New Hampshire, Iowa and Edwards

[stimbox]

An email from Kucinich's campaign

Dear Supporter,

For the record:

1 ) New Hampshire is the first state where we are aggressively campaigning. Due to the Party lockout in Iowa, we chose to focus on New Hampshire.

2) I am the only person running for President who voted against the war, against funding the war 100% of the time, against the Patriot Act, and who stands for a universal single-payer not-for-profit healthcare system. Nevertheless I was excluded from Saturday night's ABC Presidential debate, or four tone monologue as it was.

3) In answer to your questions about why I didn't support former Senator John Edwards on the second ballot in Iowa: I have serious concerns about his connections to a Wall Street hedge fund, Fortress Investment Group. While attacking others for accepting campaign money from Washington lobbyists, he is up to his ears in money from Wall Street special interests.
He made half a million dollars in a single year for attending a few meetings for Fortress and has invested a substantial part of his own personal wealth in the hedge fund whose portfolios are responsible for sub-prime predatory lending practices, Medicare privatization, and an entire range of corporate sharp dealings that are driving the middle class into poverty.

While I indicated Senator Obama as a preferred second choice in Iowa, Progressives have fundamental disagreements with him and all of the other Presidential candidates on most of their major positions on the issues.

We must have the courage of our convictions to fully support and vote for what it is we really want. For once, we must realize our power, stop playing tactical games, and vote as a bloc - which, as you know, is what the religious right does and why they often win.

We Progressives are in the majority in this election. We will win only when we refuse to compromise and vote with integrity.

Dennis Kucinich

[Milo_Bloom]

1. Its good to see Dennis speaking up for honesty!

[DaLittle Kitty]

11. Right.... Dennis Is The Establishments' Trojan Horse!

[GreenArrow]

16. no, that would be Edwards

.

[LibraLiz1973]

2. Wah wah wah

He never stops and it gets old.
I'm not saying he isn't a good man, or that he doesn't have value.
But the time for his grand standing is over.

[Lex]

13. he's trying to remain relevant

but I'm not sure he's doing a good job

[Naturyl]

39. He's fighting for progressives

And he doesn't quit just because the going gets tough. I wish I had that kind of courage and integrity. I wish a lot more people did.

[helderheid]

3. if that's the case, why not support Richardson on the 2nd ballot? n/t

[hootinholler]

5. Because Richardson had even less support?

That should be obvious.

-Hoot

[helderheid]

9. Why tell them to go anywhere in particular should have been the question.

[GreenArrow]

17. he didn't tell them, he "encouraged" them.

.

[helderheid]

19. okay... why "encourage" them to go anywhere?

[hootinholler]

21. Hillary was leading the polls...

Obama was 2 Edwards was 3rd. Kooch is fighting to get to 3 do sending them to Edwards is out, and Hillary in first is out, thus Obama is the strategic vote that helps Kooch. Clear as mud?

-Hoot

[GreenArrow]

22. because under Iowa's asinine caucus system

they had to go somewhere if Kucinich did not meet the viability threshold. I suspect most of them did what they wanted anyway, but I doubt if he had told them to go to Edwards that there would be much of an issue out of it; most of the complaints I've seen have come from disgruntled Edwards supporters. I guess he could have told them to go uncommitted, but it seems pretty clear he doesn't trust Edwards integrity and found Obama the least objectionable. It's also possible he found Hillary the most objectionable and found Obama a better strategic choice to beat her.

[helderheid]

23. I supported Kooch in 2004 and his encouragment for voters to support Edwards was equally puzzling to

me.

[GreenArrow]

25. He's a politician

An unusually honest politician, so far as that lot goes, but a politician nevertheless. He wanted to be where Dean was, probably resented Dean's continual painting of himself as the only candidate who was against the war, and Edwards at that time was running as a centrist war hawk, not as the white knight we see him as today. He and Edwards were courting different voting blocs. They both wanted more delegates, and weren't likely to be taking them from one another.

I didn't like that deal either, because I didn't trust Edwards any more then than I do now, and I think the deal was much more beneficial to Edwards than to Kucinich. Unfortuantely, that viability threshold scheme encourages that sort of deal making.

[helderheid]

54. I remember a Jon Stewert interview with Dennis and Dennis said of all the candidates, he liked

Edwards the most. It was genuine affection.

[violynn19]

50. Under Iowa's system...

nobody has to go to another candidate if they don't want to. If your top choice is not viable, you have the option of going home.

[GreenArrow]

52. yeah, they did have that option

As a Kucinich supporter, had I been in Iowa, that's likely what I would have done. Most people end up aligning with someone or another, for a variety of reasons, which can include both helping favorable candidates, and damaging ones that are less desirable.

[BlueJac]

4. Dennis saying something about Edwards.........

Is his only way to get noticed. He must mention someone popular to get a little attention.

That is sad, his message should speak for itself.

[Naturyl]

41. He's addressing specific concerns

That people raised in regard to switching their support to Edwards. A lot of people were defecting to the Edwards camp. In fact, I was one of them. This e-mail stopped me in my tracks, and I have to thank Kucinich for yet another well-needed lesson in courage and integrity.

[Emit]

6. Edwards on the subject

John Edwards went to work for the hedge fund manager Fortress Investment Group as a consultant to advise on global economic issues related to Fortress' investment activities in October 2005. He also invested $16 million of his own fortune in Fortress accounts at the time he was working for the Group. Fortress Investment Groups owns a stake in Green Tree Servicing, among other lending agencies, that has been a big player in sub-prime lending. Green Tree Servicing LLC rose to prominence in the 1990s selling subprime loans to mobile-home owners and now services subprime loans originated by others. The Wall Street Journal reported that Green Tree and other agencies connected to Fortress foreclosed on some 34 homes in New Orleans, following Hurricane Katrina. (Ironically, New Orleans is the same city in which Edwards chose to announce his candidacy on December 28th, 2006). Edwards responded to these foreclosures by offering to help those who lost their homes. He also tried to explain away the negative effects of the practices of his former employer's subsidiaries, saying that at its best, sub-prime lending helps people afford homes they otherwise might be able to.
("Edwards, Foreclosure Critic, Has Investing Tie to Subprime Lenders." By Christopher Cooper. Wall Street Journal. 17 August 2007.)

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/12/6/203359/025
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118728685546999884.html

Edwards told the Journal “that when he first joined Fortress, ‘I made clear that I didn't want to have anything I was investing in to be antilabor or involved in predatory lending practices.’ But he added that he didn't fully understand the firm's complex operations, saying: ‘They're diverse. They're very diverse.’”

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/08/17/321613.aspx

~snip~

"It was primarily to learn, but making money was a good thing, too," the 2004 vice presidential nominee said in an interview with The Associated Press.

He said the amount he was paid will be revealed when he releases his financial disclosure forms.

Fortress Investment Group, founded in 1998, describes itself as "a leading global alternative asset manager" with approximately $35.1 billion in assets under management as of December 31, 2006. The company is headquartered in New York with affiliates around the world.

Edwards said it's legitimate to ask questions about whether there is a contradiction between campaigning against poverty while working for a hedge fund that is designed to make rich people richer. He said the job was a compliment to his position as the head of a poverty center at the University of North Carolina.

"I didn't feel like I understand, and to be honest with you still learning right now, sort of the relationship between that world and the way money moves in this country through financial markets," Edwards said.

Edwards said he also spoke to some Wall Street investment firms such as Goldman Sachs besides exploring the position with Fortress. He said his role was to advise the firm about what he saw happening economically in the United States and during his travels overseas.

~snip~

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8P0AUHO0&show_article=1

[zalinda]

7. Okay, to be fair, not all sub-prime mortgages

are bad. Did you know that it is very difficult to get a mortgage when you own your own business? I found that out the hard way. It took me a couple of years to find one that would take me on. Ameriquest was the one that finally gave me one. I have never missed a payment, or have been late with a payment. Four years later when asking about a business loan (which was denied) from my credit union, he was looking at my credit report and he asked me how Ameriquest was treating me and did I want to switch my mortgage over to them. What was really laughable about this was four years ago I had asked THEM for a mortgage on the same house and they turned me down.

zalinda

[BlackVelvet04]

8. You're absolutely correct....

my husband and I got a sub-prime 100% loan when we bought. It was a fixed rate loan, had good terms and helped us buy when otherwise we wouldn't have been able to. After three years we did re-finance to a lower fixed rate with another mortgage company but I'm grateful to the sub-prime lender who helped us buy the home of our dreams.

[Garbo 2004]

10. So K's not "concerned" about the Wall Street money that goes to Obama? That doesn't make sense

to me.

[Lex]

12. He's got a different standard for Obama

than Edwards it appears.

[Naturyl]

42. He probably takes for granted that Obama is pro-corporate

Obama isn't even trying to hide it. Edwards is taking the strong anti-corporate stance, so concerns about his investments are fair game.

I think Dennis regrets the Obama endorsement. But if nothing else, it sent a strong message to Edwards that talking the talk needs to mean walking the walk.

[Milo_Bloom]

14. Obama isn't lying about it like Edwards is.

[Garbo 2004]

15. K's comments were about Edwards' personal income. Obama's got more campaign $ from that industry

than Edwards: http://opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=F27

[Milo_Bloom]

20. Edwards has also been accepting it in his campaign, despite saying he hasn't.

It isn't a matter of who has taken MORE, it is a matter of honesty and who is lying about it and who isn't.

[Garbo 2004]

24. But that's not at all what K said as a reason for having his supporters go to Obama.

He was talking about Edwards' personal income, not campaign donations. And if K's so "concerned" about Wall Street money, then logically Obama's campaign funding should also be a concern.

Securities & Investment: http://opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=F07
Hedge Funds/Private Equity: http://opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=F27

So it doesn't matter how much money people in Wall Street give Obama? Then K's $1,750 from security/investment firms is the same as O's $4.5 million? Of course not.

[Milo_Bloom]

27. Its about HONESTY.

[Garbo 2004]

29. No, it's about K supporting a candidate who gets more campaign $ from those awful Wall Street

people than Edwards and then claiming "Wall Street money" as a reason to do so.

[Milo_Bloom]

30. No, read the letter, it is all about HONESTY

"While attacking others for accepting campaign money from Washington lobbyists, he is up to his ears in money from Wall Street special interests."

This line makes it perfectly clear it is about the duplicity of his actions, not the actions itself.

[Garbo 2004]

31. I read the letter and K's referring to E's personal income, the money he's made from those

interests. Dennis is tagging Edwards as a hypocrite for having worked for a hedge firm and deriving personal income from those sources while criticizing others for taking campaign funds from Washington lobbyists.

But then Dennis IMO is being a tad hypocritical himself to then use evil Wall Street money as a reason throw support to someone whose campaign is in fact funded more heavily by those same Wall Street interests.

[Milo_Bloom]

32. Not if it is about the hyprocrisy.

To come to your conclusion you have to make the leap that Dennis is attaching the money itself and not the duplicity.

While, on the other hand, if you look at the text of the letter and see the obvious duplicity in Edwards' actions, it is easy to understand Kucinich's motivation in this, as they are clear on the face of the letter.

He abandons Edwards because Edwards is attacking others for doing exactly what Edwards does. That is the reason Kucinich wants nothing to do with him this time, while he did support him last time.

[Garbo 2004]

46. Not a leap when one looks at what K actually said.

K only specifically mentions his "concerns" about E's income from his employment with a hedge firm and investments, while not at all specifically mentioning campaign contributions to Edwards. Surely if K was indeed concerned about Edwards being "duplicitous" about the source of his campaign contributions he could have explicitly said so and he didn't. The leap is to conclude that K was saying something he didn't actually say.

[Milo_Bloom]

48. He did say so.

That is what it is when someone complains about someone attacking someone for something they themselves are involved in, which is exactly what the letter states.

[waiting for hope]

33. Is this being honest?

OBAMA CO-CHAIR A STATE LOBBYIST

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/02/544600.aspx

From NBC/NJ’s Aswini Anburajan and NBC’s Mark Hudspeth
Obama's campaign proudly announced today the endorsement of former South Carolina Gov. Jim Hodges who will join his campaign as a national co-chair.

But the endorsement of Hodges may raise eyebrows among those who support Obama because he strongly decries lobbyists on the stump, frequently saying that he will not let them work in his White House or set the agenda in Washington.

Hodges is the founder of Hodges Consulting Group, a state-based lobbying firm he started in 2003. The firm is a subsidiary of Kennedy Covington Lobdell & Hickman, L.L.P, a law firm that represents clients in North Carolina and South Carolina.

~snip~

Though Obama has also said that he won't take federal PAC and lobbyist money on his campaign, he does take money from state based lobbyists as previously reported by First Read.

Obama's co-chair in New Hampshire, Jim Demers, is a state based lobbyist for the pharmaceutical and financial services industries amongst others. Michael Bauer, a member of Obama's LGBT steering committee, is a state based lobbyist in Chicago. And in Nevada, Obama's campaign also has three state based lobbyists who play senior advising roles in August last year.

~snip~

*** UPDATE *** NBC's Domenico Montanaro adds that Hodges is, in fact, a registered federal lobbyist, a search of the Senate Office of Public Records Lobbying Disclosure Act Database shows. He registered as such on June 1, 2007.

Humm, a politician being totally honest?

[Milo_Bloom]

34. There is nothing patently dishonest in there.

[waiting for hope]

35. Yes - there is -

If Obama is pandering as a progressive and saying no to lobbyists - accepting DK's support is somewhat disingenuous.

[Milo_Bloom]

36. How so?

[waiting for hope]

37. Wow - you really don't see

a conflict here - It's like saying you don't approve of hiring illegal immigrants and then come to find out, you have four to five on your payroll, but, I think you already know that.

[Milo_Bloom]

40. That's a real stretch.

There are lots of people who work in lots of industries who don't agree with the way their particular industry operates.

If someone is getting involved in the Obama campaign, you need to examine that particular individual more carefully and see if they are one of the ones who wants to work to change the way things are done. In fact, the fact that they are signing onto the Obama campaign suggests this.

Just because someone IS a lobbyist, doesn't mean they are, de facto, part of the problem.

[waiting for hope]

43. Health Care...

Obama's co-chair in New Hampshire, Jim Demers, is a state based lobbyist for the pharmaceutical and financial services industries amongst others.

DK is basing his bullshit argument on his perception - Perception is all it takes. Nice playing with you - but I'm not buying your Straw Man.

[Milo_Bloom]

44. Which, as I stated, proves absolutely nothing.

When you have some ACTUAL duplicity, like John Edwards claim that he doesn't take lobbyist money at all, despite taking over 18,000 this election cycle, let me know.

[GreenArrow]

18. Obama's not tlaking out of both sides of his mouth

at least not to the degree Edwards is.

[bpeale]

26. sour grapes on his part & extreme jealousy. not a good combination

[Yuugal]

28. How the mighty have fallen

Kooch cant understand the difference between private earnings and taking corporate cash to run a campaign? I've taken money from my employer who was owned by Rupert Murdoch, guess I can't be a progressive anymore under his logic. How pathetic he has become.

"We Progressives are in the majority in this election."

LOL. What a dreamer.

[Naturyl]

45. Actually he's right

Issue polls consistently show that a majority want the policies Kucinich proposes - they just don't want Kucinich himself because they are afraid of him for various reasons.

[Naturyl]

38. This mail won my support back.

I was going to Edwards because of the "can't win" problem. But this e-mail addressed my concerns so specifically that I felt like it was written to me personally. It wasn't, of course - but it shows that Kucinich is listening.

The tone of the-mail is strong, but Dennis is a strong individual. And he's right. As I said in another thread about this, Kucinich just will not stop fighting to give progressives a voice.

[saracat]

47. I will never ever have any respect for Kucinich again. I retract any defense or

support I have ever given him.This email proves he doesn't give a rats ass about anything other than himself.He is the one who is a colossel hypocrite and a disappointment.

[Horse with no Name]

49. I feel the same way

He isn't viable. He knows that. The ONLY candidate who might deliver the White House back to the people is Edwards and he is trying to take him out of the race?
That doesn't make sense if he really wanted what is best for this country.

[flyarm]

51. Kucinich can kiss my-------------------..i saw first hand what he did in Iowa

and he is a blow hard ....

and i will never forget him hugging little lord pissy pants at the state of the union address...

he did this same shit in 2004 ..and he caused more probs in Fl than anyone!

like i said, he can kiss my -----------

fly

[Justice Is Comin]

53. Kucinich is the

Ralph Nader of 2008. Just because you're a consultant to a very complex and diverse corporation doesn't mean you sign on to the every action or policy of the corporation.

When Edwards' campaign realized Pac money was donated, they returned . That's not un-walking the walk. Any person has a right to invest their own money to try to get a return on it. That's all Edwards was doing.

I don't trust Obama from here to my mailbox. I get more convinced every time I see him talk.

[helderheid]

55. I'd agree if he weren't running as a Dem.