Washington Post: Hedge-Fund Ties Help Edwards Campaign

[flpoljunkie]

Hedge-Fund Ties Help Edwards Campaign
Firms Increase Political Gifts

By John Solomon and Alec MacGillis

Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, April 23, 2007; A01

Two years ago, former senator John Edwards of North Carolina, gearing up for his second run at the Democratic presidential nomination, gave a speech decrying the "two different economies in this country: one for wealthy insiders and then one for everybody else."

Four months later, he began working for the kind of firm that to many Wall Street critics embodies the economy of wealthy insiders -- a hedge fund.

Edwards became a consultant for Fortress Investment Group, a New York-based firm known mainly for its hedge funds, just as the funds were gaining prominence in the financial world -- and in the public consciousness, where awe over their outsize returns has mixed with misgivings about a rarefied industry that is, on the whole, run by and for extremely wealthy people and operates largely in secrecy.

A midsize but growing player in the hedge fund industry with more than $30 billion in assets, Fortress was the first hedge fund manager to go public, thereby subjecting itself to far more scrutiny. But it was an unusual choice of employment for Edwards, who for years has decried offshore tax shelters as part of his broader campaign to reduce inequality. While Fortress was incorporated in Delaware, its hedge funds were incorporated in the Cayman Islands, enabling its partners and foreign investors to defer or avoid paying U.S. taxes.

Fortress announced Edwards's hiring as an adviser in a brief statement in October 2005. Neither Edwards -- who ended his consulting deal when he launched his presidential campaign in December -- nor the firm will say how much he earned or what he did. But his ties to Fortress were suggested by the first round of campaign finance reports released last week. They showed that Edwards raised $167,460 in donations from Fortress employees for his 2008 presidential campaign, his largest source of support from a single company.

more...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/22/AR2007042201339.html?hpid=topnews

[smiley_glad_hands]

1. It all seems pretty transparent to me.

As has been stated before FDR was a very wealthy man. I have no problem with Edwards. Apparently republicans are scared of him.

[wyldwolf]

2. I'll update my equation:

Hillary + corporate money = whore
Obama + corporate money = It's ok! It's alright!
Edwards + corporate money = Gee! Nothing wrong with that!

[durrrty libby]

3. Doncha know.. It's hip to be a hypocrite?

[mmonk]

48. Depends on how much it influences

the decision making process of the candidate.

[Clark2008]

68. Well, I can agree with you here.

That's why I don't like any of them - well, that and the fact that none of them will garner enough white male votes to swing some red states.

[Adelante]

4. Money, money and more money

Let the good times roll :eyes:

[1932]

5. Why are you reading the Washington Post?

[wyldwolf]

6. why shouldn't he/she read the Washington Post?

[1932]

7. Oops sorry.

I thought it was the moonie Washington Times.

[chimpymustgo]

8. Might as well be. The article lists how ALL the candidates get this - often more than

Edwards has gotten. But the headline is about JRE. The MSM is becoming quite transparent in its campaign. Boys and girls - what does this tell us?

[Cameron27]

10. It's not just about the donations,

it's the fact that Edwards has been outspoken in his opposition of corporations and individuals reinvesting profits in the offshore funds, and yet worked at a hedge fund that did exactly that.

This is what he said, among other things:

"They ought to be closed. They ought to be closed for anybody. They ought to be closed whether they're personal, and they ought to be closed whether they apply to a corporation," Edwards said at the time."

And this is who he worked for:

"A midsize but growing player in the hedge fund industry with more than $30 billion in assets, Fortress was the first hedge fund manager to go public, thereby subjecting itself to far more scrutiny. But it was an unusual choice of employment for Edwards, who for years has decried offshore tax shelters as part of his broader campaign to reduce inequality. While Fortress was incorporated in Delaware, its hedge funds were incorporated in the Cayman Islands, enabling its partners and foreign investors to defer or avoid paying U.S. taxes.

Hedge funds that incorporate themselves offshore -- as Fortress did in the Caymans -- are attractive tax havens for wealthy investors. Certain U.S.-based pensions and endowments, as well as all foreigners who invest in such funds, are exempt from having to pay U.S. taxes on their capital gains. Offshore hedge funds allow such investors to take advantage of U.S. investments and expertise without having to pay taxes, and the firms get huge infusions of foreign capital that otherwise wouldn't be invested in U.S. markets because of the tax consequences."

Hypocrisy.

[venable]

40. look closer at Fortress before you blast Edwards

they pulled out of off-shore tax havens before they went public. there is no inconsistency. again: look more closely before you call him a hypocrite

[Cameron27]

46. They pulled out of off shore tax havens when Edwards ended

his employment with them.

“Bedingfield said Fortress recently ended its practice of letting managing partners defer their U.S. income taxes by reinvesting profits in the offshore funds. The firm made that change when it went public late last year around the time Edwards ended his consulting arrangement.”

Still sounds like a hypocrite.

[madfloridian]

29. This is how it is going to be here.

Until next year.

[madfloridian]

9. Do a search on John Solomon and each Democratic leader.

It will amaze you.

[Cameron27]

11. I'm amazed that a former top Edwards strategist had this to say:

“Steve Jarding, a former top strategist for Edwards, said he would have advised the candidate to avoid the business and fundraising relationship with the hedge fund because it flies in the face of his political persona as a champion for the poor and an advocate for making the wealthy pay their share of taxes.

"It raises the question, 'Is John Edwards the guy he says he is?' -- and that is not a debate John wants to have when he is trying to raise money and to move into that top tier of candidates," Jarding said”.

[madfloridian]

12. Well, let's see.

I have a huge folder of Wesley Clark's huge number of business connections, his lobbying to Homeland Security, his CAPPS airline security push for total info on passengers. Hey, more than that.

I don't post it, but I could.

I am voting for Edwards in the primary.

If the attacks on him continue from every front, there are many fronts we could start as well.

I don't like to do stuff like that, but hey if it gives you a thrill, go for it.

[Cameron27]

13. Wes Clark isn't running,

but he was never employed by a hedge fund that provided tax sanctuaries benefiting the wealthy while admonishing others that this was the wrong thing to do. Wes Clark also isn't running in this primary as an "anti-poverty" candidate.

This isn't a thrill and I don't know why you would label it in that way.

The fact is that once the primaries are over, we're the ones who are going to be pounding the pavement for one of these candidates. Of course we want to know the substance behind the smooth talk, so we don't end up holding our noses while trying to get one of our own into the WH.

Right now I don't have a candidate in the race, and I'm asking questions about all of them. None are perfect, but some may be less *imperfect* than others. This is a valid story about Edwards' that should be discussed. As I said, we're the ones who will be defending him if he becomes the party's nominee.

[madfloridian]

15. Transparent.

Wes Clark is still holding a place in the DNC debates and forums. I would say he is waiting until later and not having the pressure that is on the others to fundraise and take negative hits like haircuts and hedge funds. Hell, Chelsea does that for a living. But I don't attack Hillary for it.

He will wait and wait just like he did before, and jump in at the appropriate time like he did in 03. Open your eyes.

Depends on who needs to be taken out. The Clark supporters here despise Edwards because he was chosen for VP. Please be honest.

And then there's another thought. I thought about putting a Wes Clark avatar on and running around attacking Edwards.

[Cameron27]

17. You confuse a discussion with an attack.

I don't despise Edwards, but I have to ask why you won't talk about this WaPo story? If there's something that's not valid, then point it out. It's not going to help JE to ignore these things when they come up.

I'd expect that from all of the candidates.

[madfloridian]

19. Because the attacks on Edwards here have been so fast and furious...

that I don't bother to read some of them.

I just look to see who is posting.

Hey, we just got done with the New Orleans blogger lying about him.

It is pathetic and obvious.

[Cameron27]

20. There was one false story that was posted

regarding a blogger in NOLA, other than that, everything else that was posted was based on facts as far as I could tell.

Edwards isn't being attacked even close to how Hillary Clinton is on this board, and I'm surprised that you think he's being singled out. What's pathetic and obvious to you, doesn't stand up to the reality of this board.

[madfloridian]

25. Then go for it.

Suits me.

Everyone has dirty laundry, but some folks prefer to discuss other stuff.

[Cameron27]

27. Go for it?

Care to explain?

[madfloridian]

28. I already did.

I am getting ready and getting stuff organized in case it turns into a free for all here.

Being prepared is my motto.

Remember, I survived 2003 at DU when very few of my fellow Dean supporters did. I know what I am facing.

[Cameron27]

30. No you've really explained nothing,

and you haven't bothered to discuss what's been posted in the OP. I have no idea what you went through in 2003 on DU, but this is what's being discussed right now. Is the story wrong? How?

I don't know what you're preparing for, but I hope it's about defending Edwards against lies, and not about becoming defensive yourself when news stories about him are debated on a message board.

[madfloridian]

32. I don't have to explain myself to you.

I truly don't.

I think it is out of control here.

[Cameron27]

33. I asked you to explain what you meant by telling me

to go for it, but of course you don't have to explain yourself. I have no idea what you think is out of control here. But of course you don't have to explain that either.

[depakid]

64. Some of us remember when he first went to work for them

and also recall that about a week later, he launched a two America's tour.

Left us scratching our heads.

Some of us also commented at the time that people would view this as hypocritical and that it would come back to haunt him....

[Clark2008]

71. I'm a Clark supporter and I despise Edwards for his lousy,

flip-flopping, pandering, corporate-backed, Iraq-war supporting, Patriot Act writing record.

Clark didn't WANT the VP, so that he wasn't chosen is no skin off my nose.

There - honesty. Like it?

[Adelante]

55. We ALL have big fat folders

Keep that in mind when issuing threats, MadFlo. Don't start something you can't finish.

[madfloridian]

56. You guys brought it all out in 03, my friend.

You just go right ahead. Everyone is fair game when we start bringing our fellow Democrats down.

And that is exactly what is going on here at DU right now. And it is being organized at about the same places.

[Adelante]

57. You're the one making threats

You want war, open it. Just go ahead without making your bullshit empty threats. You have made HUNDREDS of attacks on our fellow Democrats and they are all in the DU archives. Saying that you feel everyone is fair game in bringing down Democrats is stating the obvious.

[madfloridian]

59. Then go and dig through the archives for my posts. Everyone else does.

You just go right ahead. You don't see me post about other candidates, and I make a habit not to do so. I question the wisdom of those still attached to the DLC, but that is not attacking. Clark is there at headquarters frequently according to a post at a centrist forum.

I am one of the few left here, and I will stand up when someone like John Solomon is continuing his attacks on Democrats.

I thought it might be different now, but it isn't.

[Adelante]

62. General Clark works with all segments of the party

So it would not surprise me if he were. He's often at DNC HQ as well. He's often working with the DSCC and the DCCC. He advises Congressional Dems and leadership frequently on various issues. So what?

[Clark2008]

69. You go right ahead.

If he's the nominee, I won't be voting for him - neither will anyone in my family. Us NC neighbors know how awful he was to his constituents.

[wyldwolf]

70. heh! I have the same on your hero Howard Dean

His dealings with Koch industries, etc.

[karynnj]

14. A key word here is "former"

Not a Edwards supporter, but everyone who ever ran before has people who were with them then and not now. There comments should be taken with a grain of salt. It would be good to know if he wanted to continue working with Edwards.

That said, Edwards worked for a company doing what he said companies shouldn't do in 2004 (and in 2008) needs to be explained.

[madfloridian]

16. So did Kerry at times....and Clark is a big business guy.

So?

[karynnj]

21. Was this posted in error? Kerry did what?

I was cautioning that the guy who was criticising Edwards - was identified as a "former" strategist.

If you mean my comment on him WORKING FOR a company that does off shore business - Kerry NEVER worked for a company doing this. In fact, he has been against off shore tax shelters since he learned about them in 1984. He avoided profitting in them.

[madfloridian]

24. I meant ties to big business.

I am seeing too many patterns here just like before.

They are all tied to big business. All of them, every one.

It is one post after the other.

[karynnj]

51. Kerry is not running and he has never taken PAC money - ever

He has fought constantly as the administration has given to big business the portion of contracts set aside for small businesses. BCCI was all about attacking a big bank that was taking over an AMerican bank and buying and controlling congressmen. Kerry tried to bring legislation via the small business committee to fight media mergers.

Recently Kerry pushed major league baseball to not sign an exclusive deal for out of area games with one satellite company. He succeeded after being mocked for two weeks in the media (where some papers owned baseball teams).

The fact is that Edwards needs a good answer to what he did with that company and why given his 2004 believes. Attacking Kerry (or Clark) doesn't answer the question. Edwards ALONE has made this type of issue the keystone of his run. Therefore it is critical he explain this.

The fact is Kerry forfeited an investment he entered at the advise of friends around the time he entered Congress- even though it was legal when he first learned that they were profiting by being off shore. He did that because he wanted to fight against the practice and did not want to be a hypocrite and benefit from it. This was at a time that he was not extremely wealthy. He then spoke against these instruments.

[karynnj]

52. Kerry worked for a company incorporated off -shore?

Link, please. Though I don't expect on as he has been a public servent since 1982. Other than that just an author.

[Clark2008]

72. But Clark, Kerry and Dean have never run around pretending

to be the "poverty" guy, either.

:shrug:

[Cameron27]

22. That's a good point karynnj.

Maybe his comments are based on something personal he has against Edwards. I'll try to check him out a little bit.

[venable]

41. exactly, 'former'

Jarding was a partner of Mudcat Saunders. Edwards offered Saunders a job, but not Jarding. Saunders believes in Edwards so he left the partnership. Jarding (who is not spoken of well by another Senator for whom he worked for many years) is angry.

[Cameron27]

49. Good to know, thanks.

[NCarolinawoman]

53. Steve Jardng was JIm Webb's senior campaign strategist.

I also think he was one of several individuals who had something to do with recruiting Webb. Through-out that campaign he always seemed like a very honorable individual.

I also think he was deeply involved with Mark Warner's successful campaign for governor. Now he has gone back to helping Tim Johnson, who is the senator who had the stroke.

I don't see any reason he would make comments out of spite. Perhaps Catchawave, who lives in Virginia, would know more.

[Cameron27]

60. That's good to know also, thanks!

[citizen snips]

18. Obama and Hillary also have Hedge-Fund Ties.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, a Republican, for whom Wall Street is an especially key constituency, count hedge fund executives as donors and fundraisers for their presidential campaigns. 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.

http://www.newsobserver.com/643/story/566969.html

[flpoljunkie]

23. Obama has proposed legislation that would "crack down on offshore hedge funds."

From the Washington Post article linked in the original post which acknowledges Orin Kramer is "one of Obama's biggest presidential fundraisers."

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.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/22/AR2007042201339.html?hpid=topnews

[citizen snips]

26. Is Fortress an offshore Hedge-Fund?

The Wikipedia article says it is based in New York.

[Cameron27]

31. MATTMAN, from the OP

"While Fortress was incorporated in Delaware, its hedge funds were incorporated in the Cayman Islands, enabling its partners and foreign investors to defer or avoid paying U.S. taxes."

[venable]

42. They are not off-shore

they relinquished all off-shore connections when they became the first hedge fund to go public.

[Cameron27]

44. Yes they reliquished those off-shore connections.

around the time that Edwards left to run for president, I believe.

[venable]

45. I'm not sure when they went public

but the came all onshore before they did.

[Catchawave]

34. Wall Street experience = Good !

Don't let the RW slanted articles twist that.

Unless he does a "martha stewart", this is yet another non-story.

[Cameron27]

35. Ok, why is this a non-story?

Working for a Wall Street hedge fund = bad for a candidate adopting an "anti-poverty" stance. How could this be good, or a non-story?

[Catchawave]

36. You answered your own question n/t

[Cameron27]

38. Despite what some may think,

I actually wanted to know if I'd missed something that would point to this having an up side. I can't think of anything, but I thought you might.

I don't get upset about being proven wrong, especially about one of our candidates.

[venable]

because if you look at this hedge fund, you see they are not bad guys

as I mentioned elsewhere in the thread, they relinquished all off-shore connections. After that, Edwards joined them.

[Cameron27]

47. venable you can spin this any way you want, but

they're not good guys for the poor, and they did indeed cater to wealthy clients by providing off-shore tax havens while Edwards worked there.

They ended that practice just recently, around the time that he stopped working for them.

[venable]

54. I'm not saying they're angels, nor am I 'spinning'

I'm saying what i believe, or think might be the case based on a bit of evidence, though not all:

they're wall street guys and we know and they know that they are about one thing, and it ain't helping the poor.

the question is are they honest and are they cheating the taxpayers of this country. my scanty information says that they are honest and have moved on-shore. when? don't know. I've read several conflicting versions.

It's possible (though I am not asserting it, because I don't know) that Edwards presence had something to do with the moving on-shore, whenever they did it, before, during or after his association. Don't know if that's the case, but just proposing it as a possibility.

please don't view this post as a 'spin', a phrase which by definition takes truthfulness out of the equation.

[Cameron27]

58. I'm not sure that all the years

they legally cheated the government out of taxable income can be discounted by the fact that they relinquished those practices a few months ago. They may be honest in the strictest sense of the word, but they're hardly ethical when it comes to those of us middle and lower class citizens who can't benefit from tax shelters.

"By selling shares to the public, Fortress had to comply with rules requiring more disclosure in its operations. In its initial filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission in November, the company said that it had $30 billion in holdings and that all of its hedge funds and many of its private equity funds were created offshore. "Our liquid hedge funds, our offshore hybrid hedge funds and many of our private equity funds are incorporated or formed under the laws of the Cayman Islands," the company filing said."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/22/AR2007042201339_2.html?hpid=topnews

If you have information that conflicts with any of this, I'd appreciate your sharing it.

[venable]

61. i don't know enough about how these companies operate

and I don't have information to contradict what you write.

I know only what I read, which is that they no longer have off-shore interests.

I don't recall saying that any past financial stuff should be discounted. I'm speaking to the fact that they have, according to my first reading of this story, relinquished off-shore associations. That is a good thing. Right?

Did Edwards have anything to do with this return to on-shore, taxable activity?

I can't imagine Edwards, with his background, and his political sensibilities, and his anti-Nafta pedigree, would throw in with a bunch of thieves. Just don't see it.

[Cameron27]

63. What they did was legal, so they're not thieves,

and Edwards threw in with them while they were involved with tax shelters. There's no evidence either way that they changed their policies because of his persuasion, but it seems doubtful that a mega, multi-billion dollar company would do anything that didn't benefit them in some way.

[venable]

65. please quit putting words in my mouth, or 'spinning' what I'm saying

but since you are, you should at least be semantically precise: if it's legal it's not 'theft' - it may be avaricous, it may be unethical, it may be wrong in a number of ways, but it's not 'theft'. since you seem determined to make what I'm saying mean something other than what I'm saying, you ought to know what the words you are using mean.

[Cameron27]

66. Did you even bother to read my reply?

"What they did was legal, so they're NOT thieves"

Since you accuse me of putting words in your mouth, or spinning, I’m going to reproduce just a small part of our “conversation.

venable
“because if you look at this hedge fund, you see they are not bad guys…”

This is spin

Answer to your first point:

seasonedblue
“venable you can spin this any way you want, but they're not good guys for the poor, and they did indeed cater to wealthy clients by providing off-shore tax havens while Edwards worked there.”

Your second point: “as I mentioned elsewhere in the thread, they relinquished all off-shore connections. -After that, Edwards joined them.”

More spin

Once more, Edwards joined them while they still provided tax havens for the wealthy, long before they “relinquished all of-shore connections.”

Which is what I said here:

seasonedblue
“They ended that practice just recently, around the time that he stopped working for them.”

I didn’t make this up, it came from Edwards’ own spokesperson:

“Bedingfield said Fortress recently ended its practice of letting managing partners defer their U.S. income taxes by reinvesting profits in the offshore funds. The firm made that change when it went public late last year around the time Edwards ended his consulting arrangement.”

venable
“I'm not saying they're angels, nor am I 'spinning' I'm saying what i believe, or think might be the case based on a bit of evidence, though not all:

I didn’t say that you said they were angels, I replied that they weren’t good, which was a reply to your ” you see they are not bad guys…” comment.

"they're wall street guys and we know and they know that they are about one thing, and it ain't helping the poor.

the question is are they honest and are they cheating the taxpayers of this country. my scanty information says that they are honest and have moved on-shore. when? don't know. I've read several conflicting versions."

Here’s what I said to in reply to this

“I'm not sure that all the years they legally cheated the government out of taxable income can be discounted… I’m saying discounted, because that’s what you’ve implied by contending that 1. they’re honest…and 2. have moved on-shore, although you've read conflicting reports, so you don't know when.(This was in answer to your own question “are they honest and are they cheating the taxpayers of this country)

I continued with:…by the fact that they relinquished those practices a few months ago. They may be honest in the strictest sense of the word, but they're hardly ethical when it comes to those of us middle and lower class citizens who can't benefit from tax shelters.

venable “It's possible (though I am not asserting it, because I don't know) that Edwards presence had something to do with the moving on-shore, whenever they did it, before, during or after his association. Don't know if that's the case, but just proposing it as a possibility.

It's possible that Edwards has gone bald & is wearing a wig, but I'm not asserting that. Why bother to put a statement like that in at all?

please don't view this post as a 'spin', a phrase which by definition takes truthfulness out of the equation.”

How in the world is this post NOT spin?

venable

“i don't know enough about how these companies operate and I don't have information to contradict what you write.

I know only what I read, which is that they no longer have off-shore interests.

I don't recall saying that any past financial stuff should be discounted. No you didn’t say it in those exact words, but you implied it when you said they were honest, and had moved on-shore, which you've asserted in this thread was "before" Edwards worked there, and later revised it to "you don't know when"

“-I'm speaking to the fact that they have, according to my first reading of this story, relinquished off-shore associations.

yes, they have recently “relinquished off-shore associations” . That is a good thing. Right? Sure, it’s a “good thing” but they were bad, bad, bad for years, and years, and years, which is why I said that those years shouldn’t be discounted!

“Did Edwards have anything to do with this return to on-shore, taxable activity?

I can't imagine Edwards, with his background, and his political sensibilities, and his anti-Nafta pedigree, would throw in with a bunch of thieves. Just don't see it.”

seasonedblue

What they did was legal, so they're not thieves and Edwards threw in with them while they were involved with tax shelters. There's no evidence either way that they changed their policies because of his persuasion, but it seems doubtful that a mega, multi-billion dollar company would do anything that didn't benefit them in some way.

And I’ll end this by restating the same quote:

Did you even bother to read my reply?
What they did was legal, so they're NOT thieves

It seems that when anything is posted about Edwards that has even a slightly negative tone, there are attempts to bash the messenger. Instead of addressing the content of a post, people are ridiculed with comments about their writing style, insinuations about their intentions, outright name calling, and BS threats, (as someone clearly did in this thread)

This was one big pain in the ass to post, and I didn't even bother to start from the beginning of your replies, but I'm not about to let you accuse me of something that I haven't done.

[venable]

67. i assumed that what you have been saying was sarcastic

ie
'what they did was legal so they're not thieves'

sounded, in the context of your characterization of them, as if you were saying they were thieves whether the law said so or not.


you can understand how someone would have that reading, I imagine.





You are not an aggressive, smearing poster. You are very reasonable, and that is much appreciated. However, in this little exchange, it seemed to me that you were taking as a GIVEN that these were bad people, and so any sequence of divestments of off-shore associations was meaningless because they were just bad guys.

My argument - based on something different from yours, to wit: Edwards would not put in with thieves - would obviously construe the same set of objective facts in a different way.


When I detected sarcasm (rightly or wrongy - and I take your suggestion that I was wrong to assume sarcasm), then it felt like you had just decided to make it as though I was defending any actions just so long as I could find some letter of the law that allowed it. That, exactly that, is what made me believe you were putting words in my mouth, the effect of which would be to make my argument seem like 'spin', which you had already accused me of.


As for the notion that if someone posts anything negative about Edwards then the messenger is attacked, that comes from bitter experience with a few very specific posters who slander the guy left and right, with false and absurd charges. Edwards supporters are tired of this, understandably.


It seems, from my side of the fence, to be operating in almost the opposite way...and I've certainly experienced the following: Someone posts something negative about Edwards. Edwards supporters say this is not true, and challenge the poster to prove it. A handful of posters come on and tell us that we can't hear anything negative about Edwards without attacking the messenger.

How, I ask you sincerely, are we to defend the man, when any defense is considered attacking the messenger. I refer you to the thread on Edwards not paying a New Orleans company, followed by the thread in which the charges turned out to be bogus. In both cases, the Edwards supporters are accused of being too sensitive. But, my god, a really slimy lie was turned over and over with great glee. When it was proven to be false, the Edwards supporters were told to lighten up.


Sorry for the contentious exchanges. I do find you a reasonable and interested and interesting poster. peace.

[venable]

43. because if you look at this hedge fund, you see they are not bad guys

as I mentioned elsewhere in the thread, they relinquished all off-shore connections. After that, Edwards joined them.

[madfloridian]

37. Let's talk about the reporter, John Solomon.

A little of his history with Democrats here.

Wash. Post reporter baselessly suggested Edwards broke campaign finance law
http://mediamatters.org/items/200701230004

Three more AP John Solomon articles faulted for taking pot-shots at Dems, leaving out key facts
http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/05/three-more-ap-john-solomon-articles.html

Wash. Post's Solomon -- whose "investigations" fuel right-wing attacks -- suggested Clinton nonprofit is somehow corrupt
http://mediamatters.org/items/200703010002

Wash. Post baselessly linked Abramoff to Democratic fundraisers
http://mediamatters.org/items/200702260005

Those are only a few. There are many. Do a search at Media Matters, or do "john solomon", and the name of a Democrat.

I guess sources don't count.

[Catchawave]

39. Absolutely....even the most "trusted" news sources

have to be "fair and balanced". Get to know the journalists, then follow their history. If it sounds like a hit piece, it usually is, for all the candidates, ours and theirs.

It's up to us to weed out the facts, as much as we'd like to believe or disbelieve their articles.

:patriot:

[madfloridian]

50. More Solomon

Wash. Post's Solomon -- whose "investigations" fuel right-wing attacks -- suggested Clinton nonprofit is somehow corrupt

http://mediamatters.org/items/200703010002

"Summary: A Washington Post article on Sen. Hillary Clinton's failure to disclose to the Senate her role in the Clinton Family Foundation -- co-written by John Solomon, a reporter with a history of sloppy and misleading reports on Democrats' financial dealings -- omitted key information, which, combined with the article's length and prominent front-page, above-the-fold placement, resulted in the baseless suggestion that there is something untoward about the foundation and the Clintons' motivations in establishing it."

http://mediamatters.org/items/200701200002
Solomon Strikes again

"Solomon strikes again

In a 1,100-word article co-written with political reporter Lois Romano and inexplicably placed on The Washington Post's front page, John Solomon suggestively reported that former Sen. John Edwards recently sold a home for $1.4 million more than he had paid for it. A sweetheart deal designed to line Edwards' pocket? That certainly seemed to be Solomon's implication -- he noted in the lead that the house was sold after it "had languished on the market." And that's how the folks over at RedState.com chose to interpret it, comparing the Edwards sale with the scheme of a defense contractor who overpaid for former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham's house as a means of funneling money to him.

But in order to establish that Edwards was the beneficiary of a sweetheart deal, you have to show that the house sold for more than it should have -- that the $1.4 million difference between Edwards' purchase price and selling price was anomalous. Solomon doesn't even try. His article omitted any mention of the appreciation of the Georgetown real estate market between 2002, when Edwards bought his house, and 2006, when he sold it. That context is crucial to understanding what the $1.4 million figure means; absent context, the number tells us absolutely nothing. It's just a gaudy-seeming number that doesn't do much to aid our understanding of the transaction.

Why not? Why would Solomon omit such a crucial piece of information?Better yet: Why would he do it twice?

In October 2006, Solomon -- then at the AP -- wrote a similar hit piece on Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid. In that article, he reported that Reid "collected a $1.1 million windfall on a Las Vegas land sale."

Windfall.

Sure sounds shady, right? Sounds like that $1.1 million was the result of some sort of sweetheart deal in which Reid was paid more than market value for his property. And that's what Internet gossip Matt Drudge thought, hyping the story as a "sweetheart land deal." But, as with the Edwards article, Solomon omitted any mention, at all, of the increase in Las Vegas-area real estate values that occurred over the period in which Reid owned the land. Twice in three months, Solomon has written an article in which he makes much of a real estate transaction in which a prominent Democrat appears to have made a million-dollar profit. Twice in three months, Solomon has hyped the gaudy number without placing it in context. In both cases, that context showed the profit to be far from atypical."

The right wing blogs pick up on his work, but we should not.

He wrote some nasty stuff about others, Dean was often a target.