Elizabeth Edwards on Obama, Hillary, and the Media

Elizabeth Edwards, wife of Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, is becoming increasingly outspoken in advocating for her husband, and she's starting to raise some eyebrows with her comments. Today, CNN reported:

“We can’t make John black, we can’t make him a woman,” said Edwards, referring to Illinois Sen. Barack Obama and New York Sen. Hillary Clinton during an interview with Ziff Davis Media about the Internet’s role in the 2008 presidential election. “Those things get you a certain amount of fundraising dollars....Eric Schultz, a spokesman for Edwards’ campaign, told CNN Tuesday that Elizabeth Edwards was “noting what countless reporters and pundits have said for months, that Senators Clinton and Obama get a lot of media attention, and deservedly so, because of the potential ‘firsts’ of their candidacies.”

I don't think Al Sharpton, Elizabeth Dole, or Carol Mosley-Brown, prior presidential candidates whose nomination bids floundered, would agree with Elizabeth's theory as to why John Edwards is not receiving the same amount of media attention as the two Democratic front-runners. And I'm thinking that her comments would be getting a lot more scrutiny if she were, let's say, the wife of a Republican candidate.

First, I personally think Edwards gets plenty of coverage. But there's another, less provocative explanation as to why he is lagging in coverage, polling, and fundraising. He's a retread candidate--he's seen as one-half of the Dem's 2004 losing ticket yet he's running on the same themes in 2008. He's become a bit boring. Sure, the "firstness" of Obama and Hillary is noteworthy. But the news media has 24 hours to fill every day, and, if Edwards was bringing something fresh or bold or provocative to this campaign, it probably would make the news. It's not rocket science.

The Tragic Plight of Working-Class Millionaires

Gary Rivlin's article in today's New York Times uncovers yet another overlooked national disgrace--the struggles of so-called "working-class millionaires" in California's Silicon Valley. Estimates put the number of these single-digit millionaires in the "tens of thousands." And, until now, many have suffered in silence. The gist of Rivlin's piece is that millionaires in the Valley face financial, professional, and psychological challenges in trying to keep up with those who have more. Or as one "workaday wealth-monger" (my term, not Rivlin's) stated, "a few million doesn’t go as far as it used to." Another "everyman elitist" (again, my term--this is kind of fun...) justified his 60-80 hour workweek by noting "You're nobody here at $10 million." Rivlin even interviews a Menlo Park psychologist who specializes in the crippling guilt and self-doubt suffered by these..."lunchpail luxury-livers" (okay, I'll stop...). Thank God, these people, and their plight, have been brought out of the shadows--their Ferrari-driving, obscenely-rich shadows. The 2008 presidential campaign finally has an issue that will get voters to the polls--how to best help our single-digit millionaires.

The entire article is worth reading even if only to test one's tolerance for the absurd. To make the read more fun, count the number of times you find yourself rolling your eyes, or muttering under your breath, "you've got to be kidding..."