Hard Hitting Questions for Edwards
Poverty and Hedge Funds don't usually mix. But according to former Senator John Edwards, they do when you're trying to find the connection between financial markets and poverty.
It was recently brought to the attention of a hungry press that John Edwards had worked for Foretress Investment Group, which according to the New York Times is "a highly profitable hedge fund and private equity firm with several executives on Forbes' latest billionaires list." Now, I don't have a problem that he was working at the hedge fund because many politicians seek to reap the benefits that go along with their name and prestige once they enter the private sector. However, I do have a problem with his insistence that it was his way to help end poverty.
Sure a person can learn a lot about financial institutions by working at a hedge fund, but its a little strange that a man with so many connections to the University of North Carolina couldn't bring in professors and set up various symposiums at his UNC poverty center to discuss the topic of markets and how it relates to a growing disparity in wealth. This approach would not only benefit him, but it would also facilitate conversation between interested Americans and academics.
John Edwards is not a stupid man. I'm sure he thought about all of this but I'm also sure he tried to work for this hedge fund under the radar - quietly receiving numerous benefits. While we have to wait to see what his compensation was, I'm guessing because of who he is, it was not small.
If he truly wanted to work for the hedge fund for academic reasons, he should have donated all the compensation he did receive to his poverty center. This would have shown that he was serious about understanding the connections between markets and poverty.
I like John Edwards a lot, I personally believe he is the best candidate out there. I just believe that he should come out and admit that working for the hedge fund was a great opportunity. It allowed him to make a lot of money and to also learn more about the connection between financial markets and poverty as well. Its time for Edwards to admit that while he is no longer a "normal guy" who lives a normal life, he can still be an advocate for those that do not have a voice.
4 comments:
Edwards really screwed that question up. I thought he had the worst debate out of the key Dem candidates.
Btw, Romney was a co-founder of Bain Capital, a private-equity group, but he positioned it extremely well; as in using his experience to turn unprofitable initiatives around (aka Salt Lake Olympics)...
Romney is also not running as at populist. He does not have the same identity crisis that Edwards seems to have. Edwards, when questioned about his disconnect between being and advocate for the poor, and being super wealthy himself, responded with a stupid answer that was associated with his father being poor.
What does that have to do with the here and now? Romney was and is solid on that issue - he just has other aspects to worry about (flip-flopper?).
Was the term flip-flopper actively used before Kerry's campaign last year? I am just not that familiar with US elections. I just find the term one of the most ridiculous arguments against candidates (unless the flip-flop statements occur within one-two years of each other)... Otherwise you can pull a flip-flopper against anyone.
Although, Obama is the anti-flip-flopper with his 2002 stance in Iraq.
You are right, flip-flopper is one of the most ridiculous terms. People should be able to switch their opinion on issues for political or personal reasons. However, it was used in the last election against Kerry on the subject of the war and many other things. Therefore, it would just ironic if not hypocritical if the Republicans selected a flip-flopper of their own. Looking over the list of candidates thus far I would have to say they are all hypocrites except for Mike Huckabee, a man who really has no chance.
Post a Comment