I couldn't disagree more with this article about John Edwards. The most glaring issue with it is the writer's proud glibness with regard to poverty. Matlin makes Edwards out to be some sort of a vote-whore, trotting around the country begging for support and using poverty as a ploy.

Newsflash: any politician will tell you that the way to win is not to pander to poor people; Edwards spoke of poverty out of a deep conviction on the issue.

Furthermore, John Edwards has not made it clear that he has no further intention of running for office; he has simply seen the writing on the wall that neither Clinton nor Obama have anything to gain from adding him to their ticket.

Matlin, like many in the online press, seems to take glee in the defeat of a man who has dedicated his life to a fight for the least among us in American society. Anyone who denigrates such a man is as deeply misguided as they are blind.

This is not to say that the "poverty czar" idea is a bad one; it's not. I certainly hope (and believe) that Edwards will continue the crusade he began long ago to end poverty in America. The lives of 37 million Americans depends on it.

This fight is all about improving the lives of those 37 million. Everything else is name-calling, journalistic fluff.

"Newsflash: any politician will tell you that the way to win is not to pander to poor people ..."

Not to sound too cynical, but isn't that exactly why John Edwards' message didn't resonate with the voters? Furthermore, Edwards' propensity to tilt at corporate windmills suggests an overly narrow perspective on the causes of poverty.

Obama 08!