Giuliani, Edwards have Sudan holdings

[oberliner]

WASHINGTON - Presidential candidates Rudy Giuliani and John Edwards, who have spoken out about genocide in Darfur, did not know their financial holdings included investments in companies that do business in Sudan, aides said Thursday.

An Edwards campaign spokesman said the former Democratic senator from North Carolina would sell thousands of dollars of Sudan-related funds.

"He did not know about it and will divest," Eric Schultz said following inquiries about Edwards' portfolio.

Giuliani, the Republican former mayor of New York, has at least one investment of between $500,000 and $1 million in a fund that holds stock in a company that is active in Sudan.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070518/ap_on_el_pr/candidates_sudan;_ylt=AlaPwqIvQNvPRly8HpUfc5jMWM0F

[IA_Seth]

1. Apology countdown started. 5 - 4 - 3 - 2 .... n/t

[Clark2008]

6. And the hits just keep on coming... I mean the hits keep on being

ignored and defended by certain people on this board.

Geesch - what does it take for folks to wake up?

For the poor, my sweet ass. :eyes:

(And, no, this isn't the worst and possibly could be explained. It's just a one more thing in a long list).

[More Than A Feeling]

16. I think there's been some confusion.

Edwards is advocating for the poor, he himself is not poor anymore. Would you like him more if he pretended he was middle class, or poor?

[JI7]

2. this will probably gain Ghouliani some support in the GOP Primary

[FrenchieCat]

5. sad, but true!

:(

[rpannier]

3. To be honest

I have a variety of stocks in companies and I have no idea what most of them are in.

I live overseas and I rely on my broker to handle those investments.

I'm not surprised that either man has investments in companies that they are unaware of.

It's not as easy as you think to discern what companies do business where.

Maybe I should check my investments more closely.

[spooky3]

7. ditto your point for everyone who has mutual funds

It is very difficult to know, since the prospectus lists the names of many companies and investors need to investigate whether any has dealings in Sudan or any other place to which the investor has objections (e.g., China?).

[trayfoot]

13. rpannier "nailed it"!

For anyone to criticize either man (and Edwards particularly) about this kind of thing needs some education about investments. rpannier made the points very well!

And, truly, I do not understand the excessive criticism of Edwards by some DUers.

[AlCzervik]

4. i have money in a international Vanguard fund, i'll be checking myself in the morning

and if there is any company in there doing business with Sudan i'll be switching funds.

[spooky3]

8. it would be great if you could start a thread showing the names of

funds with Sudan investments. Maybe other DUers will add to it, since there are dozens of funds and many companies within each fund.

[Andrew_Lindsey]

9. Any luck with this? n/t

[edwardsdefender]

10. Do those companies just "do business in" Sudan or do they support those carrying out the genocide?

If they just "do business in the country" then there is no issue. John Edwards wants to "help" the Sudanese. That doesn't mean pulling all engagements in the country. There is nothing wrong with a company doing business in Sudan, as long as that company is not benefiting from the genocide in Darfur.

[edwardsdefender]

17. I didn't think anyone would respond to this obvious fact

[1932]

11. Obama owned stock in same companies, and both Edards and Obama are selling

now that they know, but DU'ers and the headlines only care about Edwards?

Why's that?

[FrenchieCat]

12. You have a more than just the right to post the Obama story about his Sudan holdings

That would be a great way to make the point you are trying to make.

But actually, the only article I found on Obama stated that he has already divested the Sudan investment.....Edwards is going to, but hadn't as of the printing of the story.

Guess maybe that's the difference? :shrug:

[1932]

14. Doesn't that prove my point?

They both divested upon discovering it.

No big deal for Obama. But it is for Edwards.

I think the media is telling us the Dem nominee is going to be Obama or Clinton.

http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/djf500/200705161353DOWJONESDJONLINE000869_FORTUNE5.htm

[FrenchieCat]

15. Actually, it proves no point to me.......

that I was not already aware of.

Of course the media chooses....how else do you think it works?

Just because John Edwards got the kid glove treatment in 2003-04, doesn't mean that it was bound to continue. Edwards supporters need to understand this important fact. Maybe they are unused to their candidate being dumped on and attacked by those in the media.....but it's actually par for the course of running for the office. In fact, most candidates have to think long and hard prior to running due to their understanding that they will be examined and torn apart.

As a 2003-04 Clark supporter, I know a thing or two about how the media plays its hand during elections.

However, I am not convinced that the media is "against" John Edwards to date. They have slung just as much mud at both Obama and Hillary, although Edwards supporters don't want to see that as much as the mud slung at their guy. Time will tell who the media wants to help get the nomination (because it will be a long process, and what they really want won't become apparent to many until it is a done deal)......but what I do know is that the media has helped all 3 currently in frontrunner status get to the head of the line.....meaning that they have helped Edwards get to his 3rd place position as well.

In 2003, I thought that General Clark was the superior candidate to beat Bush based on all who were running and based on all of his attribute; Southern good looking extra intelligent 'non DC pol' veteran patriot who had consistently shown superior judgment. It was my opinion that he was highly qualified and should have been the one voted on to stand against ChickenHawk Bush to win back our country. The media obviously did'nt think so, and made it clear. Other voters also had their own opinion that didn't match mine.

I tried to let others know that the media was being unfair to Clark and that the reason that they were attacking him so was because the GOP was most fearful of him then....and you know what the responses were here at DU and elsewhere? :eyes: Yeah....right!

and so, what I have had to accept, no matter how "unfair" it seems....is that this how the world of politics works.

welcome to it.