than the poor america, and content to watch cable TV and save for a somewhat comfy retirement. Haircuts in this America cost $20.

And then, there's the america John Edwards lives in. Self-employed. Vacation homes. Private jets. Caviar. Limosines. Stock Options. Yachts. Haircuts cost $400.

The middle class might not be as well off, but it's not "dissappearing".

<link>

As you can see, the lowest quintile makes gets HALF the income of the second quintile. The rich might be getting richer, but the middle class is certainly not blurring into the poor.

There are at least three Americas, probably more. I'm middle class, and I'm a little pissed that Edwards is basically telling me I don't exist.

These were emotionally and physically exhausting trials where the fate of a family was in his hands, one case after another for nearly two decades. Was it as hard on him as it was on the families? Of course not. Was it a test of his perseverance when others might (and some other lawyers often had) withered? It was.

(And I wasn't suggesting Dickerson buy the book. I was suggesting, perhaps inartfully, that anyone who knows his life work would know that our personal obstacles were not the only "worsts" John has faced with strength.)

My impression of John Edwards is: He's a good family man and he's willing to stick his neck out for people and issues.

I like John Edwards. What I want to know is: Can he run this country in light of our growing international crisis? Can he change the status quo? Can he unite the House and the Senate? Not like the current "Uniter" who is more of a "Divider."

We must get some important things done over the next 10 years. The environment needs to be taken care of; Health Care needs to be universal; we need to get out of the middle east; we need to repair all the diplomatic damage caused by the current administration. This is BIG stuff that is far beyond what an attorney might accomplish for a client.

We no longer need to hear about what a great guy he is. We know that. Get on with it.

OK, let's get real. Lawyers who represent injured people only get rich if they are very, very good and very, very passionate about what they do. This is because every case they take on, they take on faith. If you are the least bit cynical, you become a defense lawyer -- because those are the trial lawyers who get paid by the hour. As a legal secretary, I've worked nine to five in the marble halls of defense lawyers -- Oriental carpets, priceless art on the walls, penthouse suites in the fanciest office buildings in town -- and I've also pulled all-nighters in the rickety walk-ups of jeans-clad, coffee-swilling plaintiffs' lawyers who pour their OWN MONEY into their cases, often for years at a time (because the paid-by-the-hour defense lawyers employ every delaying tactic in the book) -- and don't receive a nickel unless they win.

Trust me, folks. There are trial lawyers ... and trial lawyers. I can safely promise you that John Edwards does, indeed, care about the victimized and the voiceless.

And if you can't tell, I quit the cushy job I had at the defense firm because after a while I couldn't look into the mirror anymore. And I went to work for a plaintiffs' firm at a fraction of my former salary, because -- like the Edwardses -- I was so darn mad at the way the system was stacked against the average person and in favor of corporations and insurance companies.

God bless John Edwards. And you, too, Elizabeth.

22 responses and I count 1 "thank you" for an official response from the Edwards camp on the boards that we sit around and whine on. It seems a bunch of you take issue with Edward's wealth, or career as a lawyer, or the fact that he is (gosh) trying to win an elected office through public opinion. Obiously $400 haircuts is a legitimate talking-point response to his policies for a bunch of you. Such is the life of one of the most famous people in the nation.

At least the Edwards have made an attempt to promote a civil, dignified campaign that isn't lacking a human element.

John Edwards made a fortune representing the weak and helpless. He represented his clients well and was compensated. It was a job. Let's leave it at that. A Martin Luther King he was not.