Edwards isn't immune from having his past examined

[cali]

There's nothing shocking about the Obama opposition research on Edwards. Opposition research is part of EVERY candidate's campaign- even if you don't normally get a peek at it. And Edward's voting record and his work for and investment in a hedge fund, aren't off limits. Edwards continually throws around the insinuation/accusation that Obama and Clinton are corporatists, no better than repukes. Fine. But he doesn't just get to dish it out, not with his own corporate background. Hedge Funds are the bottom of the Wall Street barrel, and Edwards' work/investment is of recent vintage. And I think it's the most disturbing thing about him.

[MonkeyFunk]

1. Heheh

Of COURSE opp-research is done by every campaign. I crack up at the people here who act oh-so-shocked that it occurs.

[cali]

3. I doubt they're really shocked

I see it more as faux-outrage than naite.

[Adelante]

2. Absolutely silly, this whole thing

If a sheet of paper with Edwards' own record on it counts as a negative on Edwards, them's the breaks. It's his record.

[Clark2008]

5. It seems, above all other candidates, that Edwards runs most

from his record.

HRC's certainly isn't perfect - and I don't agree with some of it - but she doesn't run from it like Edwards does. Neither does Obama, for that matter.

But, bring up Edwards' record and the Hallelujah chorus of apologies strikes up.

[cascadiance]

34. But I'd rather have someone that runs TO you rather than stay their distance...

If HRC or Obama don't have a good record, NOR do they try to acknowledge that it was wrong and that they want to change in the direction you'd like to go, how is that better than someone who's acknowledged that their record is bad and is now speaking about doing things you want seeing done?

The worst that can happen is that he backs off from this agenda, but as my other post said, if he does that, and he's already been elected ON a progressive agenda, the mandate of what the people will have voted for will still remain and still be seen to be a strong message as to what this country wants, whether or not he backs off from it or not.

If he DOES follow through on his newer stances, etc., then I think we have the perfect candidate and perhaps as good a president as we could have hoped for.

[tritsofme]

4. Edwards only joined the hedge fund to learn about poverty!

<nonsense/>

[zalinda]

6. This is mudslinging, just so you know

First of all you don't know his motivations, you can only guess from your very biased point of view.

Secondly, he admitted on Charlie Rose that it was a job, and didn't white wash it. So, I don't know his motivation.

zalinda

[cali]

7. No, it's not mudslinging. Just so you know, JE's original explanation

for his association with Fortress Investments was precisely what that poster said.

"John Edwards has made poverty a top issue as he stumps for the Democratic Presidential nomination. So his connections to Fortress Investment Group, a highly profitable hedge fund and private equity firm with several executives on Forbes’ latest billionaires list, have provoked quite a bit of interest from campaign watchers. Asked about his decision to join Fortress as a senior adviser in 2005, Mr. Edwards told The Associated Press on Tuesday that he did it “mainly in order to learn about the relationships between financial markets and poverty.”

http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/05/09/for-poverty-101-edwards-went-to-a-hedge-fund/

Yeah, he changed his story. It's still legit to call him on what he originally said, and it's not mudslinging.

[zalinda]

15. The mudslinging is the

that was in his message, and you know that quite well Cali, because when it comes to Edwards you know how to do it with the best.

Since I hadn't read about your link before, I could not comment on what his motivation was. So I went to the link and what do you know, he said that it was to study the relationships between financial markets and poverty and (which you so conveniently left out) to make money. So, Cali, he didn't change his story, he just didn't elaborate.

I've been tempted to go to other candidates threads and snark in them, but I realized I'm a grown up and grown ups talk issues, they don't play school yard games on who can be the snarkiest.

zalinda

[cali]

16. I'm not snarking I'm criticizing. When I snark.people know it.

And I don't snark at candidates- only posters. It's utterly ludicrous to think that you need to consult for a hedge fund- the bottom feeders of investing- to learn about the relationship between financial markets and poverty. Speak to some experts, for the love of rationality. Instead, Edwards consulted part time for a payday of $500,000 and made millions off their sleazy investing. The rest of his explanation is even more embarassing than the part I printed.

You're obviously feeling defensive about this. I don't blame you. I'd hate to try and put lipstick on this pig myself.

[JDPriestly]

44. Edwards stated he joined the hedge fund to make money and to learn about investment.

You may or may not like what Edwards has done, but he is quite honest about it. As a matter of fact, he is honest about everything. Edwards is a brilliant man. Among his many gifts are the ability to succeed, to win and, yes, to make money. Personally, I don't think there is anything wrong with making money or working in business as long as you pay your share of taxes and don't knowingly exploit others. Edwards made most of his money representing plaintiffs in lawsuits against insurance companies and big business.

Compare that to Clinton who made a lot of her money sitting on the boards of directors of Walmart, Tyson, etc. Of course, a lot of Clinton's money came from Bill's speaking engagements and who knows what after he left office. That is another story about which I have a lot of questions. Who in the world pays Clinton so much for his speeches? As I recall, everyone was very worried during his presidency that he would be bankrupted by the litigation by Paula Jones and the related impeachment matters. Now, the Clintons are extremely wealthy. Where did the money come from?

Obama, of course, has a lot of money by my standards, but not a whole lot compared to Edwards or Hillary. I don't think that being poorer better qualifies a person to be president, but being relatively poorer does not disqualify a person. I suspect that Obama's wife is pretty well paid. It would be interesting to know what her work is really about.

One of my tip-offs that Bush would be a failure as a president is the fact that he never succeeded at much before he became president. All of the Democratic candidates have been successful in what they have tried to do (or at least more often successful than not), but Edwards has been the most successful financially. I think that is great. Republicans will respect that even if they don't like what he has to say.

[waiting for hope]

45. If I could rec a comment...

Hats off to you!

[tritsofme]

48. And I have no problem with a man going out and doing what he needs to do

to provide for his family.

It wouldn't even really irk me if he was completely candid with his intentions at the hedge fund.

But saying he took the job to learn about poverty is just pure bullocks and nonsensical.

[H2O Man]

8. SHOCKING!!!!! n/t

[Snotcicles]

9. Nor is he immune to erroneous smear. nt

[EV_Ares]

10. Democrats: We hate the rich, we love the rich

Hillary & Obama love the money from the hedge funds as much as anyone so Edwards has no reason to be upset if they are trying to use his Fortress connection as a consultant. No big deal. All are involved especially Hillary & Schumer who is not running with Wall Street being in their states.

Voters who complain that the wealthy are getting wealthier love the Democrats. But so, too, do many of the wealthiest. Fortune's Nina Easton examines a tough balancing act for the party of the people.

WASHINGTON (Fortune) -- More and more Wall Streeters - especially those new-money hedge fund and private equity managers with net worths stretching toward and beyond the billion-dollar mark - are throwing their considerable moneyed weight behind Democratic candidates. So far, presidential contenders Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have managed to charm these masters of Manhattan with their policy smarts and scent of potential victory, even while decrying the country's "highest concentration of wealth...since 1929," as Clinton puts it.

Candidates can get away with tailoring their messages for different audiences on the campaign trail. But on Capitol Hill, choices have to be made, and votes cast. That's why the legislative brawl over taxing hedge and private equity funds is one to watch. Don't let technical jargon like "tax treatment of carried interest" scare you: The question of whether fund managers' compensation should be taxed at a 15-percent capital gains rate or 35-percent income tax rate has left the glass offices of clever tax attorneys and entered the swirl of presidential politics, where it provides a vivid stand-in for America's conflicted emotions about brazenly wealthy people.

Link: Fortune Magazine http://money.cnn.com/2007/08/02/news/economy/powerplay_dems.fortune/index.htm

[cali]

11. Clinton and Obama shouldn't escape scrutiny either, but

imo, Edwards has opened himself to an extra degree of scrutiny by his outspoken charges of corporatism against others, and his campaign focus on poverty. That and his original weak claim that he consulted for Fortress and invested something like 15 million with them, to find out more about poverty.

[EV_Ares]

13. Any candidate running for president is open to scrutiny I don't know

if or how Edwards has complained about anyone looking at his file. After all, he is intelligent enough to know everything about him will be looked at.

As far as Fortress, really don't see that as any kind of big deal, anymore than Hillary's association with Rupert Murdoch and her own amount of money she is taking from these huge hedge funds. Like the article says, will have an effect with legislation pending, just like the consolidation of the media.

Curious, where has Edwards said he should not be open to scrutiny? As far as corporatism with the others, it actually is a true statement and has been brought up by the media in various circles.

[cascadiance]

35. How is talking about corporatism a wrong thing though cali?

If it IS the problem that infects the soul of this nation, which I believe it to be.

Now you can say that he still doesn't live the way he should when touting this message. When the system is rigged, sometimes you have to play within the rules of the system that force you to do what you complain about being wrong, just to effect change. If he tried to "live by the rules" of not being a corporatist, I suspect he wouldn't be in a position to possibly win a nomination.

It's like the right trying to distract us by complaining about Leo DeCaprio flying around to promote his "11th Hour" film as sending a conflicting message as to what the film is about. If he didn't fly around to promote it, it wouldn't have gotten as much attention, and therefore the message would have been lost. His adde plane flights, though costly to the environment also, were working within the system we have now to try and change it.

[Adelante]

12. How rich are they

Net Worth: $54.7 million: Edwards




Net Worth: $34.9 million: Clinton




Net Worth: $1.3 million: Obama





They only show the 3 Dems plus 4 Repukes.

http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2007/moneymag/0712/gallery.candidates.moneymag/index.html

[EV_Ares]

14. 3 frontrunners. To me you can't blame these people from getting money from

these places if they are going to seriously run for president, look how much money it takes.

This is where people need to look at a better way for people to run for president and where the money comes from. Shorten the time frame for the campaign, something like Europe.

[cali]

17. I disagree. You do not need personal wealth to run for president

you need to raise the money- and that's bad enough.

[EV_Ares]

18. That is what I just said, the laws need to be changed so they do not

have to go to places like hedge funds to raise money.

Regardless, after that, you find me someone who is not rich and has been able to get into the political arena with enough money to start him off on a run for president.

[cali]

19. Sure. Howard Dean, Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter.

And two out of three went on to become president.

[EV_Ares]

20. And they all had money, nt.

[cali]

21. Not so. Of the three, Dean was the wealthiest.

But even he wasn't wealthy. Clinton and Carter were not wealthy when they respectively ran for president.

[EV_Ares]

22. Maybe not wealthy compared to you, to Romney, Bloomberg, but

wealthy in comparison with the norm of the population. If you check even Carter had enough wealth from his buisness and access to large types of loans. The Clintons had wealth and are very wealthy now, also, political connections and access to wealth from other connections already made in the political arena.

These people you name were or are not your average type citizen.

[cali]

23. Nobody who makes it to Governor is going to be an average

type citizen. That's clear. But no, they were not wealthy men. The Clintons didn't even own their own home.

[EV_Ares]

24. LOL, yeah, ok., everything pretty well speaks for itself and we both

know where they are in regards to wealth.

[asdjrocky]

25. I'm pretty darned sure Edwards has had his past examined-

Remember, about four years ago, when he ran for VP when that guy Kerry was running for President?

I'd suggest the only two people running who have been soooo examined, is Edwards & Hillary.

[EV_Ares]

27. Correct. n/t.

[cali]

28. The association with Fortress happened after 2004 n/t

[asdjrocky]

29. And haven't we taken a look at that? nt

[yardwork]

26. Great - let's take down ALL the Democratic candidates and let a Republican take office.

Will that make you happy?

[cali]

30. ridiculous.

I rather doubt my comments will cause a repuke landslide victory.

[yardwork]

31. Then what are you trying to do?

[cali]

33. I was more or less responding to the outrage about

Obama's doing opposition research on JE. It's that simple.

[EV_Ares]

37. And again, could you please tell us & show a link where this outrage

came from. I have not seen where Edwards has complained about it. In fact, he discussed it somewhat on Hardball yesterday including Oprah and the stars campaigning for him. He seemed pretty levelheaded about all the campaigning. Stated as well that Oprah, the stars for his capaign, Bill for Hillary, they all would bring good crowds but it would be up to the candidates themselves to deliver.

[KoKo]

49. Cali, you must admit your post seemed

somewhat "snakelike" in comments about Edwards. NO? :shrug:

[EV_Ares]

38. Have you seen where Edwards has complained about this, I haven't,

just wondering who is it that is upset about this anyway?

[EV_Ares]

39. Have you seen where Edwards has complained about this, I haven't,

just wondering who is it that is upset about this anyway?

[Occam Bandage]

40. I'd consider them something of an inoculation.

Best to expose a campaign to the diseases its candidate carries in a controlled setting, than to allow the opposition to release the infection when they find the moment opportune.

[Crunchy Frog]

36. Critically examining a candidate's record = "taking them down"?

I can't even come up with an adequate response to that notion.

[yardwork]

41. You misunderstand. I'm not talking about looking at their records.

I'm talking about the proliferation of concern threads about this or that Democratic candidate. We should absolutely look at their records and criticize them as needed - I've done it myself. But the number of "woe is us the sky is falling should XXX get nominated" threads are just plain stupid.

By the time a handful of folks here are through, every single Democratic candidate will have been slimed beyond recognition.

[CyberPieHole]

52. No. Let's just take down the one's we don't like.

:eyes:

[PresidentObama]

32. Who said he was?

Obama must know with Hillary being so desperate in attacking him, that she's probably not going to beat him in Iowa. So now his focus is on Johnny boy.

It's fair criticism. I'm not sure how the Iowan voters will respond to it though.

[zalinda]

42. It was Cali again trying to stir up trouble

Kucinich is losing support and I guess she thinks if she can turn people off of Edwards that they'll go to Kucinich. I'm sorry, but Saint Dennis is not my cup of tea. There is a lot that can be said of Kucinich that is not flattering, but I won't do it because it has nothing to do with the issues.

zalinda

[EV_Ares]

43. I knew that especially when she would not answer. Hell, the new

poll out today shows that Edwards is the only Dem candidate that beats every republican candidate.

[waiting for hope]

46. Oh cali -

So glad to see you are not losing your edge...:hi:

[venable]

47. havent' been here for a bit, so it's good to see cali is still so obsessed

with saying negative things about edwards rather than anything at all good about anyone else. good grief, get a life.

[FrenchieCat]

50. I certainly hope not........

Since this is a pretty big decision and not anything to take lightly.

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

54. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Yukari Yakumo]

53. I'll be glad to call a pandering hypocrite a pandering hypocrite.

Meanwhile...

http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/Movies/12/03/pitt.nola/index.html

Brad Pitt is investing $5 mil and his own time in rebuilding the 9th Ward. Could have Edwards matched or surpassed that? Yes. Did he? No. Instead, he worked for a hedge fund that foreclosed homes that Katrina thrashed. Actions speak loader than words, and inaction is just as loud. Edwards has made plenty of speeches about NOLA, offered proposals, used it for a backdrop... But what has he actually done for NOLA? Nothing. All Edwards sees in NOLA is a backdrop for his own grandiose plans, and nothing more. For as much as he loves NOLA, he certainly has not done anything to justify it. Edwards is not a man of the people, he's a pandering hypocrite. He is a man completely lacking something we desperately need after 8 years of Dumbass, integrity. Even Dennis Kucinich says so.

[FrenchieCat]

55. Well Edwards "worked" in NOLA........

Remember?

Someone should have told John Edwards to remove his microphone
while he toiled alongside the less fortunates!

:eyes:

Edwards really shouldn't wear a mike as a prop.
Doesn't give off the right impression that he is as
concerned for the situation as he is to have the reporters
hear what he might have to say!

:shrug:

Gore seems to understand this......

Brad Pitt too! ...

[depakid]

56. I'll take Edwards' past over Obama's present

Haven't seen John Edwards pandering to fundies lately.

Can one say the same about Obama?

[AlertLurker]

57. I agree. He's running on fumes.

He can't run on his voting record or his past work for and $16 million investment in Hedge Fund Managers and SubPrime Lenders, so he hs to run on what he PLANS to do...

Why so many people actually believe what he says is both alarming and says a lot about the current state of politics in the Democratic Party. Edwards' supporters actually seem to want to swallow the "fact" that he either didn't know or didn't care where HALF HIS NET WORTH WAS INVESTED. To my mind, this makes him either a huge liar, a complete moron, or both. Been there, done that, bought the t-shirt.

Why is ANYONE surprised? So many people here are just looking for ANYONE who can beat the RePIGlicans...Edwards' supporters tend to be a little too forgiving on the subject of Edwards' lack of character.

[Andy823]

58. So let me get this straight

Obama's drug use is no big deal, but Edwards being in a hedge fund is? Wow, you really need to get a reality check!:crazy: