When a candidate who claims (and I do believe that is) to be as principled as John Edwards builds and lives in a 28,000 square foot home it means something very unfortunate: he does not understand energy and the environment. Where is the candidate that will tell Americans that just because you can do something doesn't mean you should? Who understands that we need to start living smaller? Not everything needs to be super-sized. That is not providing for your children - it is giving them an unsustainable and inefficient white elephant. And to say that you want everyone to be able to live like this is the most ridiculous part. Sorry, we can't - and shouldn't, even if we could. There is no way that I can support a McMansion candidate. Such a house is an offense to anyone who understands sustainable design, location efficiency, and how important the husbanding of our resources is to future.

I was going to make this very point, but you beat me to it! I find much to admire about Elizabeth Edwards, including her willingness to speak out instead of being the "nice" woman all the time, but this is indefensible. Yeah, we could go after the Republican candidates for living high, and we do, but at least they aren't being inconsistent with their message. They have no real problem with "haves" and "have nots."

The question she poses about "would it have been better if he didn't build the house for appearances' sake" is disingenuous. Of course that would be hypocritical. But that's not the reason they should refrain from building it. They should refrain because they know how unfair the world is in distribution of wealth, that building it rubs that fact in the face of those who work hard and stay poor; and because they know that it WILL ALWAYS BE impossible for everyone to have a house like that, even under the very best of circumstances.

to you and Rebecca it would appear. FDR was a very wealthy man and so was Robert Kennedy yet they did more for and spoke out more against poverty than any poor man ever has.

Please re-read what I wrote. It has little to do with poverty, but rather with practicality and environmental responsibility. I admire that Edwards addresses the opportunity gap. However, suggesting that the goal is for all of us to live bigger is unwise and unrealistic. We need to expand opportunities for all, while living smarter and smaller. Otherwise, the future will be a very harsh place. Google "Peak Oil" and read up. It is sobering, to say the least - and all politicians are afraid to talk about it.

I am all for promoting environmental awareness and take many steps in my day to day life to apply that. What bothers me is the idea that those of us who see the probelms should live as energy free hermits while letting those who don't continue to drive H3s. Change will never happen until there is a method of applying the sacrifices fairly across all groups. Asking some to sacrifice while others do nothing is hopeless.

Yeah, liberals are very generous with other people's money!

His wife seems to be a very nice person, but John Edwards continues to come across as the poster child for the "do as I say, not as I do" community. I don't begrudge him his huge house as they can certainly afford it, but how can anyone have a lifestyle like that and then attempt to take ANYBODY else to task for not doing enough to help the less fortunate?

It may well be time to raise taxes to pay for some big social programs, but you sure don't want to have that message delivered by a guy like Edwards. He reminds me of the CEO at a place I used to work who was fond of listing all the different charities he supported, apparently oblivious to the fact he was earning 20 times more than the people he was talking to.

Has it been six months since his critics were all over Gore about the size of his house?