John Edwards' Fortress

[davidswanson]

By David Swanson

The bulk of John Edwards' wealth is invested in, his recent income derives from, and his biggest contributors are employed by Fortress Investment Group. Fortress, which paid Edwards almost half a million dollars to advise them, deals in hedge funds and private equity. Its private equity holdings have not been reported on. (Where is journalism when there's no sex involved?) Its hedge funds invest in, among other things, publicly traded companies. Those are reported to the SEC, most recently on May 15th in this filing: http://tinyurl.com/ytzlba

The list of companies invested in is large, but presumably well known to Edwards as a result of his well-paid advising and his massive investment in Fortress. It includes companies from a variety of industries, creating all sorts of conflicts of interest for a would-be public official. Just in the 'A's in the list we find: Advanced Medical Optics Inc., and Applera Corp. (medical); Aetna Inc., Amerigroup Corp., and Assurant Inc. (health insurance); Abbott Labs, Alpharma Inc., and Alexion Pharmaceuticals Inc. (pharmaceuticals); Altria Group (parent of Phillip Morris, cigarettes); American International Group (insurance); Amgen Inc. (biotech); Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, Apache Corp., Arena Resources Inc., Atlas America Inc., Atmos Energy Corp., and Avista Corp. (oil and gas); Autonation Inc. (cars); Anheuser Busch Cos. Inc. (beer), and many others.

Glancing through the full alphabet of companies, it is immediately apparent that Fortress represents the polar opposite of an ethical investment opportunity. Some names jump out at you as surprising companies for a Democratic presidential candidate to sink his fortune into, such as Wal Mart Stores Inc. There are a lot of telecom companies, like Verizon, in the list, lots of oil companies like Exxon Mobil, weapons companies like Lockheed Martin, big agricultural companies like Monsanto, a great many lending companies including several well known for predatory lending practices such as Wells Fargo, and numerous media corporations including Clear Channel.

Edwards has refused to take part in a debate run by Fox News, but has sunk his money into Clear Channel.

Fortress has also been a leading investor in companies privatizing prisons: http://www.secinfo.com/dsVsf.6eZq.b.htm

Fortress's 2006 Annual Report ( http://tinyurl.com/36g54o ) lists numerous subsidiaries as well, most of them based in Delaware or the Cayman Islands, a popular destination for the avoidance of regulations and taxes.

But Fortress has apparently decided to clean up its act. If Edwards is going to be president, and Fortress is going to become the new Halliburton, so to speak, Fortress wants to project the proper image. So it's decided to invest heavily in casinos and horse racing. In June, Fortress announced that it and a partner would buy Penn National Gaming for $6.1 billion.

It's not clear, however, that this move will outweigh the bad PR from Fortress's investment in Humana, the ruthless private health insurance company so pointedly criticized in Michael Moore's movie "Sicko." With the media ignoring Edwards' investment in Humana, the main concern Edwards' supporters have about "Sicko" is that it argues against the sort of health coverage plan their man supports. "Sicko" makes a powerful case for getting rid of private insurance companies and using a single-payer system of health coverage of the sort used by most wealthy nations in the world. That's the sort of system Congressman Dennis Kucinich advocates.

So, Edwards volunteers have been passing out flyers outside movie theaters showing "Sicko." The flyers include a chart comparing Edwards' health coverage plan with Kucinich's. (The flyer begins by dismissing Obama and Clinton as not having offered "universal" health coverage plans.)

The flyers, which say they are "designed and printed by a John Edwards volunteer" and include the John Edwards 08 logo, claim that Edwards will get everyone health coverage by 2012, whereas it will take Kucinich 15 years. But the bill Kucinich supports (HR 676) says it will go into effect in 1 year. It may take years to get fully up to speed, but because it uses a simple system used successfully by many other countries, we know it can work. Edwards' proposed system would keep the private insurance companies involved and expect the government to be able to control them, something Hillary Clinton famously failed at miserably. She was unable even to get her plan through Congress. Kucinich's plan already has 75 cosponsors in the House.

The flyers claim that under Edwards' plan tax credits to low-income citizens will create universal coverage. But that money will, of course, go to private insurance companies, including those Edwards' own personal finances depend on. In contrast, the flyers claim, Kucinich's plan would cover everyone "only after a long process of creating a national healthcare bureaucracy from scratch". The same flyer contradicts this by calling Kucinich's plan "Medicare for All" and by claiming that Edwards, too, would expand Medicare to cover most Americans. But Edwards would add to this the bureaucracy needed to keep track of who is covered in what way, who needs a tax credit, who has private insurance, who does not, and how good that private insurance is. Hospitals and doctors would have to keep in place all the bureaucracy needed to determine who was covered in what way and where their bill should go. And insurance companies would continue to waste American health care dollars on advertising and lobbying. Clearly Edwards wins in the bureaucracy promotion department.

The flyers try to turn this around and criticize Kucinich for wanting to "tear down much of the existing health structure," but that's exactly what any viewer of "Sicko" comes out of the theater wanting. Many people handed a flyer like this one are likely to wonder what Edwards' motivation could possibly be for not simply supporting single-payer health coverage.

Edwards may honestly believe that his plan is the best way to help sick Americans. His own financial interest in keeping private insurance companies in existence and boosting their profits may have nothing to do with his motivations. But why should Americans have to take that on faith? Shouldn't a presidential candidate avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest?


David Swanson was press secretary for Kucinich for President 2004 and briefly consulted for Kucinich's O8 campaign.

[Cameron27]

1. Would you post a copy of the flyers please.

[davidswanson]

3. scanner

i don't have a scanner - i guess i could take a photo with a camera if you really want

[Cameron27]

8. Well you've presented a pretty damaging conspiratorial scenario

that I really have a hard time believing. I'm not saying you're wrong, I just have to really study all the connections that you're suggesting very closely. The flyers are the easy part that I'd like to see myself, it's not that big a deal I guess.

One question, because Edwards' involvement with Fortress bothers me too, but isn't it possible or even likely that he doesn't know what he's investing in? Is it something like mutual funds?

[davidswanson]

9. you'd have to ask him

i'll take a photo of the flyer
2 photos
it's 2 pages
gimme a minute

[davidswanson]

15. here's the flyer

[Cameron27]

18. Thanks,

They're really difficult for me to read, but I'll try to make some sense out of them. On just this section of your OP, I have to say that I wish Dennis had enough money for a counter-attack. Single payer is the right way to go IMHO.

[Superguy]

92. David, thank you for the information

It is nice to know who the candidates are. I love Afterdowningstreet.org It's a great site.

[madfloridian]

2. David, it was Dean in 03 and Edwards now.

It worries me why that would be.

[davidswanson]

4. can you eleborate?

what was?

[madfloridian]

6. Negativity.

.

[calteacherguy]

5. Half a million dollars to advise them about what? What was his advice and why was it worth 1/2 mil?

[robcon]

23. He was called an advisor. His job was to attract investors.

His job was to gain new investors for the company. My understanding is that when the company had a convention, meeting or seminar for prospective investors, Edwards gave speeches to drum up additional attendance, and to promote the company

[calteacherguy]

63. And where, as a trial lawyer, did he gain that kind of expertise?

What made him worth so much to them?

[Exultant Democracy]

68. Great public speaking skills and star power.

If he only brought in a few new customers (considering the min investment) he would more then pay for himself.

[robcon]

80. I told you - his presence drew attention to the seminars.

His speeches had little or nothing to do with the investment company. He was a magnet for wealthy investors, who wanted to hear from a former Senator and former VP candidate.

What expertise did he need? He was a politician give political speeches.

[Just-plain-Kathy]

94. I found this...

John Edwards Hits the Street
The 2004 Democratic candidate for Vice-President joins Fortress Investment Group, where he will serve as a part-time global dealmaker

snip<<<

BusinessWeek has learned that Edwards has signed up to work for the New York-based private investment concern Fortress Investment Group as a part-time senior advisor. As such, he will be "providing support in developing investment opportunities worldwide and strategic advice on global economic issues," says Edwards spokesperson Kim Rubey.

>>>snip

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/oct2005/nf20051013_3314_db016.htm

Aren’t you afraid that Edwards might be swayed by his ex-employers to grant favors/pay-backs? We were all outraged when we learned Papa Bush was the Senior advisor to the Carlyle Group...well Edward’s Senior Advisor position with Fortress Investment Group should make us all sit up, take notice and question where his loyalty will lie.

[calteacherguy]

95. Where in the world does a trial lawyer get that kind of expertise?

"providing support in developing investment opportunities worldwide and strategic advice on global economic issues,"

What??????????

There something really peculiar about this!

[Just-plain-Kathy]

96. Remember in Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9-11,

...when Bush said something like "being the son of the president makes me powerful because I get to see the president everyday".

Well maybe Fortress wanted to cozy up to a person who likely could be the next president.

[calteacherguy]

97. That's the most plausible explanation I've heard.

And it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. It smacks of unearned money and influence peddling.

Two Americas, indeed.

[venable]

44. what is the point of your question?

what is the insinuation?

please be clear about what you are suggesting.

as for what he did and what he was paid for, I would guess that is not public, nor is it a big deal. he has lots of experience and people pay for advice.

this is very common among elected officials, high civil servants, and there is nothing untoward about it by definition.

of course it can be abused - see Rudy G.

but there is nothing other than shady, bogus insinuations to suggest that there was anything wrong with Edwards getting paid to advise anyone.

the shady insinuations are what is worng here, not that Edwards got a high paying consultant gig.

[calteacherguy]

64. He was a trial lawyer....

How did the advice of a trial lawyer come to be worth half a million dollars to them?

[venable]

102. he was a trial lawyer, and a us senator, intel committee.

[venable]

45. repeat post

[Jim Sagle]

7. Whadda crocka chickenshit bullshit.

[saracat]

11. Just garbage sheer garbage! Sad.We eat our own!

[John Q. Citizen]

34. Your reply isn't particularly enlightening. Do the private money interests of our

candidates matter, or is it only the private money intetrests of the GOP that matter?

See, when you attack what I consider to be an information based post about a candidate with so little except condemnation, it makes me wonder if you are in favor of voter awareness about the financial connections of potential leaders or are just in favor of accumulating power for the Dems without any kind of checks and balances or information for voters.

Are you attacking the facts presented by David Swanson as untrue, or are you attacking the disemination of factual information because you would prefer that people don't know this information?

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ripple]

101. I hope you'll remember your words the next time you feel the urge to attack Obama n/t

[John Q. Citizen]

35. What about the post isn't factual? Or are you upset that inconvienent facts are being posted?

[terisan]

10. Uh, in 1992 (15 years ago) it took considerable guts to try and change the healthcare system.

No Hillary Clinton could not get a plan through Congress 15 years ago, Heck, a large part of the public then considered her uppity for having the "nerve" to involve herself in policy making.
People advocating universal health coverage were still being called communists. Possibly you were not politically active then and do not know the situation.
Saying that "she failed miserably" is like saying Dennis Kucinich "failed miserably" in his attempt to become president in 2004. While it is technically true, it would be ignoring the fact that he attempted, against great odds, to achieve the presidency and I commend him for that-just as I commend her for being a pioneer in attempting to change the health care system as long as fifteen years ago.

[saracat]

12. You are so right.I have always been proud of Hillary's efforts years ago.

I may not be thrilled with some of her recent efforts but boy did she try and get pounded for it.The goodold boys just couldn't handle her and hated an "uppity woman" would didn't know her place.She was supposed to decorate and pick out china, not work on policy! Bastards.I do not forget!

[rodeodance]

98. Yes, she did try and I respect her for that.

[Cameron27]

13. I agree, it took a lot of guts for her to try to get anything

going on healthcare back then, and the lobbyists used every fear tactic available to defeat her.

[rucky]

28. Why isn't she pushing the same plan today? n/t

[terisan]

66. It failed. Some people learn from experience. nt

[John Q. Citizen]

39. I have to disagree with your analysis of the fight for health care reform 15 years ago.

Clinton was elected, in large part, because there was a broad based push for health care reform in the late 80's early nineties that included hundreds of organizations and ten of thousands of people organizing around this issue.

When Medicare was enacted in 1965 (and of course the Conyers Kucinich bill is medicare for all) it was thought to be just the beginning of over-hauling the entire system of private for profit insurance companies and the first component of a not for profit system that would cover everyone.

I was very active in the push in the late 80's early nineties and was very disappointed in Hillary's efforts, because she seemed from the start to reject the concept of not for profit coverage that the activists had been pushing for, and that in fact helped to elect Clinton.

Hillary studied the issue to death, using a study model that was closed to public view, (similar to chaney's energy study group) brought the private insurance companies into the secret meetings from the start and instead of presenting a relatively simple understandable plan, presented a plan that was so insanely complex, expensive (private corporations) and late (it took her about 3 years to come out with her plan) that members in both parties were skeptical of it.

I know. I was there and saw the whole thing come down.

Hillary set back health-care reform 15 years, she wasn't a pioneer, and she in many ways undid all the hard work of citizen activists who had pushed the issue to the fore-front.

I'm sorry to have to be the one to tell you a history you probably have no desire to know or understand, but that's what happened.

If you don't believe me, ask Michael Moore. Ask the Fair Share/ Citizen Action Groups.

[terisan]

65. I was there also & active. Your statements are not true. Large parts of the country was

opposed to single payer and universal coverage. I live in one of those regions. Her health care plan was introduced to Congress in 1993 not 3 years into Clinton's term.

The task force was a governmental task force. Sorry you felt excluded. They had excluded representatives from insurance companies, the pharmaceutical industry, the American Medical Association, the American Hospital Association, and the media -and earned the vehement opposition of those groups. Have you forgotten the Harry and Louise television ad campaign ? In my part of the country it ran constantly and those of us who supported health care reform were called socialists and communists.

The American Association of Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) did in fact sue the Clinton administration in 1993 over the task force's operating in secret. They charged that the Clintons' Task Force on Health Care Reform operated illegally, relied on private advisors and met in secret. Judge Royce Lamberth of the District Court for the District of Columbia judge did in fact place sanctions over what he termed the Clinton administration's misconduct. He found for the AAPS the government to pay more than $285,000 to the AAPS.
Cheney has been able to keep his Energy Task Force secret.

My point is that Clinton put herself on the line, made serious mistakes, and failed.

A history, you say I have no desire to know or understand ? Chuckle. I think personal attacks are silly.

[zazzle]

69. Hillary rolled over in 1993

and will once again roll over for the corporatists - funding her campaign.
Edwards has the most viable health care plan - and he's not owned by the corporatists.

[terisan]

71. What does your comment have to do with my statements? Please elaborate.

[John Q. Citizen]

81. You are correct about the introduction date, it was Nov of 1993.

You will always be called socialists and communists, because you belong to the Democratic party. Part of the Repo "framing" effort.

Bill and Hillary's biggest problem was they should have introduced single payer early, like in February 03, before the opposition had time to organize and act. It's a lot easier to explain and understand than the complex "managed care' public private hybred with employer mandates, HMO's ect that the task force produced

Instead of a 1000 page bill, they could have done it in 30 or 40 pages.

It would have been attacked, of course, but it would have been a lot more defensible and explainable and they would have had ready access to the grassroots to help push it.

Americans hate insurance companies. And they would have been the main opposition. By and large Doctors and hospitals aren't widely opposed to a single payer fee for service system and weren't then. They hate insurance companies just as much as everyone else, if not more.

Hindsite is 20 20 but I thought the same thing at the time and still do.

Here's a detailed time line on the Clinton Health Care attempt. Very interesting and educational. And by the way, I apologise for my incorrect assumptions as to your knowledge of the healthcare history of that time.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/forum/may96/background/health_debate_page1.html

[Divine Discontent]

14. I appreciate the information

I'd still pick Edwards over Kucinich at this point. John's plans for America are liberal and he backs the American unions. I just can't see more than 10% of rural North Carolinians or Arkansans voting for Dennis... sorry. I think our next nominee needs to be someone who can do well in those 10 or so states that Dennis doesn't have a remote chance in heck of winning. He is a brilliant man, and I want whoever our next president is, whether it be Gore, Clark, Clinton, Edwards, Biden, or Obama - to put Dennis in a major cabinet position - as he is an honest man, more than any other running, but that's not going to get Arkansas to turn blue, imo. I hope I'm wrong and the stem of anti-republican disgust is so strong that any Democratic candidates kicks the GOP nom's arse.

www.cafepress.com/warisprofitable <<--- top '08 items & antib*sh stickers!

[Cameron27]

16. I agree that Dennis probably won't be a viable candidate

who can make it to the general, but his ideas on healthcare could. I'd like to see his single payer ideas included as an attainable goal in the top tier candidates platform.

[Divine Discontent]

89. you're spot on

his plan must be implicated, of COURSE the corporations don't want this, but when have they EVER looked out for the worker and the needy? rarely ever if at all. they only give money to push that they're doing good things for the community, when, if they were told they couldn't use the mentioning of their donations in advertisements they'd cease to do it! this is our chance with this for a long time - sicko has helped boost the chance for change, as has the skyrocketing costs due to the cost of living being raised by oil's increase.

[Mojorabbit]

93. My problem with Edwards

are with his votes in congress. He says one thing now but voted the opposite. I'd vote for his wife in a heartbeat. I am a big, "watch what they do not what they say" type of person.

[locopolitico]

17. John Edwards feeling pretty

Unfortunately for Edwards, he's never going to live this down

[Crunchy Frog]

19. You won't get too far posting right wing hit pieces here.

If you want to criticize, do it over policies, or positions, or other real issues. Making a big deal over someone's hair is a bunch of right wing bullshit.

[Joe Chi Minh]

22. Surely, he was joking; satirising the Republicans.

[Crunchy Frog]

20. Dupe

[Adelante]

27. Disgusting

The OP is a reasonable and respectful examination of an important issue.

However, we don't need right wing smear videos here. Since you are new here, maybe you didn't know. I will alert for you and perhaps the mods will see fit to delete it.

Welcome to DU :hi:

[MilesColtrane]

21. self deleted

[robcon]

24. A total hatchet job.

The line gives it away: "Glancing through the full alphabet of companies, it is immediately apparent that Fortress represents the polar opposite of an ethical investment opportunity."

NONE of the companies run an illegitimate, illegal, immoral or even questionable business. The writer doesn't like the current health insurance system - that doesn't make the companies unethical, or Fortress anything but an investor in profitable companies.

It's mudslinging at its lowest form.

[lostnotforgotten]

30. Birds Of A Feather Flock Together - It Takes One To Know One

These old idioms often have merit for a reason.

[davidswanson]

31. Shall we take them one by one?

Want to start with Wal Mart?
Want to watch The High Cost of Low Prices?

[1932]

37. I doubt there's a democrat running who doesn't have money in a fund invested in WalMart

It is the biggest company in America. It is bigger than GM, which used to be the biggest company in America.

[John Q. Citizen]

40. So your argument is that there is no Dem running with an ethical investment porfolio?

[1932]

43. Is there one? I suspect that even Kucinich might have a 403b through Congress

with an investment in WalMart, not to mention Exxon and other major US corps.

[Zynx]

75. Awful stock though.

[bettync]

47. Edward's stands up to Wal Mart

Chris Kofinis and Paul Bank are the two men who headed the labor backed, anti-Wal Mart effort. They have recently joined the Edward's campaign staff as key advisors. John Edwards knows them from his efforts to confront Wal Mart about their harmful business paractices and unfair treatment of employees.

Wal Mart substantially harmed North Carolina's textile industry. Senator Edwards has been tough on Wal Mart for a long time.

[goodgd_yall]

91. He shouldn't be supporting Wal-Mart then with his investments

If you oppose the tactics of a company, hitting it in the pocketbook is essential. It may not be convenient to refuse to invest in companies that exploit workers, but if you profess to be about making life in the U.S. better for the poor, it's something one really should do to avoid charges of hypocrisy.

[Bryan Buchan]

25. Kucinich's Plan has it's merits...

...but if you have ever worked with DK then you know he could not have the ability to pull this off. In theroy his plan is admirable, but not realistic, given the current system and the powers behind it. It would take someone with more power than DK to accomplish the vision in his plan, plain and simple. I don't believe the candidate, DK, has the personal ability, if elected, to carry this through to it conception and see that the plan truley relefcts his vision. To be honest, I think Edwards would have an easier time adopting DK's plan and seeing it through.

Saying this, which is completely my opinion alone, DK could never adopt his plan given the congress he would have to work with, both the repukes and the blue dogs, and the DCCC would put a halt to this attempt by Kucinich, despite what the people would demand. It is simply not realistic, and to be honest I think DK's ego would get in the way of any progress in the first four years of his administration. I say this having awaoke from the 'dream' state I was in working for DK back in '04. I can also say, before being flamed, that I have contributed to both DK and Edwards this election cycle. I love DK and what he can do to challenge his fellow candidates during the debates, and with his online activism. But I personally do not agree with his campaign organization, his field strategy, nor can I believe in the man, after have seen him in action personally. I will close with saying, still despite my '04 expereince, give'em hell Dennis, it is what you do best!

[John Q. Citizen]

41. It;s the Conyers Kucincih bill. Are you suggesting the Chair of the Justice Committee

is unrealistic?

[gatorick73]

26. Mr. Edwards

I appreciate the time it took to delve into this matter. I support John and this makes me a bit wary but Mr. Obama has little experience and the so-called media will attack Ms. Clinton over her Whitewater connections when fox noise tells them to do so. I see a possible Edwards/Richardson ticket forming after the artificial smoke has cleared.

[Laurab]

84. Edwards has no more experience than Obama

and Hillary really doesn't, either. I suggest you check out both of his books - Obama IMO has more experience than either of Edwards or Hillary. Edwards was a one term senator, Hillary a first lady and a 1+ term senator. Obama has years of experience in state politics, as well as his term in the senate. Politics are politics. I would argue that being First Lady is not "presidential experience", but does count for something, and that Edwards actually has less experience than either Obama or Hillary.

[Warren Stupidity]

29. Oh My God He Is Rich and Invests!

Fuck! That does it! I'm voting Republican!

[Catchawave]

32. Don't you see, vote for the Kooch!

He's perfect :D

[Warren Stupidity]

33. I'm already voting for DK, I just can't stand this stooopid shit.

[Catchawave]

36. Yes, it hurts both our guys :(

...and gives the RW ammo.

[MannyGoldstein]

46. Oh My God He Is Rich and Invests... In Evil Stuff!

You left out the crux of the issue - I thought I might help.

[Catchawave]

52. Beer is evil ? n/t

[MannyGoldstein]

58. Ben Franklin Says...

"Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy."

Who am I to argue with Dr. Franklin?

[Warren Stupidity]

54. I am fine with the assertion that Edwards' campaign

is misstating the reality of Kucinich's excellent medicare for everyone plan, and with the analysis that Edwards, like Obama and Clinton, are compromised by their association with the private health insurance sector. I'd like to see more than just assertions on that though. Claiming that Fortress is the new halliburton is idiocy and a fine example of party cannibalism. Do you own a standard mutual fund? An exchange fund of any sort? Ever take a good look at who you are invested in?

[MannyGoldstein]

57. Last Time I Checked...

I was not an employee of Fidelity. That would be a whole other thing, no?

It's possible that some of my money is in bad stuff. If I knew that it was in bad - which Edwards certainly does know by now - I'd move it.

[InvisibleTouch]

38. And here I thought...

...someone was bashing him for his house again! :)

[benny05]

42. Very Interesting

But the blogger is also overlooking some other details.

1) Fortress is the only hedge fund company that has gone public. Most hedge fund companies would not do that. Moreover, if Fortress is going to start some reforms, based on Edwards' influence, that shows leadership by Edwards and maybe other companies in the industry will start following suit.

2) I don't have a problem with Edwards' connections to the company because if one wants to gain a better understanding of how Wall Street works, it's better to go inside and see it for oneself. Moreover, it's not been unusual in the past for Dem presidents, such as FDR and JFK, to have connections to Wall Street. That is the place where where Presidential candidates look for economic advisors and if winning the general election, where cabinet member nominees, such as the Treasury, come from. While WS workers are certainly capitalists, many of them are Democrats and will support moderate to progressive candidate. Look at the contributions to Obama and Clinton as well So to paint Edwards like a Republican in this instance, which is what I think the blogger is trying to do, without mentioning Clinton and Obama in the same breath, is also disingenuous as well ludricrous.

3) As much as I think HR 676 would be cool to pass, it's not to going to happen with Bush and this Congress either. So far, this Congress has been supine. It's not getting anything done, other than slip a slight minimium wage hike and more money for rebuilding our Gulf Coast while continuing to give Bush more money for keeping and surging our troop levels in Iraq.

4) In terms of Edwards plan for healthcare, Elizabeth Edwards spoke about the plan last night at the Human Rights Campaign gala dinner.

"The next question was about John Edwards' health care plan and why he doesn't just endorse single-payer healthcare (this question struck me particularly strongly after having seen "SiCKO" last night... which I intend to diary soon...).

Elizabeth stated that John's "Medicare Plus" proposal offers healthcare via the government in a way that won't just overwhelm the system with a bureaucratic mess. Instead, his "Medicare Plus" plan will build on the existing programs and will have a much lower overhead than private health insurance companies have. Additionally, Elizabeth stated that the one advantage of private healthcare - innovation - would continue to be present in the market and drive the government healthcare system to be more innovative, while still having lower overhead than private health insurance companies. She saw it as a win-win." (this is from Sfluke's report at the Daily Kos)

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/7/14/202354/939

4) Up until this week, I had a lot of respect for the Kucinich campaign, in which Dennis and Elizabeth are actively campaigning. Dennis has been criticized about his image, and more than once I have stood for him because I thought the comments were vapid, and I stand by my view. They may not get many people to come to their forums, but they are out there and trying, which is more than I can say for Mike Gravel. However, the campaign made some missteps that I wish they would correct:

a) The Kucinich campaign sent out a Press Release saying that Kucinich out polled all of the candidates in their Environmental forum. That was totally false. Edwards clearly out polled both Kucinich and Clinton put together. Lucky for Kucinich that he gets included in the ad this week in NH and Iowa, but here's what his press release said:

"Kucinich Out-Polls Democratic Front-Runners on Climate Change, Global
Warming Issues"

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/07-11-2007/0004623812&EDATE=

Contrast to Moveon.org's official message:

The winner of the MoveOn Virtual Town Hall Meeting on the climate crisis is Senator John Edwards (see below for full results). When candidates lead, we need to be there to back them up.

https://pol.moveon.org/give/townhall_climate.html?id=10794-8047149-An.

b) The Kucinich Campaign completely jumped the gun without seeking clarification about Clinton and Edwards' small chat (after the NAACP forum) by lashing out about being excluded. Because Kucinich is polling so poorly, I guess the campaign felt it needed to get some noise out there. They did that, but here's what Edwards meant:

First, Edwards' statement in Iowa

"For his part, Edwards told reporters in Iowa that he wasn't in favor of barring anyone from future gatherings. Rather, he said he wanted to see them separated into two groups of four each, chosen randomly.

"The result would be that we would have a much more serious discussion and people would actually be able to see what the differences are between us," he said."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070714/ap_on_el_pr/kucinich_edwards_debate_5

Then Elizabeth Edwards on MyDD:

John meant what he said in Iowa: he wants smaller groups (or longer debates) so that there can be an end to the notion that a candidate can skate through the debates with sound bite answers. Everyone has sixty seconds to explain their helath care plan and John's truly universal plan ends up sounding just like a "plan" to talk about health care. It does a disservice to the voters. Since no one (maybe not even the candidates' spouses!) would watch a three hour debate, it seems more sensible to have a series of randomly constituted smaller groups. Listen, John wants to talk about substance; that should be no surprise. And the format with this many candidates doesn't allow that to happen. If you have an idea that would work, let us know. Or better yet, let MSNBC and CNN know.

http://www.mydd.com/comments/2007/7/13/215314/314/14?mode=alone;showrate=1#14

Not a smart idea when Dennis has refused to debates rivals in his Congressional campaigns, as reported here at the DU on Friday:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3374495&mesg_id=3374495



No one is trying to exclude Dennis from the debates. But it's time that he started trying to figure out how to gain better traction based on his own ideas. From what I can tell from the above and from this post, seems to me Dennis has decided to go after Edwards rather than Obama or Clinton (or Dodd or Richardson, all ahead in the polls) since Edwards appears the most populist, and perhaps Dennis believes he is the most populist.

[Mabus]

48. Thank you for posting this David

I, for one, appreciate the information you've provided.

K&R

on edit: I want to add that, one of the things that turns me off a candidate quicker than anything is overzealous supporters who trash other people's Democratic candidates. And, believe me, I don't have clean hands but I reserve most of my attacks to Republicans, not other Dems. I don't mind it at all when flyers bash GOP'ers (as long as the information provided is accurate). Heck, I've done that myself. Back in 2004, I helped distribute flyers comparing/contrasting Kerry's tax plan and Bush's to show the stark differences. We handed these flyers out near the post office on April 15 and gave them a voter registration form with it.

Again, thanks for posting this.

[bettync]

49. I appreciate the disclosure of Kucinich tie

While I do not agree with any of David's conclusions, I appreciate it that he mentions his role in the Kucinich campaign as the 2004 Press Secretary, and consultant for the 2008 campaign.

[Mabus]

53. Transparency is important

Speaking of which, I have met and talked to David more than once at the Take Back America conference. I also attended the panel dicussion he participated in concerning Impeachment. I like David and I apppreciate his work on AfterDowningStreet.org. Boy, oh boy, do I appreciate all the work he's done on AfterDowningStreet.org and the only thing of value that has ever passed between us was when I gave him a Gore sticker.

btw, I added some comments in my original reply.

[Cameron27]

56. Thanks for that Mabus,

I don't know David at all, so it's helpful to know the kind of work he's done in the past.

[benny05]

79. Yep, good he said he had consulted for his campaign

for nearly $2000 of disbursements for Communications Consulting fees during the month of May.

Not to mention that Dennis received a donation from a person who works for Wachovia Securities.

[bettync]

61. I am confused....

If you are turned off by supporters who trash other people's Democratic candidates, why do you thank David for a post that trashes John Edwards? While it is good for everyone to discuss questions and concerns about any candidate, a smear is another matter entirely.

A post that presents some facts, and omits all context, feels like a smear to me.

I don't like to see this happen to John, to Hillary, Obama, Richardson, Dodd, Gravel, Biden or Kucinich. We get enough nasty spinning from the RNC.

[jsamuel]

50. This is just bull.

The main requirement to even entertain this piece is that John Edwards' plan will actually benefit private insurance. This is false and this post is a farce, just like the last one.

John Edwards' true Universal Health Care plan will require every person to be covered. The writer would like you to believe that this would cause everyone to sign up with Humana. This is simply a total distortion of John Edwards' plan. His plan will implement a Medicare-Plus program for every person run by the government. This program is the one that John Edwards wants everyone to sign up for. If he wanted to keep Humana at the top, he wouldn't need to do a thing. The current system is the best for them. Creating a government competitor is a direct challenge to the system that may be fatal to it. In creating this system, every person can be covered by the government, and if Humana can't compete, it will go out of business or change it's business model.

By the way, for some of the conspiracy theorists here, realize that 95% of mutual funds are invested in Heath Care, which probably include companies like Humana. Anyone who invests is almost certainly investing in health care.

[dk2]

51. The bulk of Edwards wealth

is not recent - he has had it longer than working for any recent connection to fortress.

[Adelante]

59. Edwards has $16M invested with Fortress

I don't know if that means the bulk or not since he is worth $30M-$60M. In 2004, if I remember correctly, he was worth then maybe as much as he has in Fortress now, $15M-$40M, if we take the low end. Anyway, the bulk of his wealth probably is recent by any measure.

[jsamuel]

74. nm

nevermind, read the wrong reply

[Inspired]

60. Excuse me but why should I give a damn?

I'm sick of this notion that you can't be wealthy and invest your money, or work for financial institutions, and still be a good Democrat.

It is flat out bullshit and the logic behind it is one that makes us laughing stocks.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

62. As we know, no other millionaire candidate invests

:rofl:

[zazzle]

67. Thank God!

Fox News and our MSM wasn't around in the 30s when Americans elected another millionaire Prez candidate - advocating for the poor and working classes.

[struggle4progress]

70. The Repugs run a full scale class war -- and so we beat up on rich Dems?

[davidswanson]

73. The point is

not to beat up on individuals who belong to a particular party, but to pressure candidates and public officials to do what we as citizens of a democracy want. I want single-payer health care, and I want candidates free of corporate influence. Fortress does nto even approach a reasonable facsimile of an ethical investment scheme. It's a who's who of corporate crooks, union busters, loan sharks, offshore scams, and monopolists. If you don't find that disturbing, that's fine - but in that case i haven't trashed anyone. If you do find it disturbing, it's not my fault that it's true - and secrecy about disturbing things in the name of a Party is how you end up with Democrats like Bill Clinton or - worse - Republicans like Bush and Cheney.

[struggle4progress]

76. When you've done a careful comparison of all candidates' investments, let me know

[struggle4progress]

72. The Halliburton-Fortress comparison is ridiculous: Halliburton's recent contracts with Bushco

probably involve more money than Fortress has to invest.

[Warren DeMontague]

77. Smear Job. Keep it up and I'll switch back from Kooch to Edwards.

Charming, dude.

[ashlarah]

78. Pure obfuscation, drivel and insinuation

Edwards in not in the pocket of any corporation - his message and proposals are populist in nature. His universal health care plan is the best one out there, but if you think Kucinich's is better, fine, then argue those points. But lay off with the trashing insinuations against our best chance for universal health care, college for all who want it (and are willing to work for it) and to combat global warming.

If what you want is a candidate truly in the pockets of special interests, keep drumming these ridiculous smears and that is what we will have. I don't think Kucinich has a chance of the nomination or, if by some miracle he did win, of getting his proposals anywhere. I have refrained from criticizing him many times in the past because I think it is valuable to hear what he has to say on the issues. If, however, what he has to say is merely attacks on John Edwards' character, that restraint will be history.

As to "why should Americans have to take that on faith?" . . . we have a tradition in this country of innocent until proven guilty. You have no evidence that John Edwards is trying to keep private insurance companies in existence at all and you especially don't have any evidence that he would do such a thing for his own profit. That is absurd.

Have you actually read his plan? It would mean the end of private insurers as we know it: they would be required to cover anyone that applied and paid premiums; "pre-existing conditions" would be a nonexistent notion; they would be required to provide preventive and chronic care as well as mental health parity; and MOST IMPORTANT, they would DIRECTLY COMPETE WITH THE GOVERNMENT PLAN. Employers and individuals without insurance can choose the government plan, which, almost certainly, will be cheaper and easier to use than private insurance plans. Edwards' plan is the only one that does this. Obama's plan only makes the government plan available to individuals who cannot otherwise afford insurance.

I'm disappointed by the willingness of some candidates' supporters to carry and perpetuate these MCM and R smears. John Edwards is wealthy and has never pretended otherwise. He is successful. He is intelligent. And yes, he is (thankfully) fighting for the working poor. He is our best hope.

[PATRICK]

82. As long as the facts check out

this points out the main concern and the ever present need for both the new president and the Congress to be pushed further toward single payer. Any let up or loss of influence to the corporate interests for ANy candidate might leave us still in the clutches of the wrong policies. A single messiah with a single payer plan who will 100% wipe the slate clean and receive automatic agreement by even a future Dem majority would restore the illusion very nicely that people can have the easy solutions done by people upstairs. No one is going to get that kind of rational delegated paradise any time soon.

I personally believe Edwards and that he is pointed in the right direction. Other people pointed in the right direction need lots of help because they have lots of ruthless, rich and loud enemies. If he was president, like LBJ with a vast mandate and friendly Congress, he could be bold. But LBJ had the fire of MLK to accompany him on that journey perilous to the party and other concerns were ready and able to corrupt progress toward enablement of the Vietnam quagmire. When you back a candidate you have to be there for what you want in government, pushing and supporting. The portfolio merely confirms the grim realities of American politics while understandably the campaign workers need to rally myth and excitement. We have both and actions will speak of how well prudent determination to move OUR government toward reality and progress overcomes the dark side, but also the lazy weakness of image and myth.

IF Edwards were even as cynical or double motivated as LBJ who was sincere in both his good and bad sides, he still would be my choice to take the helm of real government. Like most of the candidates he offers an alternative to the wrenching revolution we probably(or circumstances likely) merit or even need. Getting us on firm ground and together in hope will just be the starting point. At which point I hope all the activists and awakened, outraged American people don't nod off, change the channel and trust things no longer demand our attention.

This also goes to total election reform and any other big issue. Most of what Edwards has carved out ahead of the media faves is strongly headed in that direction, but the situation in America is that none of it is spelled out huge as much as the hollow myths and false assumptions blown down upon us from on high like a celestial gas attack. This is why DK is important and we need more public leadership in many sectors to begin cleansing the "top of the world".

Once when pushing Eric Massa for NY-29th a GOPer asked me how electing a bunch of Democrats was going to solve the mess the GOP disappointments had made. The reply had to be making sure that the Dem voted for was not, ironically going to follow the model of the recent past. Of course both of us meant different things about what was wrong much of the party leadership, but both of us wanted honest government by people wanting to make it work. The contest of true policy differences and the influence of the PEOPLE has not even had a chance to begin yet. Electing our likely Dem candidates across the board can only be a beginning- and hopefully a swift rebuff to the onslaught of catastrophic darkness that is the relentless alternative.

[Pastiche423]

83. Excellent essay, David!

Sadly, There are none so blind as those who will refuse to see.

[benny05]

85. I agree

There are plenty who didn't read my post either.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3378505&mesg_id=3378998

[Pastiche423]

86. Huh?

You said you agree w/me, yet the link to your other post is nothing more than an apologetic gyration to what was written in David Swanson's great essay.

[benny05]

88. Read again

Your post:

Sadly, There are none so blind as those who will refuse to see.

I agreed with you. But comment can be interpreted in more ways than one.

[Pastiche423]

90. No, you disagreed w/my comment

YOU are one of the posters on this thread, that IMHO, refuses to see.

[ddeclue]

87. Oh brother... what a load of ****

Come on... this is really attributing really a lot of motives where there is no underlying proof of them...

This is classic smearing guilt by association by a desperate Kucinich campaign which has to know it has no chance of winning.

Doug D.

[rodeodance]

99. Looks like a RW hit piece to me

[broadcaster]

100. The part about the elderly getting tax credits...

I'd like to mention that 'tax credits' mean that you:

1. pay the bill first with your own money (so if your surgery costs 50,000 dollars, you
pay this using your AMEX I guess, since all 70 and 80 year olds have this kind of
credit line, right?)
2. wait until tax time
3. file a tax return (assuming here that you itemize, or does the 1040A have a new line for
health care?)
4. wait for the refund.

Meaning: under this idea, you have to PAY THE BILL with your own money, and then get
a percentage back when you file.

This is just silly, I'm sorry to say, and if it reflects Edwards thinking on health care,
its very sad, and also revealing of the man.

The IRS does not give out loans in advance.