Headline of the Day

Edwards charges $55,000 to speak to UC Davis students about poverty

It happened well over a year ago, long before he was (officially) running for president. Amusing nonetheless.

UPDATE: My wife points out that earning $55,000 is a surefire way out of poverty. True that. Perhaps Edwards was just setting an example for America’s youth.

UPDATE: I would note that the post title is “Headline of the Day” rather than “John Edwards a Hypocritical Jerk.” Indeed, the only commentary in the original post was a dismissal of the actual content of the story. As a headline, though, it’s funny. (Granted, it’s no “Pygmies beg UN for aid to save them from Congo cannibals,” the HOTD from four years ago.)

FILED UNDER: Blogosphere, Uncategorized, ,
James Joyner
About James Joyner
James Joyner is Professor and Department Head of Security Studies at Marine Corps University's Command and Staff College. He's a former Army officer and Desert Storm veteran. Views expressed here are his own. Follow James on Twitter @DrJJoyner.


  1. Steve Verdon says:

    Damn, should have checked before posting.

  2. Michael says:

    I said it in the other post before it was removed but, so what? Would not charging anything for that event done anything to help combat poverty? No. So why is it worth mentioning?

  3. carpeicthus says:


  4. LaurenceB says:

    Most politicians are rich. Most speak out against poverty. Most charge speaking fees.

    So… Why again are we singling out Edwards?

    Do I really need to google around and find examples of the other candidates doing the same thing? Does anyone doubt that I could?

    Listen, I don’t like the guy and I’m not going to vote for him, but this is just silly.

  5. Steve Verdon says:

    Do I really need to google around and find examples of the other candidates doing the same thing?

    Yes, please do and let us know your results.

    Oh, and google around for a sense of humor too.

  6. Michael says:

    Oh, and google around for a sense of humor too.

    Since nobody seems to think this is funny, maybe LaurenceB isn’t the one with the problem?

  7. Anderson says:

    rather than “John Edwards a Hypocritical Jerk.”

    The fact that it’s so easy to draw that inference, however, is relevant information as to whether John Edwards *is* a hypocritical jerk.

  8. James says:

    as to whether John Edwards *is* a hypocritical jerk.

    I don’t know the nuances of Edwards’ education and poverty policy positions well enough to know. So far as I know, Edwards isn’t opposed to getting paid all he can. (Certainly, I’m in favor of it.) On the other hand, taking such a large check perpetuates the system of Two Americas.

  9. Steve Verdon says:

    Well actually I think it is amusing, as does James. Seems like more than nobody. Maybe you should google on how to count.

  10. LaurenceB says:

    James makes a good point. He hasn’t actually endorsed this (ridiculous) charge against Edwards, he was just pointing out an amusing headline. From his subsequent updates its clear that he agrees that Edwards doesn’t really have anything to apologize for. In other words: My Bad.

    Steve, on the other hand, wrote a serious post (since deleted) taking Edwards to task. Unless he claims that he too was “just kidding” in that post, then I don’t see how his line of argument above (Get a sense of humor!) is intellectually honest.

    In my defense, (and in defense of the others here) I think it’s only fair to point out that none of us felt the need to even comment on the subject until Steve had written his remarks. Having read what Steve wrote, I think it’s understandable that we would make the (incorrect) assumption that James had meant his remarks to be more than humor.

    (Way too much meta-discussion here. Sorry.)

  11. Michael says:

    Thanks LaurenceB, you’re right on the money that I read Steve’s serious post before it was deleted, and that subsequently set my tone for the entire topic.

    I’ll give James the benefit of the doubt that it was meant as humor, Steve’s post was not.