The Unapologetic Mexican "not officially" endorses a white male! Stop the presses! Edward wins! lol.

Vote Green, Nez. Let's start a real netroots fundraising movement that stops support for the two-party system. If Ron Paul rose $6 million we can elect a Green to congress.

at this point, i'm more for kucinich, a white elf. so stranger things have happened.

i've voted green before, it could easily happen again.

I'm with you on this one, Nez. Edwards is the only one talking about what actually ought to be talked about. Why is that? Hillary's not. Neither is Barack. Playing to the brokers of power even if effective isn't the way to win anyway. Ironically, Chris Dodd did an amazing thing yesterday challenging many in his OWN party by standing up against telcom immunity, yet none of the front runners bothered to do anything more than symbolize. We must accept nothing less/more than true leadership.

absolutamente.

and dodd was the shit ayer.

I'm sorry anyone that thinks a $400 haircut is okay, and worked at a hedge fund might be talking about what actually ought to be talked about, but probably won't do what needs to be done, in my opinion.

Hmmm. I dunno, Nez. The comment about Oprah at the end and the book cover...I am not sure I understand what you are communicating there. Would you elaborate a little more?

you remember? i think its rather clear. she has a lot of celebrity. but that doesnt mean she has perfect judgment. if you recall, she wouldnt recant her endorsement of frey even days after he was exposed. (link if you click book). tha timage i made way back when it happened.

kyle, i do think he is sincere in fighting corporate interests. he has the money to do it (ie, remain independent), as the haircut proves. he can't get a cheap haircut, can he? the amount of security and such to just walk into a $10 joint would balance out that $10 haircut by far. I'm assuming that being a big player means you pay other big players becaus eyou move ina big player world. but yet he takes on the corporate giants out there. dunno. that seems reasonable to me. if you want to knock his high-cost lifestyle, you have to knock the whole system, including the political one, dont you think?

all i mean to say with all this is that the haircut is no dealbreaker. i mean, if we exposed all the big player's price tags we'd be in shock for a week. i guess i have hope when a big player makes it his business to remember where he came from, even if he wants a bette rlife. you better believe i wish i had money to pay for my haircuts more often or pay for better ones. and i plan to keep working at my gifts and callings until i have more cash to do so. i think the crime would be pretending everyone can live that way, i.e., NOT making fighting poverty a core of your agenda, once vying for or in power.

so that being said, i dont unequivocally stand behind him. but i dont think the haircut is really a valid attack. and if so, well. i think the agenda balances out. if sincere.

"the media..., who fear an anti-corporate warrior like a Listerine adman fears people who are comfortable with their breath..."

I'm probably terribly uncool for saying this, Nez, but as much as we often agree on...oh...just about everything, it's your turn of phrase that turns my old word-worshiper's heart to jelly every time I darken your door (especially after being incommunicado for a while). Veeery satisfying.

As for the book cover, I agree with Carmen. It seems like a cheap (and unnecessary) shot. Your point is well taken without sniping Obama for Oprah's support, when, big and rich as she is, she's just another celebrity supporter and many campaigners have them--even Kucinich, who's my personal favorite, of course. In my book (chortle!), Oprah getting hoodwinked by Frey doesn't have anything to do with Obama, Edwards, or probably even Oprah. Even I (yes, I'm afraid so) have been publically humiliated by a prankster (sounds like there may be a blog post in there some place, huh?)

sorry, i don't know enough about banking to understand why a "hedge fund" automatically stains edwards' integrity forever. but i'll listen if you can explain. reserve judgment.

hmm. i'm gonna think on the oprah thing. so long as you understand that it wasn't just about her being hoodwinked, it was also her refusal to show integrity when he was exposed. maybe i'm being hard on oprah.

what is a "cheap shot"? why is it wrong to undermine obama's latest biggest endorser? do you mean because the post seems mainly about something else, about edwards' integrity, not oprah's judgment?

well, in asking my questions, i guess i see the narrative point you make about the oprah moment. it was a last second inspiration, and probably driven in part by my wanting to use that grafik. but it seemed a sound addition, albeit providing it as i did breaks a rule of storytelling about introducing a new unexplored or resolved element as you end the story. so i'm open to agreeing that the post would have been better without it as a whole.

you have to understand i was very personally disgusted with what frey tried to do, and thus when oprah refused to show what i felt was proper integrity (click book for link to an idea of what i mean) i thought that was about status and show popularity, and ego, and it bothered me that the truth was getting sacrificed for ratings or cash or soemthing like that. so perhaps when i was closing this post i was thinking something like "oprah's endorsement, oprah's judgment, hey thats right the FREY incident, where's that grafik?"

"...do you mean because the post seems mainly about something else, about edwards' integrity, not oprah's judgment?"

yes.

well, i know i have to consider your own particular (positive) feelings on oprah in this...but my sense is that you and changeseeker are right on this. so i'm going to amend it with a link here to show the original, so people can look and read along with what transpired. thanks for helping me strengthen my message in this case.

"...i know i have to consider your own particular (positive) feelings on oprah in this..."

Often positive. ;)

Nez, I followed a link over here from I can't remember where a few weeks ago, and have been lurking. I really appreciate your posts.

I've been letting my irrational prejudice against southern men, and against medical malpractice lawyers, blind me to any of Edwards strengths. I will have to go reevaluate his platform now.

thank you capsicum! i appreciate your hangin round. and your thoughtful reception of today's post.

Man, I'm just a little disappointed you're coming down so hard on my man Obama, when Edwards has a lot of explaining to do about working for the Fortress Investment Group. FIG, is one of the biggest hedge funds that screwed so many people over in the sub-prime housing debacle. Edwards claims he didn't know they would do that, but I'm not sure I'm satisfied with that answer.

It seems a little disengenous to be the crusader against corporate interests and take on a job working for secretive near elite entity like a hedge fund.

I think Obama's record in such a short time from his start here in Illinois in the legislature to the US Senate has easily surpassed the ambulance chasing phony.

well...does edwards have the job now? i mean we dont expect people to be flawless all their lives? dont they have to learn from things? again, i dont know enough there. but of what i hear NOW...obama does not give me the hope i want. regarding his agenda. no, i'm sorry. we do need someone to champion the poor, to champion all the "meek" in all the forms they take. to confront and not just acquiesce or calm things down. the thought of a dem wanting to "get past the partisanship" freaks me out. hell no. we need to clean house and we need to rebuild a bad framework. obama has enough charisma and presence to lead. and i do want to see the Brown™ up in the white house. and rest assured, i have been one of those people lauding Obama, too. i may change my mind again, this is NOT a final declaration. i'm reporting my thoughts as we go. and as i said, this is my reaction in light of the krugman article. i do stand behind it.

Don Chepe y Carmen,

I think you speak with forked tongues. Enlighten me, por favor, on what Edward's sin was/is wrt to FIG. What was his role, precisamente? And, what the hell is a hedge fund anyway?

You guys want a siant, go to church.

I don't knpow why I am supposedly speaking with a forked tongue. That implies I'm being deceptive, when I said absolutely nothing that is a lie or some kind of snowjob. It's no sin to work for FIG, but when you decide you are going to take on the big bad corporations it's a hard sell as to how genuine you are when you worked within that very corporate culture no less than 2 years ago as a consultant for one of the most egregious firms responsible for predatory lending practices in the sup-prime mortgage industry. He even held stock in FIG as disclosed this August.

Edwards was not responsible, but at the same time he can't come off without that taint , especially if he's supposed to be Jack the corporate Giant slayer.

I learned a long time ago not go by what's addressed in the primaries, very little of it is real unles it's said by maybe Kucinich or Biden, who know they have no chance of winning. I go by Obama's record and votes. When he voted against the confirmation of John Roberts I knew Obama was genuine. And everything Alan Keyes used as ammunition against Obama was not only true but a positive in what kind of legislator Obama was in Illinois and how he'd vote when in the Senate.

All the negative hype is just hype, his record is genuine and that matters more htan what he says in something he says to a bunch of people in Iowa right now.

i don't see you as being deceptive for my part. that was a bit presumptive, actually. but politics like this always brings out the claws it seems.

i think it does matter that edwards is basing so much of his platform as anti-corporatism. because that's a good way to get a number of agents in motion against you. so it does take courage and commitment to do so. of course, as nader said in his Chris Matthews interview I caught today somewhere online, (rawstory, i think), he could pull back once nominated. if nominated. but if he does hold true to that stance, i just happen to think that's a huge thing. i'm not ruling out voting for the dems. but i will only do it if i see someone i think can really shake things up. i will not vote for same ole same ole (and i dont mean sex or ethnic background). most likely i will not vote democratic. (def not GOP!) but its possible. we'll see.

Big media served up the "hedgefund" as well as the "haircut" narrative against Edwards and has obviously stuck. Like Nez, I'm not convinced the "haircut" emphasis on the media's part is a dealbreaker for me either. Just contrast this ridiculous annoying emphasis with their lack of emphasis on, say, our Prez' and VPrez' breaking the law by lying about the reasons for war, spying on us, politicizing the Dept. of Justice, illegally firing U.S. Attorneys, illegally outting a CIA operative, torturing prisoners, with EVERY Republican Prez-hopeful lining up to applaud all these actions AND...you get the point, right? Why don't these "items" make it to the front page, or the last page most times?

I'm not excusing Edward's sins or anyone else's running for POTUS, they should all be scrutinized more closely, not even sure who I'm voting for (although I know who I'm NOT voting for). But we've got to continue to be critical thinkers and not buy into what "others" (like the mainstream media) want us to focus on - and I'm not saying anyone's doing that here. I just humbly submit the thought for your considerations.

Paz y justicia para todo el mundo

Hey tgrdug, I understand the point you are making. In most cases I'm in line with your statement about where the mainstream media wants you to focus, but the issue of the hedgefund plays into what Edwards was addressing. I always go by recent actions as opposed to future promises.

I don't think thereis a lack of emphasis on the crimes of the current administration, to be honest. I listen to the podcast version of every nightly news broadcast, lehrer hour on pbs, cbs nightly news, nbc nightly news, abc, msnbc, every single day. And everything is about the cia tapes, the waterboarding of high end al-qaeda prisoner, NIE, etc

If the democrats in congress had the balls to commit to impeachment proceedings (lord what does it take..a fucking blowjob?) the papers would be going nuts and going further into blowing this up.

Con respeto, I worked as a consultant during the late 90s - early 00s for some of the largest corporations in the country. But the fact that I helped customize, install and maintain software for CitiBank (for example -- just before it became CitiGroup) in no way makes me responsible for or party to that corporation's high-level misdeeds.

I really have to agree with elpuerco here -- I think it would be worthwhile to know what Edwards' precise role was with the hedge fund before we damn him for his association. After all, I want to know if I could be tarred with the same brush, even though I'm not running for public office.

I suspect I'm not making my point very well. It's not so much about Edwards misdeeds in his involvement with FIG, but the fact that he has taken on the persona of the corporate buster. I'm not saying he's to blame, but at same time you have to say "now wait a minute".
By all means, look into it. But see I already heard someone say here that the mainstream media was making too much of it, so already I don't think anyone truly wants to look in on it, rather let's do a "shoot the messenger" swerve or bring up Bush's obvious damning criminal misdeeds in comparison.
This only broaches the question "how sincere is Edwards?" when actions might or might not match his rhetoric. When he was a Senator, how much did he do then to match what he promises now? I think Obama beats him on that count.

Hedge funds are investment vehicles created to earn large amounts of money for very wealthy, very sophisticated investors. The type of investments within a fund are almost always transparent to its investors but the hedge funds themselves operate outside of standard fiduciary regulations. Basically, when you invest in a hedge fund you sign an agreement that says the hedge fund manager can do anything he/she wants with your money and you have no recourse in terms of enforcing fiduciary responsibility. One aspect of Edwards being a consultant for Fortress Investment Group, besides the fact that they were such large and early donors to his campaign, is that from the beginning he must have known that Fortress was deeply invested in banks offering subprime mortgages.

From USA Today: "...Edwards worked part-time for Fortress Investment Group, getting paid $479,512. The campaign said Friday that Edwards and his wife Elizabeth have $16 million in all their Fortress-related investments. And Fortress executives have donated generously to his presidential campaign -- company employees have donated more than $150,000 toward his candidacy during the first six months of the year.

The Washington Post reported Fortress' connections to subprime lenders in May. At the time, Edwards said he was unaware that the hedge fund had such investments. He further said that he asked Fortress to help Katrina victims facing foreclosure." http://www.usatoday.com/news/topstories/2007-08-17-934122170_x.htm

Remember, hedge funds are usually transparent to their investors. It would be...unusual...for an investor/consultant of Edward's sophisitcation to be unaware of "such investments."

Understand, I have not made a decision on any candidate. But, I have made the mistake of overlooking what my gut and head told me were inconsistencies in the past. The hedge fund "thing" is worth thorough consideration. That's all I am saying.

I do think I take your point, donchep; perhaps I overstated my question.

I agree that Edwards' sincerity should be examined, and by all means we should know if he walks the walk. I did recently see an interview with him in which he spoke directly to this point, but unfortuntely I was distracted and didn't hear all of his response.

Full disclosure: I would be happy to vote for either Obama or Edwards in the general election, but I favor either Kucinich or Dodd in the primary.

We would all agree that our Prez runners, and all gov. officials be thoroughly scrutinized - held accountable to La Jente they claim to serve. There are systemic reasons why this doesn't happen. With Nez, como siempre otra vez, unless someone is willing to shake things up with courage and truth, I ain't voting for 'em. Period.

Me vale verga if Satan won the Democratic nomination, I'd vote for him over ANY republican.

So, if Edwards, or Obama, Hillary, or cualquiera, sea, I'll vote for the him/her.

This whole bullshit primary crap is just that crap for pundits and idiots to swallow deluding themselves that this is a way for a candidate to be vetted.

Yes I'm cynical bastard, jaded by years of lies and empty promises; this crappy electoral college that is a joke, the fact that the South is still part of the Union. Fuck them. We're in this mess because of the South. Fuck them!!!!

Has Edwards fucked any little boys or girls? No, then he passes my litmus test.

jeje...aw shit. you don't sound like you're having any fun!

hey, i'm cynical too! in some cases darkly so. but at times, this is how i entertain myself. good to see you!

Satan for President? DONT MAKE ME SAY IT!

I thought Satan was already Vice President.

ba-dum-pum-pum!

and how much did shit romney pay for his make-up? no one seems to care about that, do they?

CTHULHU FOR PRESIDENT! FUCK THIS SHIT! GREATER OF ALL EVILS FOR THE WIN!

When he voted against the confirmation of John Roberts I knew Obama was genuine.

I really hate to be a buzzkill, but only wasn't Obama genuine but he's a complete bastard who thinks that someone is pro-choice if they belive that a father who fucks his daughter has some sort of "right" to force his daughter to carry any pregnancies that get produced from his abuse to term against her will.

This man clearly needs to have R and L written on his shoes. I personally doubt he's really black, simply because it's possible that he's a white guy who's just so goddamn dense that he collapsed into a blackhole at some point and no one at capitol hill could tell the difference.

He's still better than Edwards though.

But seriously, vote Kucichinich or green, or Cthulhu, there's no need to be complicit in the bullshit either of those tools will produce. And the bullshit WILL be copious, make no mistake.

i'm down with organizing for cthulhu if you are, amiga. that could look WICKed on a bumper sticker, hey?

if i were a billionaire, i would fund kucinich's campaign.

Cthulhu? Ia! Ia! Cthulhu fthagn!

"Cthulhu For Pres-iii-Dent, MoFo's!"

I'll buy that bumper sticker for $10.

actually, i'm pretty sure Gravel mentioned Cthulhu as a running mate already.

This Cthulhu for president shit has got to stop. Cthulhu really couldn't care less about the presidency, just as you wouldn't care who's class president in a high school seven states away.

Now, Nyarlathotep would make an excellent president and would be quite willing to run. Of course, his first acts as president would be to bring horror, murder, war, and rape to every human on earth such that Iraq will be remembered as a paradise before his reign began, but we'll all be much too mad to care, with the inhuman piping of the Outer Gods slicing through our souls.

Nyarlathotep for president! He's for universal health care: all humanity will be frozen eternally in a deathless hell! Nyarlathotep 2008!

Okay, I'll post something useful next time.

Then again, there's always this guy.

http://www.zod2008.com/