If John Edwards doesn't get on the ticket, do you think he will leave politics and pull a Gore

and become something larger than a politician, a movement maker?

It seems like JE has a passion for equality of opportunity and equality of outcome. I could see him taking that further even if he doesn't get on the ticket.

He could become more powerful, just like Gore.

Any thoughts on what he might do?

I hope President Obama makes room for Edwards in his Cabinet, though.

But then again neither was climate change a few years ago.

Edwards is young enough to give it another couple of goes.

Why keep working for someone else's predatory-lending hedge fund, when you can start your own and keep all the profit?

...but I'll decline to do so.

Obama is not "my candidate" yet. Of the top three, the other two have failed my litmus test - they voted for the war and pushed permanent 'free' trade with China - you cannot do these things and call yourself a Democrat. But I'm not yet sold on Obama - if you've got the goods, I'd like to know.

It was discussed briefly on DU a while ago but was primarily lost in the shuffle.

You constantly take shots at HRC and JE (and there is nothing necessarily wrong with that. That is your right). I have yet to see you criticize Obama.

==- you cannot do these things and call yourself a Democrat.==

Clearly, the vast majority of Democrats disagree with that.

Go read up on the subject, more especially what Edwards is doing. You are totally trying to thread jack this by your comment.

If I'm wrong, I'd like to know.

Did he work for Fortress, yes. But did he know about all of their practices, the answer is no. I work in a large place and I don't know all of their practices or what they do, but I do know he wanted hedge funds to report off shore practices and to raise their investments in the people up to 28%.

How hard would that be?

No one does that. That is an unrealistic standard.

It's not like checking for potential carcinogens in the wallpaper paste.

If you work for a small place, then next. I work for a big one, Edwards worked for 2 big ones and the next one is a lot larger.

Next.

a lot of our candidates have taken money from hedge funds. Dodd, Hillary, Edwards, Obama

And, let's not confuse subprime with predatory.

Or just a contribution?

So you are one of those who consider Edwards and HRC to be corporate whores but seem to think nothing of Obama's corporate support in your search for a "pure savior"? Here are the facts:

Contributions from hedge funds

Dodd $726,950
Clinton $703,600
Obama $652,105
Edwards $218,290
Richardson $85,900

(figures for other Dems unavailable)

Money raised on Wall Street

Obama $739,579
Clinton $424,545
McCain $334,585
Giuliani $330,450
Romney $220,950
Edwards $43,404

(figures for other candidates unavailable)

But campaign contributions are a little different from cash in your pocket - I believe that Mr. Edwards earned $600k or so from Fortress.

My current thinking on Obama is that he plays to win, but tries to move things in a better direction. So while he is getting a fair bit of cash from some unsavory types (which he needs to take on the Clinton steamroller), he's probably rejecting more contributions than the other top two. He's trying to change things through evolution rather than revolution, which has it's plusses and minuses.

Do you really think Edwards, given his wealth, was purchased with $500 k from Fortress? Clearly, the hedge fund industry does not think so...

The best thing to look at is who Wall Street and these types are investing in. They are not dumb. They are not going to invest in candidates who they would not be comfortable with in the White House. I have posted that data (see post #21 too). Reach your own conclusion. Wall Street and co. certainly have...

==My current thinking on Obama is that he plays to win, but tries to move things in a better direction. So while he is getting a fair bit of cash from some unsavory types (which he needs to take on the Clinton steamroller),==

The thing is he is crushing HRC on Wall Street. The guy raised more than Clinton and Giuliani combined on Wall Street! He raised about 6/7 of what Clinton, Giuliani, and Romney combined raised on Wall Street. He matched HRC among the securities and investment industry, beat Giuliani and Romney, and crushed McCain. Hedge funds? He is on par with HRC, not far behind Romney, beating Giuliani, and crushing McCain . He is not reluctantly taking such money and they are not randomly falling in love with him...

==he's probably rejecting more contributions than the other top two==

I respect your principle, Manny. However, I think you are looking at Obama through rose-colored glasses because he represents your only hope for change, given your views on HRC and JE. What makes you think he is rejecting money? Look at the numbers. How is he raising that much--more than anyone else on Wall Street and more than anyone aside from HRC among the securities and investment industry if he is rejecting money left and right?

==He's trying to change things through evolution rather than revolution, which has it's plusses and minuses.==

Do you believe Wall Street and the others who I mentioned are investing in Obama because they want change?

But I'm not seeing just what he's doing for Wall Street. The only really negative thing that I've seen him do is his health care plan - it's not single-payer (i.e., Medicare for Everyone), so it's likely to be a disaster. Perhaps he's gotten a ton of cash from the medico-industrial complex?

Are there other issues, anywhere near the magnitude of the IWR vote or permanent 'free' trade with China, where Obama has taken an obviously-bad position? As I've said, I'm not convinced Obama's my guy - I want to find dirt, if there's dirt to be found.

Obama has no real record so looking at it will not do any good. Clearly, Wall Street and others in corporate America like what they see in him. Obviously they are not blindly investing so heavily in him. So what is going on here? I think these people recognize that Obama is cut from the same political cloth as HRC. It is no accident the same people who finance HRC, who I am sure you would agree is a favorite of corporate America, are heavily financing Obama. In many cases I think fat cats are simply hedging their bets and contributing to both candidates (but notice the Edwards numbers? They clearly are not going to give to any viable Democrat. The excuse some will give is that JE has "no shot." The facts show that he has more or less as good a shot of becoming prez as BO. He definitely has a better chance than McCain--and compare the McCain numbers to Edwards'). However, that does not explain it all. What special advantage does Obama offer? This brings me back to my first sentence. Obama is a blank slate. He has no real record (notice the utter silence on his record in Washington? All we hear of is a few popular progressive things he did as a state legislator). Remember the Roberts confirmation process? Roberts was great for the right-wing because he had no real record to attack and was a blank slate. However, the right-wing zealously supported him. Why? They knew exactly what their "stealth justice" would do on the Supreme Court. The same thing appears to be the case with Wall Street and co. with respect to Obama. He also offers two compelling advantages over HRC, though. #1, HRC is reviled by progressives. Obama is not. Every step HRC takes will be closely scrutinized by progressives. With Obama our guard will be down. Moreover, Obama is charismatic and a great speaker. HRC is competent but no one has ever accused her of being of a great speaker or Ms. Charisma. The bottom line is Obama would be a more effective salesman for the policies these people want than HRC, for the reasons I just stated. (see the furor over HRC's position on outsourcing a few weeks ago at DU. Notice how Obama gets a free pass for having the same position on the issue as HRC while HRC is angrily denounced?)

I don't think there is a "perfect" candidate. Kucinich would be very good but we know the odds of him winning are very slim. We have to choose among some flawed candidates and pick the least flawed.

It is not a buy off from medico insurance preventing our candidates from advocating single payer system. With ANY of the candidates who are talking about health care and not pushing for single payer what is stopping them can be summed up in one or two words depending on your viewpoint.

It's either

1. (political) cowardice
2. pragmaticism

1) Clinton $3,330,325
2) Obama $3,156,174
3) Giuliani $3,093,701
4) Romney $2,948,782
5) Dodd $2,200,916
6) McCain $1,388,780
7) Edwards $668,590
8) Richardson $351,000
9) Biden $250,900
10) Kucinich $750
11) Gravel $250

(note I did not include the second-tier Republican candidates)

Why do you think Clinton and Obama are beating Republican front-runners Giuliani, Romney, and McCain among the securities and investment industry...

I think it's funny John Edwards has made this money from hedge funds and is now willing to take that money and use it against them. He is using the money he made to help finance his campaign. In his campaign, he goes out and talks about how bad all these tax breaks for the wealthy are for our economy and how he wants to close them if he's president.

Despite the contributions from Wall Street, I don't think they have bought any of our candidates. Yes, they are influencing them, but a lot of other things are influencing our candidates too.

Hell, I don't know what I'm going to do next week, why would I want to waste my time speculating what John Edwards will do a year from now given a particular set of circumstances?
Why would anyone?

I have no doubt. He is the strongest candidate for the American people's wishes.

I think he will try to do for poverty and working-class issues what Gore did for global warming if he does not win the nomination.

If anything that sounds like it was made for Obama.