The story: The Associated Press reported yesterday that Sen. John McCain took another potshot at possible rival Sen. Barack Obama, calling him insensitive to the poor and out of touch on issues concerning lower-income Americans.

The response: Senator Barack Obama’s net worth at the end of 2005 was between $1 and $2 million, making him the 50th-richest senator in Congress. Senator Hillary Clinton reported her net worth to the FEC in 2007 as between $10 and $50 million, while Sen. John McCain, a pauper amongst the elite liberal candidates and the only one really in tune with the interests of the poor, reported yearly earnings far below $1 … oh, wait a minute. He estimated his net worth to be between $21 million and $32 million. It is absolutely possible to be filthy rich and care about the poor: John Edwards’s populist campaign was relentlessly focused upon the poor despite his $29.5 million in assets. But if memory serves, Edwards dropped out of the race – perhaps signaling Americans’ general disinterest toward problems of poverty? It’s ridiculous for any of these fabulously wealthy candidates to hide their elite status behind a mantle of populism, but it’s reprehensible for a rich presidential hopeful to masquerade as a man of modest means in a sea of limousine liberals for the sake of scoring cheap political points. Maybe at the next “”gotcha”” debate someone can explain to me how, in our wealth-obsessed culture, presidential candidates are considered more virtuous if they conceal their wealth and status.