And Surprising No One I

The presidential candidates are richer than 99.9999% of you.

Well, most of the major contenders anyway (Duncan Hunter does not, for our purposes - or the purposes of the primaries, count).

Panda was recently talking to me how unfair it was that presidential candidates are judged on the basis of their looks ("Michael Douglas looked like a president on screen, would people vote for him?"- ALERT: Michael Douglas reference 1). Looking at this article, it appears that a more imminent prerequisite to wanting to become Mr. Free World Leader is wealth. I mean, there are a lot more rich folks on that list than pretty ones. Again, surprising no one.

What I think is, perhaps, more interesting, given how expensive presidential campaigns are to run, and looking at the speaking fees even former mayors command, is that the general riffraff we call the media are just that - surprised. I realized this this morning, when on The Today Show, Meredith Viera asked Laura Ingraham if she thought people would find that kind of wealth "hypocritical."

Apparently, the key to winning your nomination, is finding explanations for that $500,000 yacht, and the trust fund for your heirs. John Edwards, recently, played right into that sentiment when he said he only (I'm paraphrasing here) worked at a hedge fund to "understand financial markets."

Right. John Edwards is trying to explain why he took a high-paying job in the four years when he was doing nothing between his presidential runs, but isn't it self-explanatory? To pimp his ride and support Elizabeth's hospital bills. But I mean - "trying to understand how the financial markets work?" You don't see Mitt Romney saying he was at Bain Capital to understand how Gordon Gekko worked.(ALERT: Michael Douglas reference 2)

How fair is this? I'm not sure that I have the liberty of time or knowledge to expound upon the implications of this. I just thought I'd point it out.