Replies

Then the attack should be hypocracy, he condems corporations but has no qualm is using the same system as those he condemns. He is not as populist as he portrays is a valid point, the loophole argument is not a vailid point.

It is not a loophole, it is not illegal. The article needs to clarify that.

Hey, I'm on YOUR side! I agree the article (and the debate) should have been restructured, but we do the best we can with what we've got...and at least he raised the issue. We can morph our 'concern' any way we see fit (the Dems do that all the time).

I thought the point of the article was to attack Edwards' hypocrisy, though you are right that it could be clearer. But when you say "[i]t is not a loophole, it is not illegal," I don't follow what you are saying. Do you think that to call something a "loophole" implies that it is illegal? I have the opposite reaction: a loophole is legal by definition. I don't think you can argue that this isn't a loophole, and certainly it is legal. I think the article is clear on both those points. I believe the issue is candidates who complain ceaselessly about "the rich" who "don't pay their fair share," etc., etc. all the while making darn sure that they use every, admittedly legal, means to shelter their own income. To me, the point is that if someone (say, a Republican) is going to be attacked for using a legal method to minimize their taxes, then a Democratic candidate is subject to the same scrutiny, particularly if the Democrat is complaining that we don't pay enough taxes.