I see the Edwards's bashers are out in force today! Why does no one even question some of the other

[saracat]

candidate investments? Do you know what they have in blind trusts? Why not pursue the GOP candidates? Do some research about them for a change!

[ElizabethDC]

1. I know there was quite a discussion about Hillary's blind trusts a few months back

I guess you missed it . . .

[saracat]

2. Probably. I guess as they were blind trusts they don't have to reveal them!

I don't think we should be hasseling any of our own candidates about this stuff and that includes Hillary.

[tammywammy]

9. Actually

the whole thing was about how Hillary had divested her blind trust and what was in it. It was all over GD:P for a few days.

[rinsd]

3. Advice you would do well to follow yourself

Here's you giving Hillary shit about serving on the Walmart board - http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=245&topic_id=47362#47392

[Colobo]

5. OUCH!

[saracat]

6. I am talking about investments.Sitting on a Board is different. I make no apologies for that!

[NYCGirl]

10. How is that different? Edwards worked for Fortress to the tune of half a million

dollars salary.

[saracat]

13. Still not on the Board making corporate decisions.

and I didn't make a big deal about the Walmart contributions.Just her sitting on the Board.Though I didn't LIKE the contributions and don't like edwards hedge fund contributions either but those are not a big deal for either candidate.

[NYCGirl]

27. Considering the thread that rinsd posted, you made a plenty big deal about

Clinton and Wal Mart. It sure is a big deal when the centerpiece of your campaign is the poor and you worked for a company that's foreclosing on their homes.

[saracat]

52. Only that she sat on the Board.

[ccpup]

12. oh SNAP!

DU: The Home of Selective Outrage

[SaveElmer]

4. Pot...meet Kettle...nt

[saracat]

11. Not the same at all! Sorry.Edwards wasn't on the Board of Directors of the hedge fund.

[rinsd]

17. No, he just received a huge consulting fee and got how much in campaign money from Fortress?

I'm sure the 160,000 or so dollars contributed this year so far was for nothing.

See when you make a big deal about who gives money to who

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3436959

It sometimes comes and bites you right back on the ass.

[saracat]

44. But I don't .I complain about the "endorsement" by Goldman Sachs Chairman .

Why don'tt some get the difference?

[Adelante]

7. You mean the stories in the news this very day?

They're about Edwards, not about other candidates. They're not about blind trusts, either.

Maybe you missed them.

[saracat]

15. Of course they are and the bashers have jumped on them.

[rinsd]

19. I had little to say about this. Until Hillary bashers like yourself got all defensive.

Then sorry....blood in the water.

[saracat]

24. This post was never about Hillary.Read the OP.Where do I mention he?

I said this hasn't been as big an issue with the other candidates (plural) and directed poster to the GOP candidates.Why is this about Hillary?I said I don't give a damn about her investments either, or any candidate (Dem) really.And I still feel there is a difference between investments and sitting on a Board, and I didn't mention THAT in this thread either.

[Adelante]

23. Only after you guys started making him out a hero

Spin spin spin.

He knew about the New Orleans foreclosures in May and could have divested in May. Today's articles wouldn't ever have been written probably. This is another case of Edwards doing the stupid thing and handing over the ammunition and saying Shoot me! and his supporters trying to twist a negative story into his favor.

[saracat]

26. And another case of Oh forget it I am NOT going to engage.This wasn't about YOUR candidate

and why some have made it about her I have NO idea.

[Mythsaje]

8. A LOT of investments are done more or less blindly

busy people with money have stockbrokers who take care of it all...

I'VE never bashed a candidate based on anything like this. No, I hit them on where they stand on the issues.

[saracat]

14. Thank you!

[ccpup]

16. exactly

I have a conversation twice a year with the people who handle my investments and make sure there aren't any obvious munitions factories, war-mongering companies, sweat shop abusers, heavy Republican donors, etc. Once I'm satisfied everyone is clear about what I will and what I won't invest in, I give them the chance to do what they do. I'd be lost in the maze they call Investment Land.

[saracat]

We never ask those questions.We always ask what will give us the best return with the least risk.

We don't have the luxury of doing otherwise.

[Mythsaje]

20. I think that most of us would be...

To stay abreast of all of it, one would have to avoid mutual funds and make all the decisions yourself rather than relying on a broker. I'd imagine someone like Edwards doesn't have the time to do all that.

[ccpup]

28. perhaps

and if your investment portfolio is complicated, multi-generational and generous, it can be a pain to try and direct it to companies you want to support. (these meetings can last a whole day sometimes as I question EVERYTHING I'm unfamiliar with)

But the banks I work with have accepted that I'm the one with the conscience in the Family and it's better to just do what I say as I don't take No very lightly ... especially when it's a company that makes bullets or bombs or gave $$$$$$$$$$ to * or * One or Reagan or any other stomach turning repug. I just won't let them do it. Drop the stock. Fine, I'll lose money. Big deal. I'd rather that than support a belief system that encourages violence.

[saracat]

33. Well some of us can't afford to put our principles above our money.We have to survive.

Some of us have spouses who have lost jobs and we have to live off the interest in our investments.And some of us have health conditions that preclude our working at Jack in the Box to make ends meet.

[ccpup]

38. I'm aware of that

I was simply explaining how my process -- as complicated as some of the Candidate's might be, perhaps -- works and how one can, with a bit of work, awareness and foresight, invest in companies that are closer to one's principles while refusing to invest in companies -- regardless of the "payday" that could result -- that aren't. No harm intended.

[Adelante]

41. And you're not even running for president

Imagine if you had to think ahead about how your finances would be interpreted and splashed all over the media? You would be even more careful, if that's possible. Edwards has been running for president for how many years now and he's a lawyer. I really don't get how he thinks.

[Cameron27]

43. But hedge funds aren't like other investment firms,

they pretty much work to cut corners for the very, very wealthy. There were discussions here and at KOS, about how this was going to hurt Edwards at the time his employment was announced. He had to have some knowlege of Fortress before he decided to work for them, and you don't have to dig deep before you bump into off-shore tax shelters and predatory lending practices.

[William769]

18. And I assume the Hillary bashers are not?

[saracat]

21. Not that I see.At least not to this extent.This is the hot story! She hasn't done anything today

to call attention to herself

[William769]

22. Well considering the source, I can see why you would say that.

[Adelante]

25. Every day is bash Hillary day

You know that.

[saracat]

29. Everyday is bash Edward's day but this is particularly disgusting.

I have been making an effort to be civil but I guess it almost isn't woth it.I did not bring Hillary into this thread.Why was she brought into it?

[ElizabethDC]

30. *You* asked why none of the other candidate's investments are questioned

and we're trying to tell you that they have been. That's why she was brought into it.

[ccpup]

34. damn!

you type fast! I was JUST posting that. I always lose these races. :eyes:

[saracat]

35. And then It could have been dropped.I acknowleged that I didn't "know " that.

Then my post about the Walmart Board, which is a different matter was brought up and yada yada.

[ElizabethDC]

36. Well, that's how it goes on DU. You can't control it. n/t

[saracat]

39. True Dat!

[ccpup]

31. check Post 1 and 2

you asked why other candidates weren't being questioned, someone immediately responded that Hillary HAD been questioned earlier. Does that answer your question as to why Hillary was brought into it? It was a clear response to a direct question.

[William769]

37. You civil?

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[DU GrovelBot]

32. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.0
==================



This week is our third quarter 2007 fund drive. Democratic
Underground is a completely independent website. We depend on donations
from our members to cover our costs. Thank you so much for your support.

[MethuenProgressive]

40. If someone deserves DU bashing, they get DU bashed. Deal with it.

You forgot the "everybody's pickin' on me, so please donate!" that come with most Johnny Edwards posts...

[saracat]

42. My new proclaimed civiliy prohibits my response!

[jobycom]

45. I honestly though this was satire.

Edwards bashers! :rofl:

[Forkboy]

46. The whole issue tends to be a red herring against every candidate.

In my eyes there's few people who would come out looking clean under the media's twisted scrutiny.It's not a matter of Edwards being better or worse than the other candidates.It's whether the media focuses more on one candidate than the others,and to what degree.

I don't have cable,thank my upright walking ancestors,so I don't know how much coverage has been applied to each one.I do remember some talk of Hillary's awhile back (I think).I like Edwards for the most part,and it seems like he's taking more flak for this than some others,but he's the one of the ones speaking the most about poverty,and any indication of hypocrisy on his part becomes magnified,fair or not.

[saracat]

47. One of the only sensible posts in this thread! (except my own of course!)

:P

[Forkboy]

50. But of course!

:D

[Colobo]

48. Winner in this controversy: Barack Obama.

[saracat]

49. You are probably right! LOL!

I just find it disgusting that our most "progressive Dems" are jumped on By those one would think would support them.Ah well thats Dems for ya!

[Colobo]

51. I think Edwards will be fine. This should not distract him from his efforts.

Getting his message across is what matters.