History Guy Commentary and News

Just wondering how it is that we always seem to have candidates who say they want to appeal to the average voter, and who say that despite their relatively immense wealth, they are really just like the rest of us.

What malarkey!  When John Edwards spends $400 to get his hair cut by a Hollywood hair stylist (not a barber, but a "stylist") how on earth are we to take him seriously when he blathers on about understanding the problems that poor people suffer?  And compared to him, most folks are poor.

Edwards often recites the story of how his dad was a poor millworker, and they all grew up in poverty.  He made his money as a trial lawyer, so, yes, he did make his money by earning it, unlike the Kennedy and Bush clans.  And, yes, he has the right to spend or waste his money as he sees fit.  But this man is running for President, and he is running with a campaign theme of "help the poor."  I don’t think he gets it.  He is contradicting himself by acting like a rich man with money to burn while at the same time he is bemoaning the state of this nation’s poor.

Bill Clinton, for all of his personal faults, came from basically a middle-class background, and was not a wealthy man until after his presidency was over.  For most of their marriage, his lawyer wife made more money than he did.  The $200,000 presidential salary was the most he had made up to that point in terms of salary.  When  he said that he understood people’s pain, it was believable.  John Edwards can’t get away with that one.  And neither can Romney, nor most of the candidates from either party.

A good column to read on the Edwards haircut issue is written by Leonard Pitts, Jr.  He is a columnist for the Miami Herald, and  he usually writes common sense articles on politics, culture, and life in America.  Read his column on the $400 haircut at http://www.miamiherald.com/285/story/88153.html