Kucinich and Edwards supporters should unite and form a true grassroots anti-neoliberal campaign

[StudentsMustUniteNow]

We have two media-anointed frontrunners jostling for the nomination. Both are neoliberals, close to big business, and according to Fortune Magazine "business loves" them and is "betting on" them.

We have two candidates who want to turn the clock back on the Reagan and Gingrich Revolutions which turned a great country into a cesspool of cultural rot and economic inequality.

In 2004, Kucinich asked his supports to caucus for Edwards in Iowa. I think that we on DU need to generate a grassroots revolution, similar to the one that propelled Dean in 2004. To do this, we need the progressives here to stop bickering and unite.

If Kucinich has a greater chance of winning the nomination and has more supporters here, we should back him and donate in droves. If Edwards has the greater chance, then Edwards.

We need to get involved and put a wrench in the wheel of corporate neoliberal "revolutions" which Clinton and Obama indicate slyly that they will continue.

I would be interested in seeing a Kucinich vs. Edwards poll also done here.

Check in here if you agree with me!

[rinsd]

1. Yes, a cofounder of the New Democrats who now claims he was never DLC

Your new progressive hero!

"In 2004, Kucinich asked his supports to caucus for Edwards in Iowa."

I think you have that confused with the convention when he released his delegates.

[StudentsMustUniteNow]

2. You have a Hillary Clinton avatar

You are also wrong. Look it up.

[rinsd]

5. I did have the Iowa thing wrong.

No wonder a great deal of his supporters were pissed and left him.

"You have a Hillary Clinton avatar"

So? You've been here all of a month and spend most of your time bad mouthing Democrats.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

11. And Webb was a Reagan appointnee, HRC a Goldwater girl...

...Clark not a Democrat in 2001, Gore the first DLC candidate. Reagan himself was a New Deal Democrat. And so on. The point? People change.

[rinsd]

15. People do change.

But they usually do not pretend their past does not exist.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

17. Huh?

So is he supposed to walk around with a mini-biography taped on himself?

[rinsd]

20. I don't need the mini-biography

I could do without the pandering claims that obscure his past.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

22. Like "there would be an outrage if it were white women"

Yeah, and you just figured that out in front of a black audience after 8 years in the WH and 6 years in the senate?

[MalloyLiberal]

62. I just chuckle when hillary supporters criticize others for pandering

hahahah

[LoZoccolo]

21. Actually, what he said was partially true.

I'm not a big fan of StudentsMustUniteNow, but he's partially correct. The other part is that it was contingent on a candidate's viability in each caucus, and Edwards supporters promised to switch to Kucinich as well.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/19/elec04.prez.edwards.kucinich/index.html

[Inspired]

53. No, you are wrong.

I was at the caucus in 2004 and Kucinich's supporters were told that he wanted them to caucus for Edwards. It is very true. Kucinich and Edwards are actually good friends.

[robinlynne]

3. I personally agree with you and plan to vote for edwards, but I do not think that

our views represent the majority of views here on DU. I think you will find support for all of the candidates here. And I think Kucinich vs Edwards doesn't make sense at all. I support everything Kucinich says, but there is no chance he will win the nomination. I still support him because he brings the entire dialog to the left, which is what you, and MANY of us, want.
In other words, I support your intent, but don't think the way you are placing it will unite large numbers of people.
(my own personal opinion only)

perhaps showing the differences between Edwards/kucinich/Gore/Clark on the one hand and Clinton/Obama on the other would be a better way to start this dialog...

[wyldwolf]

4. ...and that duo would still be in third place behind Clinton and Obama

[PATRICK]

14. That and

the fact it is up to the Edwards campaign to move on the issues toward Dennis. That would please a lot of people here but would likely be a puzzle for anyone watching such an event as politics. Compared to 2004 when Edwards was all too similarly waiting- wisely it seemed- for the big guns to eliminate someone, the scene today is not the liberal white horse of Dean but the more charismatic centricity of Obama. He didn't join with Dean then and he certainly has less cause to move completely to the left at this moment.
tactics is not much of an argument then and center left is his consistent stakeout, moving toward progressive policies but not where Dennis has them staked out- yet.

The only thing that sadly might happen is DK endorsing the most kindred soul against the least if he drops out. Not very exciting or decisive. Edwards has to win the left all on his own at it simplest. We hope the dynamism of Kucinich's push will be part of the greater impetus to keep edwards going where he is sincerely pointed now.

[MuseRider]

6. No, just no.

There is no way I am joining some kind of group and throwing my Kucinich support behind Edwards or any one else. Sorry, Kucinich stands alone (before they come, oh haha, y'all are just so funny) and he in no way is akin to Edwards IMO. I can't imagine Edwards supporters coming out in droves to throw behind Kucinich either.

The Iowa caucus was a political move to keep one person from running away with it. K knew he would not have enough delegates and he saw that Edwards was closer to the others so he threw in with him.

By the way, how did that revolution work out for Dean?

[JNelson6563]

7. Dean's revolution

Actually it's still going on and it's flourishing, in spite of a certain Dem cabal who has tried tirelessly to derail the 50 state strategy and re-focus just on big bucks donors.

But hey, thanks for asking.

Julie

[MuseRider]

8. I was of course talking about

the 2004 elections but that is OK. You are welcome.

[JNelson6563]

10. Yeah, I know

I decided to pretend you weren't being a snide jerk.

Julie

[MuseRider]

37. Sorry Julie

but I really wasn't. But again, that's OK. We see things differently. That should not really make anyone a jerk. :)

[JNelson6563]

60. I agree with you

Disagreeing on a point doesn't make anyone a jerk. It's the manner in which the disagreement is voiced.

Julie-proud member of Dean's revolution

[MuseRider]

61. Well it has to be my comment

about Dean and his campaign that has you ticked off. How did it go? It did not do it for Dean so to use his campaign as a model for another might not be a good idea right? It is very easy to get pissed and call people jerks if you can't see that everything that does not praise Dean is a snide, jerky remark.

This was not a snide remark and I am not a jerk just because I don't think that Dean poops pansies. Now I am being snide and a jerk but really I don't care anymore. I have a right to my opinion and I have a right to express what I say without someone calling me names because it seems like a nasty remark about their perfect person. I also have the right to be nasty (and I have been) but that was not one of those times (this is) but then I realize that some are a little sensitive still.

Hey, my guy lost too. I don't think that I have EVER gone into a thread and called someone a snide jerk just because they said something nasty about him, especially if they told me that it was not meant that way. Jesus.

[AtomicKitten]

9. Is that the same Edwards that co-sponsored the IWR?

Ya know, the one that argued so convincingly for the Iraq War the State Department posted his OP on their website.

Selective criticism is fun!

[draft_mario_cuomo]

12. Obviously, the IWR is the ONLY issue that matters in 2007 nt

[AtomicKitten]

13. it matters

* you betyerass it matters *

And the selective criticism here at DU on that subject is mind-boggling.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

18. The corporate agenda does not matter

The corporate agenda does not matter. Trade does not matter. 37 million Americans in poverty does not matter. Universal health insurance does not matter. The candidates' plans on Iraq going forward do not matter. All that matters is the sacred IWR in 2002. Even if we have to sellout on key progressive principles, let us make sure we nominate someone who was correct (although one says he doesn't even know what he would do if he was in Congress and the other is at 1% in the polls since the IWR crowd deserted him( on one bill half a decade ago.

The IWR is a godsend for the status quo. It blinds enough people to make them support the status quo because they are whipped into a single-issue frenzy.

[AtomicKitten]

25. It is you that makes it mutually exclusive.

I, in fact, can hold various thoughts in my head simultaneously. It really works out quite nicely in the process of critical analysis.

Discount as a citizen that epically horrible and disastrous vote at your own peril, but don't for a minute think you are successful in sweeping it under the carpet by virtue of brow-beating and dramatic rhetoric.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

29. The IWR is a litmus test for many

==Discount as a citizen that epically horrible and disastrous vote at your own peril, but don't for a minute think you are successful in sweeping it under the carpet by virtue of brow-beating and dramatic rhetoric.==

Most Dem voters don't worship at the altar of the IWR (look at the combined vote for IWR voters). It doesn't need to be swept under the carpet. Sure, it should be a factor but it is not a sacred pre-emptive factor.

[AtomicKitten]

34. "worship at the altar of the IWR"

wowie wow wow

:rofl:

On edit: I will vote for Edwards and work tirelessly for him in the general if he gets the nod. 'kay?

[draft_mario_cuomo]

38. I was making a general comment

I don't know enough about you to say whether you are one of those people.

[slipslidingaway]

27. One to two trillion dollars for this invasion can buy quite a bit of

food, some wrong decisions are BIG mistakes.


He also said he was wrong to vote for the bankruptcy bill.

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0322-05.htm

"When George W. Bush took office, a bankruptcy bill was the first major legislation passed by the new Congress. Bill Clinton had vetoed a milder version, but in the new circumstances many former opponents scrambled aboard. Only sixteen Democratic senators voted against the bill, led by Paul Wellstone (the measure would have become law long ago, if not for Wellstone's guerrilla resistance). The "yea" votes included a couple of new faces much celebrated as "people" politicians and presidential possibles--Hillary Clinton and John Edwards. Two other potential candidates--Russ Feingold and John Kerry--voted against it."


I am not willing to take the chance of another possible mistake with Iran.


http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Edwards_Iran_must_know_world_wont_0123.html

"In a speech at a conference in Herzliya, Israel, former Senator John Edwards (D-NC) took aim at Iran, warning that the "world won't back down."

To ensure that Iran never gets nuclear weapons, we need to keep ALL options on the table, Let me reiterate – ALL options must remain on the table."

[draft_mario_cuomo]

30. If Edwards voted "nay" the vote would have been 76-24

In other words, nothing would have changed. This is what is last in the histrionics over the IWR, the fact that even if HRC, Biden, Kerry, Dodd, and Edwards voted no not a single thing would have changed.

All of our major candidates have the same position on Iran.

[slipslidingaway]

33. While that may be true, his vote and words leave a clue as to

his judgement and how he might act in the future.

At least HRC, Biden, Dodd, and Kerry voted for the Byrd amendment, Edwards voted against it.


America's Role in the World

October 7, 2002

http://www.cfr.org/publication/5441/americas_role_in_the_world.html?breadcrumb=%2Fbios%2Fbio%3Fid%3D9641%26page%3D2

"My position is very clear: The time has come for decisive action to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. I am a co-sponsor of the bipartisan resolution we're currently considering.

Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave threat to America and our allies -- including our vital ally, Israel. For more than 20 years, Saddam has obsessively sought weapons of mass destruction through every possible means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons today, that he has used them in the past, and that he is doing everything he can to build more. Every day he gets closer to his longtime goal of nuclear capability. We must not allow him to get nuclear weapons.

As I've said before, I believe the Iraqi threat demands action by the U.S. together with our allies if the United Nations Security Council is prevented from acting to enforce its own resolutions. But I also believe that this is a very good example of how American leadership in the world will produce a better result than American disregard."



On the Amendment (Byrd Amdt. No. 4869, As Amended )

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00232

"To provide a termination date for the authorization of the use of the Armed Forces of the United States, together with procedures for the extension of such date unless Congress disapproves the extension."


All of our major candidates have the same position on Iran.

Yes..scary.

[slick8790]

35. As he should.

I disapprove of ANYONE saying ANYTHING is off the table in our current political situation, be it impeachment or Iran.

When George Bush says nothing is off the table, I get scared. I don't trust him because he's a lunatic.

I trust that John Edwards is not going to go starting wars for fun and profit like bushie, which is why I trust that he would use military force only if it was absolutely necessary, after every other option has been exhausted.

There's a difference.

[Buck Rabbit]

19. Wasn't he pushing for a huge troop surge in 2003 and 2004?

Voted for the 2000 bankruptcy bill. Was in the New Democrat (DLC) coalition for his term in the Senate.

Now why again did he go from being a Dino to a Progressive all at once in 2005? Could it be 'cause he ran to open ground on the left when Hilary made it known that she was running and the DLC threw all their support to her?

I like Edward's campaign positions in 2007, I just don't believe he adopted them for the right reasons. I fear he is just a hawk in new found doves clothing.

[AtomicKitten]

26. I do believe that's the same Edwards of which you speak.

When one pushes back the curtain, the candidate doesn't seem quite so pristine.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

28. Um...you are a Gore supporter

Gore was the first DLC presidential candidate and a committed, leading New Democrat (who was one of the few Dems to vote for the Gulf War, advocated military intervention in the Balkans, etc. In other words, Gore was a hawkish DLCer!) from the inception of the DLC in the mid-80's up until 2002. He ran as a "New Democrat" in 2000 with Holy Joe on his ticket. His change, of course, was sincere from 1985-2000 (abortion, guns, etc.), and especially the rapid change between 2001-2003. A political rookie gradually evolving to the left, though, is surely a sign of him being a fraud. A political rookie going from to the left to the center is just fine and sincere, though...

[AtomicKitten]

32. Yes, that is Al Gore's distant history.

May I introduce you to the long since evolved Al Gore. The same Al Gore who vehemently opposed the invasion of Iraq and slammed BushCo's illegal wire-tapping, etc., etc. in a series of fiery speeches early on.

It's unfortunate that Mr. Edwards' let's just say new ideology is too fresh to feel confident about taking without a grain of salt and suspicion particularly since it dovetails so nicely into a presidential campaign.

I'll put my money on Al Gore any day of the week.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

36. So you are saying a candidate can evolve?

Distant history? 2000 is distant history but 2002 is not? Besides, Gore was slowly evolving (naturally or for political gain, in your view? ) the entire time. It isn't as if the Gore of 1988--the DLC's first presidential candidate--was the Gore of 1998 or the Gore of 1978.

Gore was in politics for decades, observed it from the day he was born (as you know, his father was a senator) and saw the light only in 2002-2003. I accept that. He is my #2 choice. You, though, say that while Gore's conversion is sincere Edwards, who was a political newcomer--meaning he was not around enough to have crystallized views at the time--is a total fraud because as he learned about issues, criss-crossed the nation he evolved.

==It's unfortunate that Mr. Edwards' let's just say new ideology is too fresh to feel confident about taking without a grain of salt and suspicion particularly since it dovetails so nicely into a presidential campaign. ==

Like, for instance, evolving from pro-life to pro-choice, pro-gun to pro-gun control on your way from representing a conservative southern constituency to aiming for a national audience for president, including a progressive primary audience... :eyes: The presidency. You know, the same prize another former southern senator is aiming for.

[AtomicKitten]

39. Yes, they absolutely can and I welcome it.

It's just that Edwards' evolution is a pretty recent 180-degree turnaround that dovetails into an election, and I am not convinced of his sincerity other than he sincerely wants to be president.

That and the fact that he already demonstrated horribly wrong judgment in rallying support for the IWR. For me that's enough to not vote for him in the primary. But you go right ahead; that is your prerogative as a voter.

I, however, am having difficulty digesting the suggestion that Edwards and Kucinich deserve to be mentioned in the same breath. Kucinich has that authenticity thing going for him. Edwards not so much.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

42. That is fine but how can you have one standard for Gore and another for Edwards?

==It's just that Edwards' evolution is a pretty recent 180-degree turnaround that dovetails into an election==

Throughout Gore's evolution during his decades in politics he always evolved in a way that was politically expedient. He was similar to Gephardt in this respect.

==That and the fact that he already demonstrated horribly wrong judgment in rallying support for the IWR.==

Gore was known as a DLC hawk until he was freed from political constraints in 2002. You surely know this and his record already.

==Kucinich has that authenticity thing going for him. Edwards not so much.==

Again, that is subjective. Kucinich, too, has "evolved". Yes, and in the nick of time for a presidential campaign. He was an ardent pro-lifer but, like Gore and Gephardt, switched to being pro-choice in time to contest Democratic primaries for president.

You seem to have a personal dislike of Edwards wrapped up in the veneer of opposing his shifts on issues. You seem to have no problem with others doing the same.

[AtomicKitten]

44. ease up, cowboy

I have defended the haircut, the house, the bullshit.

Don't cavalierly dismiss my VALID trepidation about your candidate's participation in getting this war on. Your rationalization of it works for you but you must stop expecting it to hold water with others.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

45. Sure. What I dispute is the notion that he is a fraudulent political chameleon

Especially when it comes from a Gore supporter...

==Don't cavalierly dismiss my VALID trepidation about your candidate's participation in getting this war on. Your rationalization of it works for you but you must stop expecting it to hold water with others.==

That isn't what our last exchanges were about. They were about political evolutions. You have dismissed Edwards as a fraud and excused the shifts of Gore and Kucinich. That is your right. Your rationalization works for you.

In all this discussion about authenticity the irony is we would not be having this discussion today if a certain individual was perceived as more authentic in 2000. ;)

[AtomicKitten]

46. nope

You are putting words in my mouth to augment your outrage that I have the audacity to not support your candidate.

I never called Edwards a fraud. I said his conveniently timed evolution on Iraq is suspicious, and I reserve the right to have that opinion.

Vote for whomever you want. Just don't try to sell Edwards in a different package when not enough time has elapsed to make his prior incarnation fuzzy enough to buy into it.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

49. Mere semantics

==Just don't try to sell Edwards in a different package when not enough time has elapsed to make his prior incarnation fuzzy enough to buy into it.==

What is the statute of limitations? 7 years I suppose?

[AtomicKitten]

50. Whatever works for you, draft_mario_cuomo.

That's what counts.

Peace out.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

52. Bye

:hi:

[draft_mario_cuomo]

16. There is a reason Clobama dominate on Wall Street nt

[Cameron27]

23. Edwards has plenty of Wall Street buddies,

and he's the only one who added to his millions by investing in, and working for a scurrilous hedgefund.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

31. There is a huge difference in degree of corporate support

First, you invoked hedge funds. Who is the hedge fund candidate? It isn't Edwards. Hedge fund managers are not dumb. They know who will serve them best.

Barack Obama, the hedge fund candidate

==In the cast of 2008 Democratic contenders, Barack Obama is playing the role of the "grassroots candidate." In the first quarter of 2007, depending on how you cut it, he tied or bested Hillary Clinton in total funds raised, but he blew her away in number of donors, 100,000 to 50,000, indicating more people giving smaller donations--in other words, significant grassroots support.

But, even as Obama plays the people's choice by building his war chest in two- and three-figure increments, he is also relying on a growing cadre of young, eye-poppingly rich hedge-fund and private-equity managers to keep him at the head of the money primary. During the first quarter he nearly doubled Clinton's take from private-equity firms--$85,350 against $47,900, according to the magazine Private Equity Hub--and, with $479,209, he placed first among candidates from both parties in giving from investment banks, many of which run their own hedge funds and private-equity operations (Rudy Giuliani, the runner-up, got $473,442).

While all the candidates are flocking to these new pots of financial wealth, it's no surprise that the Wall Street Wünderkinder are passing on the establishment names to back Obama. After all, the Illinois senator is precisely the sort of investment they like to make: new, risky and anti-establishment--" the unproven investment," noted BusinessWeek--but with an enormous upside potential, and, with it, enormous political returns. Which, given their deep pockets, is great news for the Obama campaign. Whether he wants to be known as the hedge-fund candidate is a different question.==

==There is also a more Machiavellian element to these young turks' support. Precisely because the Clinton dynasty has been around so long, the door to her innermost fundraising circles--and thus influence and possible White House posts--is largely closed. The top jobs in a hypothetical Hillary Clinton White House aren't exactly taken, but they're not available to newcomers, either. Obama's door, on the other hand, is wide open. So it's no surprise that while Wall Street stalwart Rattner is a big-time Hillary backer, his right-hand man at Quadrangle, Steiner, is going with Obama. The same is the case with Jamie Rubin, the son of Clinton's economic consigliore Robert. "If we all lined up for Hillary, we wouldn't have even gotten into the anteroom, let alone seats at the table," one of Obama's young fundraisers told New York. "But that's not how it is with Barack. We're already at the table."==

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=w070507&s=risen051107

Obama's corporate support

Obama has “played up populist themes of reform,” trumpeting his “large number of small donations” and claiming (in the Senator’s words) to be “launcha fundraising drive that isn’t about dollars” (Morain 2007). But his astonishing first-quarter campaign finance haul of $25.7 million included $17.5 million from “big donors” ($1000 and up) – a sum higher than John Edwards’ (Curry 2007) total take ($14 million) from all donors together (Campaign Finance Institute 2007). Obama got a combined $530,000 from leading global finance and investment firms UBS-Americas ($162,200), Goldman Sachs ($146,100), Citigroup ($56,000), Credit Suisse Securities ($47,500), Morgan Stanley ($41,850), Lehman Bros. ( $38,400) and ($37,900) Aerial Capital (Center for Responsive Politics 2007c; Morain 2007). He received more than two-thirds (68 percent) of his first quarter 2007 fundraising total “from donations of $1000 or more” (Street 2007c).

Hillary's corporate support

==“A bevy of current and former Hillary advisers, including her communications guru, Howard Wolfson, are linked to a prominent lobbying firm – the Glover Park Group – that has cozied up to the pharmaceutical industry and Rupert Murdoch. Her fundraiser in chief, Terry McAuliffe, has the priciest Rolodex in Washington, luring high-rolling contributors to Clinton's campaign. Her husband, since leaving the presidency, has made millions giving speeches and counsel to investment banks like Goldman Sachs and Citigroup. They house, in addition to other Wall Street firms, the Clintons' closest economic advisers, such as Bob Rubin and Roger Altman, whose DC brain trust, the Hamilton Project, is Clinton's economic team in waiting…’ She's got a deeper bench of big money and corporate supporters than her competitors,’ says Eli Attie, a former speechwriter to Vice President Al Gore. Not only is Hillary more reliant on large donations and corporate money than her Democratic rivals, but advisers in her inner circle are closely affiliated with union-busters, GOP operatives, conservative media and other Democratic Party antagonists.”==


Hillary savages the insurance industry (especially when talking to labor and minority audiences) for denying services and over-charging providers and patients but then makes it clear that she intends to leave the insurance companies “in control of the health care system” (Peterson 2007). It’s not for nothing that she received nearly five times as much political money from the insurance industry as Edwards ($226,450 v. $46,500) during the first quarter of 2007 (Center for Responsive Politics 2007c).==

Read about Obama, Inc. and Hillary, Inc. at http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=21&ItemID=13177

[Adelante]

47. A bit more to the story

Candidates vying for the Democratic Party nomination for next year’s US presidential election have taken around three-quarters of the campaign contributions made by hedge fund managers, according to an analysis of federal filings in the first quarter of 2007 by Absolute Return magazine and the Center for Responsive Politics.

All told, leading hedge funds have given USD1.1m so far to the 2008 presidential hopefuls, according to the study, which was based on the top 100 firms that make up Absolute Return’s ‘Billion Dollar Club’, released in March, and public campaign contribution records.

Perhaps not surprisingly, the biggest beneficiary was Christopher Dodd, a US senator from the hedge fund management hotbed of Connecticut and chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, who attracted almost a third of the total at USD347,300. John Edwards, who was Al Gore’s running mate in 2000 , came in second, raising USD190,650.

Dodd and Edwards were aided by the support of SAC Capital Advisors and Fortress Investment Group, the top hedge fund donors during the first quarter. Fortress gave a total of USD226,350, including USD182,250 to Edwards, while the vast majority of SAC’s USD211,700 - USD209,600 - went to Dodd.

New York Senator Hillary Clinton was in third place with USD164,600 in contributions from hedge fund managers, while Barack Obama of Illinois raised USD119,300. The top Republican in terms of hedge fund contributions was former New York mayor Rudolph Giuliani, who raised USD124,200.

http://www.hedgeweek.com/articles/detail.jsp?content_id=111006

The hedge fund that employed John Edwards markedly expanded its subprime lending business while he worked there, becoming a major player in the high-risk mortgage sector Edwards has pilloried in his presidential campaign.

Edwards said yesterday that he was unaware of the push by the firm, Fortress Investment Group, into subprime lending and that he wishes he had asked more questions before taking the job. The former senator from North Carolina said he had asked Fortress officials whether it was involved in predatory lending practices before taking the job in 2005 and was assured it was not.

-snip

Largely as a result of the rise in subprime lending and the cooling housing market, home foreclosure filings rose to 1.2 million in 2006, an increase of 42 percent. At the same time, the drop in value of subprime lenders has presented a buying opportunity for investors such as Fortress.

Fortress hired Edwards as an adviser in October 2005, nearly a year after his losing campaign as Democratic vice presidential candidate. At the time, it owned a major stake in Green Tree Servicing LLC, which rose to prominence in the 1990s selling subprime loans to mobile-home owners and now services subprime loans originated by others.

-snip

Fortress’s growing role in the subprime lending market provides a second contrast between the firm’s business practices and the positions Edwards has taken as the presidential candidate who has made poverty a major campaign theme. The Washington Post reported last month that Fortress’s partners and its foreign investors benefited from the kind of offshore tax breaks Edwards has criticized as a candidate.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/10/AR2007051002277.html

[Cameron27]

54. Thanks WD.

I had to cut out of here right after I posted and didn't have time to answer DMC. John Edwards nails second place with USD190,650 hedge fund contributions, plus invests millions with them, and makes big bucks working for them...a trifecta. We have a winner!

[riqster]

24. Better they should say what they're FOR

...anybody can be against (fill in the blank). It takes vision and intellect to have a goal of one's own.

[TeamJordan23]

40. I don't see Edwards calling for Hedge Fund regulation by his actions to invest in one and

by working for one.

[Adelante]

48. Not so far, but any minute now maybe, maybe not

A Democratic presidential debate, before a predominantly African American audience at Howard University last night, took a small step toward smoking out the leading White House contenders on Wall Street’s hottest political issue: raising taxes on private equity and hedge fund executives.

Former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, who has ducked an issue that would hit his former colleagues at Fortress Investment Group, couldn’t avoid showing his populist colors. Citing Warren Buffett’s complaint that he pays a lower effective tax rate than his secretary, Edwards cited the “moral disconnnect” between workers paying ordinary income tax rates and financial tycoons paying preferential capital gains rates.

An Edwards aide preserved the candidate’s room for waffling after the debate, saying he hadn’t endorsed pending House legislation to curb the use of “carried interest.” But after Edwards’ comments last night he’ll face a strong hypocrisy attack if he doesn’t embrace the idea.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/19503554

[draft_mario_cuomo]

51. Clobama's position

==Front-runners Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton skirted the "carried interest" issue, but made clear once again that their tax and spending priorities involve shift part of the tax burden from the middle class to the rich.==

In other words, they dodged the issue with poll-tested rhetoric without having to offer anything concrete.

[Schema Thing]

41. These two men are MILES apart.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

43. They are closer to each other than many think

See http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=21&ItemID=13177

==THE NARROW NEOLIBERAL SPECTRUM



Why is the media’s scorn for the populist/progressive hypocrisy of top tier candidates – a hypocrisy that is written into the structural nature of the United States’ heavily media-focused and corporate-plutocratic “dollar democracy” – so disproportionately focused on Edwards? It’s simple. He’s not a full-blown populist progressive; no such individual could run a credible campaign under the current corporate-dominated U.S. electoral regime. But after the openly Left and officially unelectable Kucinich (who threw his Iowa caucus delegates to Edwards in 2004 and will probably do so again in 2008), Edwards is the closest thing to such a candidate in the Democratic primaries. Having attained his “wealth as a trial lawyer suing hospitals and corporations” (Cohen 2007), Edwards is deeply concerned (however hypocritical he might sound) about poverty and inequality. After heading a liberal poverty research center in Chapel Hill for the last three years, he announced his campaign in an impoverished section New Orleans – the nation’s leading symbol of concentrated and racialiized poverty and government neglect – and speaks insistently and repeatedly about and against the growing chasm between rich and poor within the United States. He has the most progressive and detailed health care proposal – the only truly universal plan – among the top-tier Democratic candidates. He advocates rolling back Bush’s tax cuts for people who receive more than $200,000 a year to fund truly universal coverage (6).



Edwards is the only top tier Democrat to back up Dennis Kucinich’s claim that single-payer government health insurance is good policy. His universal health care plan is to the left of the cheaper and milder copy-cat version proposed by Barack Obama in that it is more adequately funded (thanks to the proposed tax-cut rollback), truly universal and would compel private insurance companies to compete with government plans and could evolve into single payer.==

==It’s not for nothing that Edwards is losing to Hillary-Obama in both the big donor dollar race and in the race for name recognition and favorable attention in dominant media. He’s speaking the languages of labor, the New Deal and the (stillborn) War on Poverty to a noteworthy extent in a time when the labor movement and the notion of positive government action for egalitarian and anti-poverty ends have been officially proclaimed dead and over (drowned in the icy individualist waters of neoliberal calculation) and in a period when the issues of inequality and economic insecurity resonate with a considerable and growing section of the ever more class-fractured citizenry.==

==Edwards, for all his social and ideological limitations (from a Left perspective), is working to place this problem and the intimately related issue of poverty in the foreground. He appears to sincerely care – and is willing to pay a campaign-finance and related public relations cost for his concern – about these issues. For this and other reasons, dominant U.S. media tend to alternately mock and ignore his campaign. This is supposed to be a militantly regressive corporate-neoliberal age – no questions asked – as far as the nation’s economic and ideological power elite is concerned. The spectrum of acceptable debate set by that elite has shifted to far to the right that even an Edwards – not just a Kucinich (the most truly Left candidate in the race) – gets vicious treatment from dominant communications and cultural authorities.==

[MaggieSwanson]

55. Only in Edwards'

wettest dreams.

He's a poser progressive, so sorry.

[Zorra]

56. I've been thinking the same thing for about a month now. n/t

[Politicub]

57. What's a neoliberal?

First time I've heard the term.

[LBJDemocrat]

58. A reversion to Adam Smith-style "classical liberalism"

Has nothing to do with the word liberal as used to describe progressives.

[AP]

59. I agree with you.

I knocked on doors for Edwards in '04. When I met someone who supported the Kooch, I always said that I was not going to try to dissuade them from supporting Dennis and I moved on.