I'm disappointed that Edwards jumped into this slime, but as the Post article points out, Hillary and Obama are into the hedge funds just as deep.

here's an interesting paragraph from the WaPost article:

One of Sen. Barack Obama's biggest presidential fundraisers is a hedge fund manager — Orin Kramer, general partner of Boston Provident Partners LP in New York and a longtime Democratic fundraiser. Along with Sens. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.) and Norm Coleman (R-Minn.), Obama (D-Ill.) has proposed legislation to drastically reduce offshore tax havens that includes a provision to crack down on offshore hedge funds. The senators introduced the bill after an investigation last year documented how wealthy U.S. investors had used hedge funds to evade taxes.

one of the things that appeals to me about Obama is that following his graduation from Harvard Law, he didn't go after the big bucks that were waiting (imagine what he could have made as a big firm's "colored" attorney). he's never gone after the money that was waiting. and now he is working to limit the business of a major backer; that's putting his principles first.

i like him more and more.

I'm somewhat surprised at how vulnerable Edwards appears to be to these kinds of bullshit attacks this early in the campaign and how poorly his campaign is responding.

It's strange, too, because the real news about the Edwards campaign this week should be that he's spending campaign money to pressure the Democrats in the legislature to show some backbone and end the war.

Of course, you left out the fourth paragraph - which seems to dispute the second paragraph.

He said the amount he was paid will be revealed when he releases his financial disclosure forms.

For those who want to actually read the article, it's here.

Fair enough, it clarifies it. It's not "won't disclose". It's "will disclose, later".

This thread really hit a raw nerve with me.

In what bizarro version of America, is being a self-made man with a social conscience a bad thing?

If more people aspired to be a little more like John Edwards, this country would be a whole lot better off (and I say that as someone who is currently leaning towards supporting Obama).

It's strange, too, because the real news about the Edwards campaign this week should be that he's spending campaign money to pressure the Democrats in the legislature to show some backbone and end the war.

Not that strange, Sal. The backbone-less need to divert attention to something else. I think Edwards' anti-war advocacy is the most important thing any of the candidates are doing to date.

And the flood of non-stories about the Democratic candidates continues. Another example is the nonsense about Pelosi engineering a bill to help her husband's real estate portfolio--despite the fact that she was ASKED to carry the bill, and in the AP article alleging some kind of funny business, it was admitted there were no facts whatsoever to support the charge.

I don't have much of a beef with our Oregon AP correspondents, but some of the national reporters are little more than conduits for the GOP noise machine. Time and time again they pull hatchet jobs with naught but unsourced allegations. Think Reid getting boxing passes, Pelosi going to Syria, etc. Ridiculous.

(obviously Reid and Pelosi aren't candidates...)

I've said it, and said it again: any one of our top four candidates would be excellent in the Presidency. So the question is for me, who can actually win?

I'm sorry to disappoint Kari and Jesse on this, but these kinds of stories really do have an impact on me. Candidates who try too hard to be perfect come off as being phony. And that (plus the Republicans' 100 billion dollar investment in mainstream media so they can suborn it) will sink a Democratic candidacy. Yes, even in an election in which we should be a shoo in.

Edward's comment isn't quite to the level of Clinton's "I didn't inhale" gaffe. But remember, that was a rare mistake in Clinton's otherwise flawless candidacy. Stories about Edwards - stories that however spun, are actually true - keep coming out. And it's really impacted my faith in his message management.

Obama should be the one vulnerable to making these kinds of rookie mistakes, but he isn't. That guy keeps sailing smoothly along. And the more electable he looks, the more I'm leaning towards supporting him.

I'm still open to be persuaded that Edwards has a better chance in the general than Obama. Anyone here want to take a stab at making that argument?

Scotty Boy in Damascus:

I don't think that you actually read what I wrote.

Here is my point (which I think that I made pretty clear in my post) -

It's irrelevant that Edwards was involved in a hedge fund. If I had the know-how and the connections, I would be too. There's nothing wrong, immoral, un-American or politically questionable about making money through a legal and ethical venture, and we don't know enough about this particular hedge fund to judge if it is legal or ethical so we should give him the benefit of the doubt and assume it is both.

The problem is how he explained it. Wanted to learn more? Who does he think he's kidding? He should have just come out and say that he wanted to make money to support his family. If he said that, a few people might still be pissed off because he worked for a hedge fund but most, like myself wouldn't care at all. It's only an issue because I feel like that I'm expected to believe that someone really got involved with a hedge fund to learn more about financial markets and their relationship with poverty. I'm only 18 years old but I can see right through that.

I don't want my elected officials to play games with me. I want honesty and candor.

I'm still open to be persuaded that Edwards has a better chance in the general than Obama. Anyone here want to take a stab at making that argument?

Here's some evidence that suggests Edwards' strength in the general...

where Clinton and Obama tie Guiliani at this point, Edwards sports a lead just inside the MoE. Against McCain, Clinton and Obama both have small leads, while Edwards is strongly ahead. (All three candidates tend to blow out the rest of the GOP field, which is a great sign this early).

These are not predictors of course, but it's certainly persuasive of the idea that Edwards more than handles his own in any matchup.

Edward's comment isn't quite to the level of Clinton's "I didn't inhale" gaffe. But remember, that was a rare mistake in Clinton's otherwise flawless candidacy. Stories about Edwards - stories that however spun, are actually true - keep coming out. And it's really impacted my faith in his message management.

Hmmm... You seem to have forgotten the Clinton '92 campaign. "I didn't inhale" wasn't a "rare mistake" in an "otherwise flawless" candidacy.

From the draft-dodging stuff, to Gennifer Flowers, to the Sister Souljah stuff (which was both bad and good), all of that conspired to put him in THIRD in the polls by May 1992.

Of course, Ross Perot proved to be even more insane than we thought - and Clinton got his motor running - and by November he won... with 43% of the vote.

I worked on that campaign, as early as 1991 (as a volunteer), and I'm a HUGE Bill Clinton fan -- but let's not pretend that the campaign was a cakewalk.

You count those as negatives, Kari. I count them as positives.

NONE of what you mentioned was self-inflicted during Clinton's campaign. It was all stuff from his pat that the Republicans dug up to throw at him, that his team handled with aplomb. Well, except for his criticism of Sister Souljah, which wasn't an accident at all, but rather a carefully calculated tactic to prove that he wasn't in the pocket of special interests that the American public considered offensive.

Now sure, I'll concede the point that even if a candidate runs a mistake free campaign, his history prior to running for President can give him or her negatives. But when looking at the top tier - Clinton, Edwards, Obama, Richardson(barely) - I simply don't see that as a factor. In fact, the only thing the Republicans have is the "flip-flop" voted for the war thing, but honestly I don't think that will have the same impact in 2008 at it did in 2004. (And, of course, that's only a potential negative for Edwards and Clinton.)

Torridjoe is much more persuasive with the Rasumssen poll he found. But even then, I think it's still way too early to draw definitive conclusions from numbers within the Margin of Error. So I'm still uncommitted at this point.

I just hope for his sake that Edwards gets wise to the fact that the U.S. media is nearly completely owned and operated by Republicans.

Nina wrote... TALK TO THE FRIGGING PEOPLE LIVING IT. ask them what they need. ask them the changes they wish to see happen. until their thoughts are contributed to this discussion, it will continue to be a meaningless conversation.

OK, Nina, fire away. Consider this an invitation. What would you do to combat poverty? And what do you think about the solutions proposed by John Edwards.

Torridjoe is much more persuasive with the Rasumssen poll he found. But even then, I think it's still way too early to draw definitive conclusions from numbers within the Margin of Error. So I'm still uncommitted at this point.

Steven, are you really considering which candidate to support based on poll numbers? On trying to divine "which one can win"?

Shouldn't we all be examining these candidates values, policy positions, and character when making that decision?

Frankly, the folks in Iowa tried to use "electability" as their criterion in 2004 - and look where that got us.

(And besides which, if electability really is your yardstick -- ignore the national polls. Figure out which one can win in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida. But, ugh, what a soulless way to pick a president.)

(...and in Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, and Colorado - to repeat the point I've made repeatedly.)

I'm an enthusiastic Obama supporter, but I think some of the coverage of Edward's campaign has been generally unfair. But life's unfair, and coverage of Presidential politics? Often unfair too.

The bigger problem for Edwards -- and it reminds me of Gore 2000 -- is that it seems media have decided that he's a hypocrite and are filtering their stories through that frame. I think that charge is total crap, btw, just as it was for Gore in 2000. Offensive, actually. Still, this is actually a problem for him.

The other surprising thing to me is that there's not that much of a perceptible backlash against the coverage and rallying behind Edwards, like there was for Howard Dean after his allegedly disasterous performance on Russert in early 2004. I just don't see it.

Raul:

I don't want to debate the virtues of capitalism, etc. but I'd like to point out two things.

1. It's presumptuous to decry ANY hedge fund as unethical on the mere basis of it being a hedge fund.

2. Using my logic, American defense contractors in Iraq cannot make the same claim. Given the unethical nature of the war, their participation in and profiting of the war is unethical. In terms of legality, I'm not in a place to make any judgments.

I agree with the fine Mr. Burr that the media often filters their stories of Edwards through an unfair frame. Especially with the haircut incident...

Miles:

I'm naturally skeptical and I'm willing to call a spade, a spade. It's not unreasonable to be skeptical about someone who goes into hedge fund consulting and, when running for the Democratic nomination, says that it was to learn about the connection between the financial markets and poverty. It might be a different issue if he refused payment but he didn't and he shouldn't have! He can, just like anyone else in America, make money on the market and he shouldn't have to cover that up when running for the Democratic nomination.

pat malach:

"Johnny Boy" is disrespectful? I guess you never got picked on in the schoolyard because that's about as tame as it gets.

Interestingly enough, his first name is Johnny. See Sheryl Gay Stolberg's July 7, 2004 article in the New York Times. (I didn't provide a link because you can't access it unless you have Times Select.)

Not that it matters what his name is... Point is that I didn't cross him off my list and the fact that I referred to him as "Johnny Boy" is pretty much the weakest substantiation that I did.

Shouldn't we all be examining these candidates values, policy positions, and character when making that decision?

Well, sure Kari. I've already done that. And this is what I've discovered. Of all the candidates I've seen so far, I like all the ones with the big (D) letter behind their names. I absolutely hate all the candidates with that (R) tag.

It really is as simple as that. I don't have any bad feelings whatsoever about any of our top-tier people. And the differences between them are so small as to be indistinguishable.

Don't believe me? Try it yourself. Have a friend get the policy statements or speeches of Clinton, Obama, Edwards, and Richardson on some topic you're not familiar with, then remove the identification of who said what. Then read them try to tell the difference.

You can't. Because they're all using different words to say the same thing.

Republicans similarly say the same thing. Well, except for Guliani being pro-choice, which is why he isn't going to win the nomination, but on just about any other issue you can immediately tell who is the (R) and who is the (D). Health care? The (D)s are for it, the (R)s are against. Getting out of Iraq? (D)s for (R)s against. Reversing the no-plutocrat-left-behind tax giveaways? (D) for. (R) against.

I could go on, but I hope you get the point. Primary partisans like to pretend that there are huge - or even significant - differences in positions between the contenders for the nominations. But they're wrong. The actual laws we'll get out of our next batch of people will almost entirely be dictated by the makeup of the Senate. It will have absolutely nothing to do with the rhetorical emphasis of our of our candidate's primary stump speech.

So if you really want to help the poor, drop this Edwards gig, and go find someone who can actually beat Gordon Smith.

(I'd say more, but I really have to work now.)

Posted by: andy | May 9, 2007 1:56:44 PM

You mean the "junk science" like the case where the Wisconsin company Sta-Rite a pool equipment company, having their said product previously injure 12 other children, which by 1993 because of a 2 cent screw not being in place a five-year-old girl named Valerie Lakey in NC got caught over the uncovered drain so forcefully in a pool with a Sta-Rite pump, that the suction pulled out most of her intestines so that while she survived, for the rest of her life will need to be hooked up to feeding tubes for 12 hours each night... that sort of "junk science"...?

I eagerly await your clarification about what "junk science" was used to "extort" what money from which companies exactly you are referring to.

The people spinning it here on this blog, if it takes too long to defend you have lost already.

Wait a minute, Scott in Salem. Are you saying that once a charge is made, that person has already lost? That merely to mount a defense is to have acknowledged defeat? Really?

If that's the criteria, is there a candidate left standing?

Steven Maurer, I agree - all the Ds are better than all the Rs. We are talking about shades and distinctions.

So if you really want to help the poor, drop this Edwards gig, and go find someone who can actually beat Gordon Smith.

One clarification: I don't have an Edwards "gig". I'm just a volunteer - and most of my work is done for a while now that he's come and gone (and packed every room he was in.)

And I'm definitely working on the Smith thing. But I'm not sure I like the inference here that it's my job to "go find someone" to run. It's no more my job than it is yours.

America is run by the people who show up. So, show up. Decide for yourself which candidate you think would be a great challenger to Gordon Smith. Call 'em up and ask 'em to run. Find a few friends to do the same.

Never doubt the power of a dozen honest and authentic phone calls from real people. And there's not a state-level politician in Oregon that won't return a phone call from a decent person that leaves a nice message and a working phone number.

He should have acknowledged a different premise; he is the American dream and wants to give that to more people.

He said exactly that before 1000 people in Portland last week.

I saw this in the rec list at Daily Kos...

In response to Ann Coulter's latest screed about how Newsweek was "doing push-polling for Al Qaeda" when their latest polls showed Barack Obama leading all Republican candidates in the race for president, Edwards unleashed the following broadside:

Just when we thought Ann Coulter couldn't take the politics of personal destruction any lower, she proved us wrong. Her outrageous comments are inexcusable and should not be tolerated in the public dialogue. This is the latest example of how the political doctrine of Bush's Global War on Terror has created a climate where people think it's okay to use the threat of terrorism as a guise for hateful political attacks. There is no superior 'Republican' way to fight terrorism. The exercise of raw power alone does not make you a world leader, and will not make us secure. Our capacity to lead requires that we be strong - and that we have the moral authority to do it.

I'm still leaning Obama, but that's exactly the kind of politics that is going to win people like me over to Edwards camp.

The exercise of raw power alone does not make you a world leader, and will not make us secure. Our capacity to lead requires that we be strong - and that we have the moral authority to do it.

Worth repeating...that's a great Edwards quote. Thanks for sharing it, Sal.

I mostly agree with Steve Maurer on this one, although I'd exclude Clinton from my list.

As for the rest, we need to see rapid and effective repsonse to smear attacks, since that is the single most important attribute for the person taht winds up facing the slime machine in the general.

So far, Edwards is not showing me rapid effective responses to attacks. Obama is. Desn't mean that I've made up my mind on this, but my recurring nighmare another hapless stiff like Kerry spending the next 18 months looking like a deer in the headlights.......

We all know how unfair this is, but it's the playing field that we are currently working with........