Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Buzzing About Edwards's New Compound

Former Sen. John Edwards, the "working man's" presidential candidate, is getting some heat for his new, palatial estate outside Chapel Hill in Orange County, North Carolina. Even a few folks who are close to the Edwardses have expressed alarm to political reporters about the 29,000-square-foot house and connecting recreation-and-media arena.

The Edwards home near Chapel Hill, N.C. (Photo by Don Carrington)

The buzz over the sprawling Edwards house grew louder last week when Don Carrington, the vice president of a conservative, North Carolina-based think tank, flew over the compound in a Cessna and snapped an aerial photograph, which he promptly posted on the Web. Carrington also writes for the think tank's publication, the Carolina Journal, where he posted a story about the estate.

Carrington had done the same thing last year to Gov. Mike Easley's property down on the coast, so he figured he'd go up in the air to check out the Edwards property after hearing how huge the place is. (For the Easley property, Carrington skydived, taking photos from the camera affixed to his helmet; For the Edwards estate photos he stayed inside the plane.)

The main house on the compound is more than 10,000 square feet and is joined by a long enclosed walkway (actually, a huge photo gallery) to a gigantic red barn. "The Barn," as it's called on the Edwards' building plans, houses a basketball court, a squash court, a four-story tower, two stages and a swimming pool.

The estate, which the Edwards family moved into last summer, is the hot topic of chatter among some Democrats in Washington. Operatives (yes, people outside of the Edwards camp) have whispered that those stages in the recreation barn are actually amphitheaters that will function as presidential debate prep rooms. Some gossipers even insisted that Edwards had a helipad installed to accommodate the likes of Marine One.

While she won't say much about her boss's new palace, she will shoot that rumor down. "I can tell you that there is no helipad," Edwards spokeswoman Jennifer Palmieri, told The Sleuth.

For his part, Carrington said he saw no signs of a heliport when he flew over. "They don't need one," he said. "There's clearly room for helicopter landing sites."

Information about the estate has come out in drips and drabs, with the Raleigh News & Observer joining the fray this week. The paper reported the rural estate's worth at $6 million and quoted Elizabeth Edwards, wife of the former senator, as insisting that the luxurious home in no way contradicts her husband's campaigning rhetoric about the plight of poor people. She compared her family to the Kennedys, who similarly, she pointed out, were both rich and fighters for the working poor.

But the N&O noted that, "Unlike former President John F. Kennedy, Edwards did not inherit his wealth."

Spokeswoman Palmieri defends the 2008 Democratic candidate this way:

"As Senator Edwards has said, he has lived the American Dream and has had everything this country has to offer. He worked hard to do well, but he did not succeed on his own. He had the support of his country; a good family, good public schools and loans for college. Too many of those opportunities are closed off to working class people today. He is running for President to make sure everyone has the same opportunities he has had."

-- Mary Ann Akers

By Editors  |  February 2, 2007; 6:30 PM ET
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Will Freshman Avoid the Curse of D Street?
Next: Wassup With Sen. Enzi's Bling?


I find this type of political reporting ridiculous. Especially when it seems to have been triggered by some conservative political activist. Why is something like this on the front page of the Washington Post? It belongs in the gossip column of a 2nd rate newspaper.

If Mr. Edwards chooses to build a home for his family, that is his business. How it reflects on the man or his politics is beyond me.

Seems like Mary Ann Akers has, for whatever reason, produced the exact story that conservative think-tank activist Carrington wanted to generate (and I see the Post has included Mr. Carrington's provided aerial photograph, and even given him a photo credit for it. Good work, Mr. Carrington!

Word to Mrs. Edwards.... better go out and buy yourself a respectable cloth coat.

... Rick Pike

Posted by: Anonymous | February 2, 2007 9:33 PM | Report abuse

You people are so darn jealous............

Posted by: Rosetta Miller Perry | February 2, 2007 9:36 PM | Report abuse

Well I see Edwards is doing his part to fight global warming...

Posted by: gitarre | February 2, 2007 9:50 PM | Report abuse

Media double standard? John Edwards has received negative media coverage and hits in the blogosphere for the cost of his new home just outside Chapel Hill, N.C. There was also a sensational, insubstantial Washington Post front page story about the deal he closed on his Georgetown home. And yet there's mostly flattering coverage of Hillary Clinton's "cozy" Washington home featured in her announcement video, including an interview with her home decorator. That slab of real estate in DC cost Hillary and Bill $2.85 million when they purchased it in 2001, not to mention the 2001 price of their Chappaqua, N.Y. home, $1.7 million. So the total value of her real estate in 2001 was $4.5 million. Given aggressive inflation in the DC and NY real estate markets (60 percent or more), it's likely that Hillary's digs are valued at well over $6 million, which is the estimated value of John Edwards' 28,200-square foot space outside Chapel Hill, N.C.

In truth, Edwards and his wife Elizabeth did what most homeowners seeking to move up do -- they added the price of the real estate they sought to unload -- their Raleigh home was sold for an estimated $1.46 million, and their Georgetown place was sold for $5.2 million -- to see what they could afford. Should they be penalized or criticized because you can get a lot more for your money in rural Orange County, NC than in Washington, D.C.?

I can understand why local media in North Carolina find the size of the new Edwards' estate to be an interesting and legitimate local story. But implicit in the negative national political coverage of Edwards' properties is the argument that one cannot understand or be an advocate for the poor if one lives in luxurious circumstances or makes profitable real estate deals. Or that a grand slab of real estate makes a presidential candidate (or anyone?) out of touch with the common people. If that is the argument, it needs to be made explicitly. And few, if any presidential candidates, Republican or Democrat, could pass such a strict, and in my view, SILLY, test. Must we see and assess the value of all candidates' homes before deciding who to vote for?

A far more balanced and legitimate question is how has each of the leading candidates made money.

Forbes examines the financial deals of Rudy Giuliani: "The Company He Keeps: As a Businessman, He's Been Mixing with a Sketchier Crowd."

The Arizona Republic reports that John McCain has assets of less than $100,000. His financial security and wealth comes from his wife Cindy, an Anheuser-Busch heiress, making him the seventh richest senator.

(To see all the hyperlinks in this post, take a look at it on my blog: )

Posted by: Jim Buie | February 2, 2007 10:46 PM | Report abuse

This is the first time I have read this column, and it is also the last time. This information belongs nowhere in a reputable newspapers. Guess WaPo is scraping the bottom of the barrel. Go peddle this crap somewhere else. You've lost me as a reader.

Posted by: ladymac | February 3, 2007 12:19 AM | Report abuse

A conservative hit man tries to trash Edwards for being successful.

What is amazing is that someone would contend or repeat the contention that Edwards wealth detracts from his advocacy for the poor.

It doesn't take a "sleuth" to see that it is more laudable, not less, that a person of means is taking advantage of his position and using his talents to try to help the poor.

Isn't there a Britney Spears story you can cover?

Posted by: M Curry | February 3, 2007 12:32 AM | Report abuse

What is this paper's obsession with John Edwards and real estate? Didn't John Solomon embarrass you badly enough last week on this score? Do you need your own ombudsman to give you another spanking? If you're going to give front page column inches to John Edwards, why not spend them analyzing his policy proposals? This level of reporting, from the sourcing up, is pure tabloid. What a looooonnnng campaign it will be if this is the best we get from you.

Posted by: M.S. | February 3, 2007 12:54 AM | Report abuse

My my my, how the Dem defenders come out when their favorites are being skewered. Let me understand this correctly: Edwards builds a huge house, flaunting his wealth, and that's not an issue for someone running for President? Right. It's not about jealousy either, Ms. Perry, simply a story illustrating, once again, the hypocrisy of the Democratic Party's candidates. I'm sure there'll be more to follow. The Dems would be frothing at the mouth if a Republican candidate did this. You'd be screening all his/her financial dealings for how he/she had paid for it. Oh, one other thing, nice bit of support for Global Warming. I'm sure the American quest for bigger and better has nothing to do with global warming right? r/ The Historian

Posted by: Historian | February 3, 2007 2:42 AM | Report abuse

I look forward to snarky articles detailing the real estate holdings of every politician running for president, including whether his or her wealth was inherited, or whether he or she worked hard for it as John Edwards has. You are planning a series, aren't you? And please include how much each candidate has done to bring the issue of poverty to the forefront of his or her campaign.

It certainly seems as if they put together the money they earned from the sales (all overboard despite the Post's front page smear job) of their other properties to see what they could afford. And how many people did they employ while building the house?

For what it's worth, the Edwards family home is Energy Star rated, and the hot water and most of the florring is heated using solar power. Elizabeth Edwards talks about it here:

Posted by: H. J. Shorter | February 3, 2007 5:12 AM | Report abuse

Those poor trees that the Breck Girl clearcutted. You people don't get it, the WashPost, wants the Hildebeast to win so they will do anything to make the Breck Girl look bad.

Posted by: terri | February 3, 2007 5:28 AM | Report abuse

This is a non-story and trash. It's been flogged by an anti-Edwards operative and the WaPo is playing useful stooge. The house itself is 10,000 square feet? So what? Why does a big house disqualify Edwards from speaking about any issue at all, least of all poverty? George Bush has just spoken out about income inequality-- where are the pictures of his so-called ranch? The WaPo is doing what the NYT did in the last coampaign, but starting early: writing smirking articles about the wealth of a Democrat as if there's something wrong with it (Kerry was the example), when basically everyone in the Senate is rich, or richer than average. It might be more original to write about a presidential candidate who wasn't wealthy.

Posted by: Philo | February 3, 2007 6:10 AM | Report abuse

Let's see the Democrats are using global warming, energy conservation and environmental concerns as campaign issues and John Edwards has the great idea to build himself a plantation that will suck up enough energy for almost ten 3,000 square feet homes. Trophy house?

I like the guy and felt he had the ability to unite various factions of the Democratic party and pull a couple of red states into the blue column. All this purchase does is bring back his malpractice past to the fore and raise the question of is this the kind of person we want as President? No, he shouldn't be ruled out, but it's a little hard to take him seriously on environmental issues after this story.

Posted by: Globally Warmed | February 3, 2007 7:47 AM | Report abuse

Let's see the Democrats are using global warming, energy conservation and environmental concerns as campaign issues and John Edwards has the great idea to build himself a plantation that will suck up enough energy for almost ten 3,000 square feet homes. Trophy house?

I like the guy and felt he had the ability to unite various factions of the Democratic party and pull a couple of red states into the blue column. All this purchase does is bring back his malpractice past to the fore and raise the question of is this the kind of person we want as President? No, he shouldn't be ruled out, but it's a little hard to take him seriously on environmental issues after this story.

Posted by: Globally Warmed | February 3, 2007 7:48 AM | Report abuse

This is a hit piece disguised as "News". Where's the reporting on the other presidential candidates homes? GW has a huge ranch including a man-made lake stocked with trout.. No articles on that? Clintons? Obama? Biden? Nope, nothing. Just Edwards.

Oh, I think the helipad was a nice touch.. "Sources" claim that they had a helipad built for if he becomes President. Edwards denies that there is a helipad. Article then says that a helipad isn't needed. Which is it? Why was it even brought up then?

This is a vile slanderous hit piece, and the Washington Post should be ashamed of itself.

Posted by: Napalm | February 3, 2007 8:44 AM | Report abuse

You must feel very proud of yourself Ms. Akers. Boy you've really done a service to your country and your profession with this fine sleuthing piece of work!

Newflash: Edwards is rich! And he even has a big house!
Therefore, he can't possibly care about those that are not rich!

This is a disgustingly stupid article.

Posted by: Adam Terando | February 3, 2007 8:51 AM | Report abuse

Mr. Downey:

Please ask Woodward to write a weekly expose giving us the inside story on how McCain, Giuliani, Brownback, Romney and Huckabee made--or didn't make--their money, and what their house or houses are like--saquare footage, ameneties, etc. And when he's done with them, he can then do the same with Clinton, Obama, Richardson, Clark, Vilsack, Dodd, and, if he's still a candidte by then, Biden. Simple fairness.

Posted by: Emet | February 3, 2007 9:11 AM | Report abuse

Which is the most ridiculous, this stupid article or the idiot playing super spy and skydiving to get pictures of someone's home? Compound, good word I guess if your'e trying to imply something sinister. Stupid, Stupid, Stupid.

Do you have to be poor to champion the cause to better someone's life. I don't support Edwards for President but he earned his money and has the right to spend it. At least he didn't use his political office to make himself rich as some of our elected officials have.

I wonder when the American public will start getting tired of the slash and burn politics we now have in this country. It's been here and on both sides for the past few years but never like we have seen it under the Rove/Bush regime and most of their supporters.

Posted by: Ken | February 3, 2007 9:21 AM | Report abuse

In 2010, when we're all horrified by the dead Arabs and American soldiers strewn over Iran by Pres McCain's sick warmongering, we'll have crap "reporting" like this to thank for it. Keep it up, WaPo.

Posted by: Anonymous | February 3, 2007 9:30 AM | Report abuse

In 2010, when we're all horrified by the dead Persians and American soldiers strewn over Iran by Pres McCain's sick warmongering, we'll have crap "reporting" like this to thank for it. Keep it up, WaPo.

Posted by: Anonymous | February 3, 2007 9:32 AM | Report abuse

Palatial estate? In Australia we call this "a patch of land." I´d like to see aerial photos of Dick Cheney´s "undisclosed secret location." So a Presidential candidate has a nice house. Fascinating news. Keep it up Sherlock.

Posted by: Mike | February 3, 2007 9:32 AM | Report abuse

I'm outraged that Senator Edwards would build such a large house for himself and his family. I thought only rich Republicans were allowed to do things like that.

Posted by: Guy B. Jones | February 3, 2007 9:33 AM | Report abuse

I am not surprised that this rot gets into a newspaper which publishes the columns of the slimy Robert Novak. What next? A column by Rush Limbaugh? Or, perhaps a WAPO endorsement for Limbaugh's Nobel prize candidacy?

Posted by: MariAngela | February 3, 2007 9:39 AM | Report abuse

I think the price of the estate (including the money being spent for rennovations) is $23 million, not $6 million. He sold his house in Chapel Hill for $6 million and another house in the Georgetown section of DC for $5 million.

Not the sort of thig that speaks, I would think, to the "other half" of the two societies Mr. John speaks about.

Posted by: jwiings | February 3, 2007 9:56 AM | Report abuse

Of course rich Republicans are allowed to do this as long as they do everything in their power to reserve wealth for the wealthy and powerful, and only throw crumbs to the lower classes. It's only a scandal if you have the wealth and try to help the less financially-blessed. To the Republicans, a rich man who enjoys his wealth yet advocates for the poor is a glaring hypocrisy. To them, it rises to the hypocrisy of chairing a committee against online sexual predation, while trying to seduce teen boys. I think America knows better.

Posted by: SpongeBathSquareDance | February 3, 2007 9:57 AM | Report abuse

It should go without saying that a candidacy based on lamenting inequality is vulnerable to charges of hypocrisy. Of course Edwards can do whatever he wants with his well-gotten gains, but he can't complain when an estate that would house half of Katrina's displaced comes in for criticism.
At least Edwards made his millions before entering politics. Unlike the Clintons, who before entering the White House were house-poor as well as cash-poor. Just look at them now - living high off the hog!
I know I'm hopelessly naive, but exactly when did holding high government office become the gateway to wealth?

Posted by: Janie | February 3, 2007 10:45 AM | Report abuse

We all chuckled at Gore's 3 button suits, earth tones and internet inventions. It was Ceci Connolly of the Washington Post who implanted those stories in our collective conscience. Look at us now, half a trillion dollars and hundreds of thousands of dead people later. Now, we get Kornblut mind reading Hillary's every calculated, fake, phony, fake thought for us, and this "buzz" person giggling over ridiculously fake Edwards and his hypocritical house without a helipad. Someone save us from the ridiculous children of the Washington Post.

Posted by: Anonymous | February 3, 2007 10:47 AM | Report abuse

And "Janie", it only "goes without saying" if you are a rube getting played by Rush/Hannity/Hume et al.

Posted by: Anonymous | February 3, 2007 10:52 AM | Report abuse

Keep it up, sweetheart. The more you show your catty little claws, the clearer your reading public sees you for what you are and the sooner they leave you for more sensible sources of information.

Posted by: Peggy Dutton | February 3, 2007 11:13 AM | Report abuse

I cannot understand the people that would criticize the Sleuth when there is such hypocrisy. I bet none of the Sleuth's critics are homeless yet.

Come back when you are and post from the public library. Until you have lost your job, health insurance, and your home, you people have no place to talk about poverty.

Editor: the Sleuth deserves a pay raise. Unmasking hypocrisy, this piece of journalism is saving from the grave mistake of electing a president who cares for people that are less fortunate than himself. I wouldn't be surprised if the Post wins a Pulitzer with this incisive piece of reporting. Keep it up!

Posted by: Yockel | February 3, 2007 11:35 AM | Report abuse

Just read preceding Sleuth columns. I get it. Shorter future Sleuth columns: "Aren't Dems fake and ridiculous. And fake."

Posted by: Anonymous | February 3, 2007 11:50 AM | Report abuse

Is that the set of The Beverly Chapel-Hillbillies? Forgetting the obvious hypocrisy... what about TASTE?

Posted by: gitarre | February 3, 2007 12:40 PM | Report abuse

6 million dollars and all that! In California you'd be lucky to get 1/3 of an acre and an old orange tree.

Good for the Edwards. May they live there happily, and in good health. And build their own Presidential Library in the barn. Good taste is not creating havoc at a local University, where the ethics department hates you.

Posted by: wminot | February 3, 2007 1:47 PM | Report abuse

What exactly do you expect when the only viable candidates for president MUST be millionaires in these times in order to finance their campaigns and attract big money to advertise the candidate? The Senate(from which Edwards graduated) ain't known as the MILLIONAIRES CLUB for nothing! Besides- I've seen basketball stars with bigger estates including their own indoor courts, gyms, etc.- so what? Same thing! One mans gym is another mans theater.The important thing would seem to be- does the man want to raise us all towards the "good life" or does he enrich himself at the expense of us all?

Posted by: rdmand | February 3, 2007 2:03 PM | Report abuse

Since Edwards is likely to be the next president of the United States, he feels he needs the extra space for security and staff.

The audacity of such a move upsets the Republicans and their handmaidens in the media, both of which have tried to bury Edwards' candidacy under the hype of Obama and Clinton.

Posted by: Susan Nunes | February 3, 2007 2:09 PM | Report abuse

This is very incomplete reporting.

Tell us how much his suits cost. Are his shoes and shirts bespoke? How about ties?

How big is his plasma screen?

What kind of bottled water does he drink?

What's the average price of an entree when he dines out?

Where does he go on vacation, how long does he stay there and which suite is his favorite?

There's so much more fascinating and important information that the Post should be giving us so we can be truly informed, intelligent citizens.

PS--I forgot: boxers or briefs?

Posted by: Duh | February 3, 2007 2:14 PM | Report abuse

The question is not what he has but how he got it. C'mon, now, Edwards is a lawyer, harvesting contingency fees from his clients, fees,of course, which come from someone else's pockets, the extraction of which acts to increase the cost of doing business and the cost of medical care.

Posted by: Anonymous | February 3, 2007 2:34 PM | Report abuse

I agree with some of the comments here; I'd better see some articles on the houses of the Dems and Repub candidates; since the bill to revive the Fairness Doctrine (the bane of the Repubs) will probably be filibustered or vetoed, we have to thank the blogosphere for balancing out the conservative media.

Posted by: SPENCER | February 3, 2007 2:37 PM | Report abuse

Those claiming Edwards house is evidence of hyprocrisy do not understand the meaning of the word. Look it up. Hypocrisy is pretending to be something you are not or claiming to stand for something you don't.

Edwards isn't advocating that everyone live in small houses. He isn't claiming to live a modest life style. He is saying that those who are poor deserve to be less poor.

You can disagree with his house or you can disagree with his position, but advocating for the poor and living in a large house is not evidence of hypocrisy. It just isn't.

Posted by: MC | February 3, 2007 3:45 PM | Report abuse

Look at all the bitterness from people who are going to give up reading the Washington Post after this perfectly legitimate story. I bet most of them are limousine liberals just like Edwards. At the very least, the house shows extremely poor judgment when he claims to be concerned about the poor. It is the same thing as Biden sticking his foot in his mouth -- very poor judgment. It looks terrible. He can live however he wants, but he shouldn't wonder if he's called a hypocrite. He certainly looks like one. He could have built a smaller house and given the rest of the money to the poor one way or the other. And I'm not a conservative looking to unseat him -- just a liberal whose potential primary vote he has now irrecvocably lost. And his wife bragging about their energy savings on his website - that just makes it look even more hypocritical.

Posted by: Chaszz | February 3, 2007 8:10 PM | Report abuse

Oh, honest to Pete--so a rich man bought a big house. I fail to see the point here.

Posted by: Jean King | February 3, 2007 8:18 PM | Report abuse

What a load of crappola this is! So Edwards has the money to buy a big house. Good on him. Do you write articles about how scandalous it is for fat piggish Rethuglicans to have large house? Of course not. They're rich-pigges, so that's acceptable. And if Edwards was to live in a modest house, like Dennis Kucinich, you'd be writing hit pieces about how queer he is to be sham-fully slumming it that way. Go back to the right-wing blogs where this steaming, stinking load originated.

Posted by: Bukko in Australia | February 3, 2007 9:22 PM | Report abuse

I do have to say that if he's going to make the argument that everyone should be able to live the American dream like he did, which is to say, make millions by suing people, it's going to come across as extremely lame. A lot of people don't think that getting rich by suing people is what the American dream was all about. And in actuality, relatively few people in our society will ever have the opportunity to get rich that way. I will also say that he would come across as far more sincere in his bid to help poor people if he chose to live a more humble lifestyle. Why does anyone need all that space? Wouldn't it have been great if he had used most of those millions to fight for justice, feed the poor, or do something other than purchase himself a lavish home? Just my opinion.

Posted by: clara | February 3, 2007 9:36 PM | Report abuse

So much wrong with this story.

On the Edwards side: I think there is something to this... unlike, it seems, most or all of my liberal friends (I am very much a liberal btw and would have voted for Dean over Edwards or Kerry any day in '04). It is one thing to be successful, it is another thing entirely to live entirely ensconced in the excessive of wealth that is supposedly the very motivation behind his campaign. I have always been wary of him and his "slickness" (tho his Two Americas is dead on). However now I will actively campaign against him if need be. Heh, this reminds me of Brad Pitt, who sponsored a green building design contest in New Orleans, buying a $3.5M house in the French Quarter. You did something good, great for you, but could you not have bought a $2.5M house and given the extra million to the community's school districts perhaps?

Conservatives "exposing" rich Dems: Come on. Hmm, let me fly over Edwards' compound in my PRIVATE AIRPLANE. Let's ignore the $600+B grant to the Military Industrial Complex and the shameful pathetic horrific failure of the GOP and instead recast our party as a bunch of whining, wimpus, sore losermans who have nothing to offer the country but political acrimony and endless war. So much for giving this blog a fair shake. I actually posted on this blog a week or so ago, thinking that this would be the lefty version of The Fix. Guess I was wrong. As for The Fix, Chris Cilliza has absolutely disgraced the field of journalism (with WaPo's full endorsement of course) with his constant pitiful attempts at subliminal attacks on Democrats. The Fix has had the prime space on politics page despite a whole page for opinion/editorials and B) no signal nor sign of a notice that the author injects biased opinion into his "reporting". My nick is F&B for fair and balanced. Something obviously knows nothing about.

All told, as I say up top this article sums up everything that is wrong with Washington DC. Par for the course, but very disconcerting nonetheless.

Posted by: F&B | February 3, 2007 10:08 PM | Report abuse

Replace "Helipad" with "Satanic Temple". It's just as good of a story, and just as truthful!

Some gossipers even insisted that Edwards had a Satanic Temple installed.

While she won't say much about her boss's new palace, she will shoot that rumor down. "I can tell you that there is no Satanic Temple," Edwards spokeswoman Jennifer Palmieri, told The Sleuth.

For his part, Carrington said he saw no signs of a Satanic Temple when he flew over. "They don't need one," he said. "There's clearly room for Satanic Temples."

Posted by: Me | February 4, 2007 9:45 AM | Report abuse

How can you say this has no place in the newspaper? Hypocracy is worth knowing. A potential presidential candidate opens his / her life up to scrutiny. If edwards is ashamed of his home then he should build somethign more modest. If he isn't then fine. If people see a contradiction between a 28,000SF house and a flanel shirt clad people's man they can voice those concerns.

Posted by: Conservative Hack | February 6, 2007 10:44 AM | Report abuse

Like a previous commenter wrote, this is the first I've read this blog -- and the last. It's just silly. Sure ain't worthy of the Post.

Posted by: Anonymous | February 6, 2007 2:40 PM | Report abuse

This article is an abomination that has no place in a mainstream media outlet. I dont seem to remember any criticism of our current president's inherited wealth while trying to campaign as the lovable cowboy. Ms Akers I wonder if you started your career by working in a tabloid, because if you think this is an appropriate story for the news then I think somebody has decided to make a career out of being a hack. This is the second article I have read of yours and this will be the last. Back to the Fix for me.

Posted by: Terrible.. | February 7, 2007 3:29 PM | Report abuse

It lke a direct swa for the place the guy just sold in DC. He probably sold 3500sf for $6Million. I just do not get how folks get upset and try to expose political wealth. Let look at folks that net worth tripled and doulbeld since being in office.

Posted by: RobGreg | February 8, 2007 6:24 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company