Maybe this is naive, but I'm a little less concerned about what a wealthy public figure has in his or her investment portfolio than I am about direct payments from corporations to them. Nearly half a million dollars for "advice" from a man who spent a good deal of 2006 working on his presidential campaign? Gross.

...to cover the wage gap in America with his own bank account. Obviously he could give everything he owns away, and it'd be less than a drop in the bucket.

I also understand his defense of sub-prime loans as useful economic tools. They can be, provided they're appropriately regulated. Sub-prime loans enable predatory lending practices, but aren't necessarily predatory in and of themselves. At any rate, I doubt Edwards did anything more than add his name to the fund.

That said--when he's pulling in $427K for a part-time "consulting" job--I'd be very surprised if the average American voter takes the time to make the distinctions.

but what about talking to the Edwards campaign before just linking us to a WSJ story and then snarking without basis?

Edwards got paid to advise as a consultant with expertise on poverty issues. Hedge funds often accidentally help alleviate poverty because they invest in high risk investments like third world start ups. They could do MORE to alleviate poverty around the world if they focused. Who better to advise them than someone who's spent a good deal of his efforts since 2004 focusing on poverty issues around the world.

More importantly, he insisted they NOT be involved in predatory lending when he took the gig, and indeed a majority of the loans they purchased (Fortress is not in the lending business) were acquired by Fortress after Edwards left the company, and when he found out about this whole business (after the fact), he promised to work with any Katrina victims who may have been foreclosed on.

And MOST importantly, Edwards has been consistent in his condemnation of predatory lending practices, and proposes sweeping reform - none of which changed because of his work for Fortress.

I'd love to see some real reporting here. You know, instead of "looky here!" and snark.

Unlike the bogus stories that have come before, this one has the real stink of hypocrisy. In 2006 it was pretty well-known by those who exist in reality (read: not Larry Kudlow and those like him) that the real estate mania was starting to creak. Yet he collected almost half a million dollars from a company fully engaged in these behaviors. It's ugly.

Was this "expose" from the Wall Street Journal "revealed" before or after Murdock acquired the Journal? Since the formerly respected Wall Street Journal has become the property of the world's biggest pariah-scumbag it is becoming Fox "News" in print.

I seem to recall that Cheney had a well-publicized "Haliburton" problem that nobody seemed to care about,and Bush had a little issue with eminent domain that nobody even bothered to report. It didn't matter. But if Edwards take a book advance from a company owned by Murdoch or owns stock/does work for a company that owns another company that does something he criticized, then it's news. It's like the Gore flying issue - a Democrat isn't allowed to push for anything unless their record on the issue is perfect, while Republicans are allowed to be complete hypocrites.

I'm not saying this kind of stuff shouldn't be reported... but I expect context. I expect a story not about how Edwards is a hypocrite, but about how various politicians of both parties have dealt with this issue, and how Edwards is dealing with this issue. And I can't tell you how disappointing it is to see that you quoted teh Journal on the issues critical of Edwards without even bothering to report on his commentes regarding the issue. If I read only this, I would think that the WSJ article was much more of a hit piece than it is.

Peter Daou, a former Salon columnist, is now Hillary's online communications director. Rupert Murdoch of Fox News and Wall Street Journal fame is funding Hillary's campaign.

Hmmm....

Sounds familiar....Judy Miller's NYT articles about an imminent WMD threat from Iraq were paraded by the Bush administration to foster support for the war - while the Bush admin had SUPPLIED Miller with the basis for her articles.

And round and round it goes.

With no input from the Edwards' campaign - it's nothing but hit pieces on Edwards - and shoddy journalism.

No wonder Hillary won't commit a position on media consolidation. That would be like cutting off her crack dealer - Murdoch - whose influence on the corporate media at large is supplying her with 24/7 positive coverage.

Murdoch did the same with Tony Blair - buying him in 1997.

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/57376

Democrats should be very careful before placing their trust in John Edwards. I am surprised he has made it this far in the primaries without being exposed as the hypocrite he is.

"I will not have my family's money involved in these firms that are foreclosing on people in New Orleans,'' Edwards told the AP.

John Edwards is demonstrating courage and moral leadership - to not only disinvest but to assist the affected. These actions speak volumes about John Edwards as a spiritual human being - not just the candidate but the man, his wife Elizabeth and their shared family values. /

The irony is that I'm going to post anonymously here; I have been for keeping that option, in part because during election coverage I think people should have a right to discuss politics and keep their vote private if they want. However I have to say that, when someone posts something anonymousaly like: democrats should be afraid of Edwards, I think it's from one of the other campaign camps, or a Republican who fears Edwards is the most electable candidate.

To tell you the truth this is sort of the press who called wolf too often story. Various media outlets have tried to smear Edwards non-contextually many times for really small things--this may or may not be small, but at this point it wouldn't matter for me in the primaries if someone did find a smoking gun. The coverage of Edwards has been very similar to the coverage of Gore, who I so wish was President. I still think someone thinks Edwards is a threat. That and the fact that he is articulating policies that will be threatening to some is good enough reason for me to vote for him.