Look where John Edwards chose to build his new house and the condition and size of his neighbors'. It doesn't necessarily say he doesn't care about poverty, it just lacks good taste and common sense. I too care about poverty. Unfortunately, Edward's only verbalized solution has been the tired old argument of income redistribution. Nothing creative or innovative there. In fact it doesn't even work. Why shouldn't some young, ambitious ambulance chasing trial attorney have the same smooth path to a 17,000 square foot house like the Edwards'. Or doesn't he believe in an even playing field after all.

"Have you looked at the great amounts of money John Edwards has given to the help poor? And at the school he set up at the University of North Carolina to tackle this very issue? He could be spending his time making more money, as he appears to be a brilliant lawyer. But he's using a presidential campaign to make those of us who are fortunate face those who are less fortunate."

I did a little looking... I couldn't find evidence it was his own money he was using. I couldn't find anything airtight either way but if you really want to get into it, there's an article which raises questions. Meanwhile, Edwards IS making money. He's writing books, he did a stint as a senior consultant somewhere but backed out because they did subprime loans, etc. Finally...

"But he's using a presidential campaign to make those of us who are fortunate face those who are less fortunate."

Really? What has John Edwards inspired you to do for the less fortunate that you wouldn't have done anyway?

Good doctors have nothing to fear from the likes of John Edwards.

Medical malpractice, which can literally ruin (or end) a patient's life, is one of the most difficult areas in which to practice law, and only the true lions of justice even go NEAR it. This is because, as I explained in a previous post, the lawyers who represent injured people have to pay the costs of litigation up front and out of their own pockets. And will receive nothing, nada, zip, zero, unless they WIN. And medical malpractice is the most expensive kind of litigation to take on -- because you have to hire doctors and scientists, who charge hefty fees, to provide expert testimony. It's also very difficult to win, because most juries hero-worship doctors and loathe lawyers (gee, can you tell?).

In other words, a bad or careless or drunken or psycho doctor can sometimes, literally, get away with murder. If not for people like John Edwards -- lawyers who are not only terrific lawyers, but who will risk real bucks, major bucks, THEIR OWN bucks, in the pursuit of justice.

When I worked for defense firms and clients would call, the calls would be from faceless bureaucrats. When I worked for plaintiffs' firms and clients would call, they were real people -- people in pain, people facing bankruptcy due to medical bills, and, more often than not, people in tears.

It's true that most lawyers turn down med mal cases. The odds of receiving a verdict favorable to your client are less than 30% -- because you are going up against a doctor. John Edwards wasn't born with those millions in his pocket. He earned them the hard way, folks. It takes real guts, and genuine passion, to be a successful plaintiffs' lawyer.

The best to you and your family, Elizabeth.

Joel Patterson

That ain't what Ms. Edwards said. The death of a child would be unimaginable for me. I would be a bawling wreck if my wife had a horrible disease. But it was Ms. Edwards who said that the commercial wasn't about that.

keef2333:

My wife and I too have looked the worst in the face. We had a stillborn daughter after a completely uncomplicated pregnancy. Am I qualified to be president too? By the way, we didn't go out and get a bunch of personal injury attorneys and try to sue. John Edward's firm wouldn't have even considered a case like ours because there wasn't enough MONEY in it for him. Now there's a guy who really cares.

I am sorry for your loss. My daughter has suffered miscarriage, and I can sympathize with your emotional pain.

Did you ever consider that an attorney would refuse to file suit on your behalf because you were not intentionally harmed by anyone? We can't sue fate.

I am glad that there are legal representatives willing to help ordinary people fight injustices done by the wealthy and powerful. Not because they are wealthy and powerful, but because they have done wrong.

The article on the ad is about its ambiguity, not its content. As someone who is not on the inside (I have not read his book, or really followed him other than what makes the news or NPR) I have a limited idea of what his trial might be. I know about his son, his wife, and that he was a trial lawyer who fought for many poor litigants. But, his family is the first thing that comes to mind.

That ambiguity is the criticism. If John Edwards wants everyone to stop making the links between his campaign and his family he needs to keep his wife at home. Every time she makes a speech, or responds to an editorial, it must makes that "his poor wife" connection that much stronger. He's a big boy; let him speak for himself.

82 replies about an ADVERTISEMENT.

and in them, mostly nonsense or generalizations from bitter people who like to argue or show how smart they are or how they know how to use Google to bring up any statistics that suit their argument.

This is why we have the President and Vice-President we do and the Congress we do - because people are more focused on the superficial rather than the issues.

Mrs. Edwards, I think you're terrific. Keep doing what you're doing. I'm voting for your husband because he has demonstrated to me that he cares.

As for those ridiculous comments about whether he is sincere. What a waste of time. It's like the Republicans arguing about their patriotism and none of them having served their country. Once you have experienced poverty, you never forget it. And trust me, you have no desire to live that way again.

Can we please talk about how we are going to fix this country?

I still feel like he's--they?--trying to profit off his wife's cancer. My heart goes out to them, and she's got a lot of guts if she can still be 100% supportive of her husband during this time (I'm not questioning that she is), but it feels...icky to me. I don't know, I just think if it were my family, I'd rather focus all of my energy on being there for my wife and kids and making sure she got better, *not* running for President. I don't think I want that in a President. Yes, the President should be committed to the country and his/her goals, but I still think family should be the utmost concern.

For example, anyone remember that Harrison Ford movie, Air Force One? In it, a terrorist is holding a gun to his young daughter's head. He's going to shoot her if Ford doesn't negotiate with them. (And we all know America does not negotiate with terrorists. We have to know this. Otherwise, the plot makes no sense.) He decides he's a father first and the President second. Thus he'll negotiate. (Well, this is Harrison Ford, so we know he'll make everything right in the end.)

It's not the best example ever and obviously there are differences, but that's sort of my line of thinking. I want a President that is a father/mother/husband/wife first, a.k.a. human. I can't even pretend to place myself in Elizabeth's shoes, but if it were me, I'd rather have a husband who is there full-time.

My 2 cents.

(Gotta add that I wish the Edwardses all the best.)

As someone who has worked in the human rights field, I would contend that working with victims of abuse or people who have suffered tagedy is a trial. I will admit that any of us can work with one kid whose intestines have been sucked out and while this will change us, it may not qualify as a trial. However, if, as was the case with Edwards when he was a lawyer, you continue to work with people who have suffered day after day, there is a cumulative drain on you as an individual that is a trial. To take on the role of addressing injustices is a burden. Sitting with people as they pour out their hearts, as their lives fall apart, living with their pain, all of this changes who you are and shapes character. While it is obviously true that Edwards did not suffer the financial or personal tragedies of his clients, I can guarantee that the mental impact was real and forced him to look the worst in the face

Most of us spend the majority of our time trying to avoid suffering and trying to make our own lives as comfortable as possible. It takes the sacrafice of comfort (either material or mental, perhaps both) to work with those who have suffered wrongs, to meet with the poor, to try to adress the problems of the less fortunate. This is a meaningful sacafice and I would contend that it isone that Edwards has probably made.

Believe me, Madai, you would feel very differently if someone you loved had been injured as the result of medical malpractice.

Doctors and other medical professionals make mistakes and walk away, hoping the patient or the patient's family never discovers the truth. The cost of continuing care and medical treatment for those unfortunate enough to have been the victim of medical malpractice can bankrupt the patient and the patient's family.

Think carefully before you jump to the attack in the case of medical malpractice lawyers. You or some one you love may someday desperately need one.

I think Mrs. Edwards is going to wear herself out if she responds to every critic of her husband. When I got in a fight as a child there was nothing more humiliating than having my mother chew out the other kid. Good article John.

I suppose this reply will get lost in the flood, but I wanted to add that Dickerson dismissively suggested that Senator Edwards' healthcare plan does not involve "looking the worst in the face." It seems to me that Mr. Dickerson might want to view SiCKO -- even just its introduction -- and reconsider that view. The refusal of any candidate other than Edwards to offer a serious universal plan (as documented by Mr. Dickerson's colleague, Tim Noah) is cowardly on their part. Our nation could use somebody with Edwards' willingness to take risks and fight for those who were never offered a level playing field.

The idea that in order to properly understand the ad, one must read the book, is ludicrous. No campaign would produce an ad (for the general public) with prequisite reading.

Elizabeth is grasping. Edwards, in fact, is using his personal hardship, which Dickerson points out, isn't a horrible tactic. It's quite standard. All candidates peddle their bios - since they shape who they are as leaders.

Edwards just has to prove that there is more to him. So far, other than claiming the U.S. is full of unhappy, poverty-stricken families, Edwards has not demonstrated much.

An unrelated question that I haven't seen addressed elsewhere. Is Elizabeth Edwards' intervention effective?

The case for: participatory democracy, bloggers get to feel important, shows new media savvy.

The case against: constant loud messages ultimately deafen, the risk of gaffes (accidentally speaking the truth), appearing thin-skinned.

I would never vote for Mr. Edwards, so I may not be objective, but I don't find Ms. Edwards' postings and calls effective. They seem the worst balance of all of the flaws without the benefit of the candidate speaking on his own behalf. It's a noble experiment, and a candidate in Mr. Edwards' position has to take risks, but I'm not convinced that it's working. What do the experts think?

At the very least, the Edwards' family needs to stop addressing me like I'm a jury. I don't need to hear about how horrific a little girl's injury was; I'm not swayed by someone working extremely hard. Perhaps it's because I'm fundamentally an asshole. I am a liberal, a flaming one--I moved to Canada in November 2004 and not a minute too goddamned soon--but I'm not swayed by, "He worked hard and put his heart in being a good trial lawyer."