Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Fortune Magazine: Edwards will bring Real Change (scary) - Obama, Clinton Business As Usual

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
jsamuel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 02:19 PM
Original message
Fortune Magazine: Edwards will bring Real Change (scary) - Obama, Clinton Business As Usual
by rick
Fri Dec 14, 2007 at 01:48:00 PM CST

Not that they are advocating for Edwards, mind you. Far from it. My translation of what they are telling all the business folks is "fight for Obama or Clinton if you want to keep your unseemly profits coming in."

You see, the Washington Bureau Chief of Fortune Magazine says that The Democrats Don't Really mean It! when it comes to holding corporations accountable and changing the system.

All of them except John Edwards!

The title of her article of what the moneyed interests think of the Democratic Candidates is:
Democrats' war on corporate greed: Mostly bluster.

More of the corporate opinion below the fold:


http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/12/14/135551/49/949/...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Selatius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 02:25 PM
Response to Original message
1. Democrats used to run on talking bluntly about corporate accountability and helping the poor.
Now, they talk about uniting and seeking harmony. FDR didn't seek harmony, and he had some of the most virulent opposition imaginable, yet his opposition was in the minority; the majority of the country supported him in his campaign to help America's poor and hold corporations accountable. We need another New Deal president. I dunno if Edwards is a relic of the old New Deal Democrats who've long since passed on, but he sure sounds like one as far as talking about fighting poverty.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 02:28 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Sorry to repeat it, but his having $20 million plus
in a hedge fund doesn't reassure me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jsamuel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 02:29 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. FDR had boat loads of cash in all kinds of accounts.
Didn't stop the New Deal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 02:32 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. that's absurd.
First of all, hedge funds didn't exist back then, and secondly I'd be willing to bet you don't have any more of an idea where FDR's money was invested than I do. Hedge funds are vehicles for the very wealthy and they make sleazy investments and have lots and lots of tax loopholes. Comparing JE to FDR is laughable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selatius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 05:45 PM
Response to Reply #5
14. Yes and no. True, hedge funds didn't exist back then, but FDR was not considered middle class either
Edited on Fri Dec-14-07 05:48 PM by Selatius
He was wealthy compared to most of America, and he came from a well-established political family. He was called a traitor to his class for pushing through those tax hikes, and they went so far as to plot a military coup against him but failed. After the failure of the stock market, it was FDR and the Dems who pushed for the creation of the SEC to regulate it. If he did own stocks then, he realized he was putting his own investments as well as everybody else's under regulations where none existed before.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clark2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 02:34 PM
Original message
FDR didn't have a hedge fund.
Completely different era. Completely different people.

JRE is no FDR. Not by a long shot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jsamuel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 02:28 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. He does talk about fighting poverty. However, what he really talks about is the super-rich and then
everyone else. He is determined to bring the middle class back, not just help the poor.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 02:34 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. He calls for others to sacrifice, but doesn't do so himself
"live the change you want to see".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jsamuel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 02:41 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. such a rediculous talking point that has been debunked 1M times
One does not have to be a pauper to ask for sacrifice. Sure, one should lead by example, like how he has spent the past 3 years doing whatever he can to get the minimum wage raised.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 04:43 PM
Response to Reply #9
13. I'm not talking about money. I'm talking
about the environment. He's called on Americans to sacrifice SUVs, but went and built a 28,000 sq ft house. Do you have any concept about the carbon footprint of such a building??

Again, it has nothing to do with money. I grew up in New Canaan Ct. I went to private and prep schools. I have no problem with his having money.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
killbotfactory Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 02:57 PM
Response to Reply #1
11. Any big changes would require backing by a majority of Americans
If we draw in voters from other political parties, especially in this next election, we can get get a bigger majority in congress, and have a better chance of implementing our agenda. The republican voters have had their trust thoroughly abused by their own party in the past eight years, we can get them on our side if we are smart about it. The time for a strong push for reforms is not when we have a slim majority and have to deal with all sorts of republican (and conservative democrat) obstruction and perfidy. The voters gave us a chance in 2006 to try and fix things and nothing much has been accomplished. If the situation is similar after 2008, and we don't have enough of a majority to actual reform things, we will be facing the possibility of another republican controlled congress in 2010.

I don't fully trust Edwards rhetoric, since early in his Senate career he supported a bankruptcy bill similar to the one that finally passed and his involvement in a hedge fund right before started campaigning as a strong progressive. I can't judge whether he is really sincere or not, and would be delighted to be wrong if he gets the nomination, but I would be surprised if he didn't drastically change his tone on economic issues in the general election.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maximusveritas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 02:34 PM
Response to Original message
7. Funny how all the positive press for Edwards is coming from Repuplican sources
First there was the idiot Republican voter in the YouTube debates.
Then the idiot Republican consultant saying he feared Edwards.
Now this Republican journalist writing an semi-endorsement of Edwards
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jsamuel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 02:39 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. Fortune is saying that they DON'T like Edwards
Edited on Fri Dec-14-07 02:39 PM by jsamuel
hence the "scary" in the title

What about the "idiot", as you call them, registered Democratic voters in Iowa who chose Edwards last night on both Fox and CNN?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 02:46 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. As I had mentioned on DU before,
Edited on Fri Dec-14-07 02:49 PM by FrenchieCat
Everything has been pre-arranged, and the powers-that-be have chosen Edwards in a very complex (reverse psychological) play. Fortune did this piece on Edwards precisely because it helps Edwards in the Primaries, by playing him as an agent of change (re: corporatism)....which is why it was published today. That's why the Edwards supporter posted it; because it is a good thing for Primary Edwards.

the Powers that be don't "want" Edwards for President, but they do want Edwards as the Dem nominee. He will be the easiest to beat based on his acceptance of matching funds, his effiminated demeanor (watch "Terror Scares" come back to prominence shortly after he is chosen), and because of all of his stance reversals and his "I made this mistake and that mistake" clips they have of him. Edwards has the advantage of being the only white southern male in the Dem race, but it is also a liability because he won't be able to use these qualities as to why he is being portrayed as a loser. In addition, he did lose on the 2004 ticket...and that will also be highlighted. All in all, Edwards only appears strong, and his perceived strength will be turned into weaknesses very soon, but not before the primaries are over.
-------------
Here's my take as it was written on a thread a few days ago:

The media has been on the case of who will be the Democratic nominee for quite some time, but we have now arrived at "CrunchTime" and they are now going to go into overdrive. Based on the primary schedule, they have little time to waste, as they need to influence our vote, and most of us know that the last 2 weeks prior to an election is the time that voters are really, really paying attention.

The media has already set it all up, and it is now ready to go.

Hillary was talked about above and beyond anyone else throughout primary season and before. In fact, she was promoted positively 24/7 for the last 2+ years. The constant talk of inevitability and Hillary as "the frontrunner" has irritated the Dem Base to no end (as it was designed to do) and Currently she is being deconstructed and nothing she nor Bill will do and/or say during the next 2 weeks will gain them any positive media attention. In fact, Bill's campaigning for Hillary is about to be turned into a negative....but the media has to be careful, cause the whole point is to keep the base disgusted with Hillary being heralded as the winner over and over again without any votes cast.

Hillary has gotten about as much mileage as she was going to get from positive reporting, and from two weeks ago on, the attention will become deeply negative. Her failure to capture anything but first place in Iowa (unless she can come in first in New Hampshire) will be written as a dismal failure for her campaign, and it will only go downhill from there (or that is what the media is counting on).

The media hates the Clintons, and in order for the media to feel vindicated over their rabid and irrational herd actions during the 90s, they are engineering Hillary's lose during these primaries. It is total payback for both Bill and Hil (and to a lesser degree, the entire Democratic party legacy that they left). This plan was set up long ago to work; and so it will.

Obama has been promoted for the most part very positively for the last year or so. In fact, it is highly due to the media's encouragement that Obama determined that he would run for President. Please know that Obama, as far as the media is concerned, has reached his high note penacle with the Oprah endorsement, and just as we see it here, Oprah is going to go down for the count along with her chosen candidate (the media gets a twofer....cause they are tired that oprah is so loved nationally anyways). The media is not ready for a Black President who's track record is not clear enough of them to truly know how it would all end, and it appears that the Democratic party isn't truly ready either. The Democratic party is too afraid of losing, and we all know that Democrats, at the end of the day, tend to be scared of a whole lot of things.

The media will be deconstructing Obama for the last couple of weeks prior to Iowa. They have already started; see the Oprah fanfare get played down as "barely a gain" to a "might be a lose" a la Dean endorsement by Gore in '03. The media has positioned Obama in a "high expectation" slot in Iowa, and Obama will be seen as more of a loser than a winner if he places anything but 1st place.

Both of the above candidates have enough money to last them a while, BUT it is the free publicity from the early states that count for the rest of the primary season, because it is priceless.

Edwards has been pretty much ignored and left to his own devices throughout the primary season till now. He was always always mentioned as part of the top tier, and never totally forgotten by the media; but he was simply never highlighted for the attributes he brings to the table.....but that is all about to end. It has always been glaringly obvious that a media story featuring Edwards as the great White Hope in the sense that he fits neatly the historical legacy of what constitutes a winner in Presidential politics; the good looking White guy from the South.....was not being suggested nor promoted by the media. This was purposefully done so that he would not peak too soon....because whatever "flaws" he has will not be discovered until "later". The Dem base have grown to love him, partially because the media ignored him and his attributes, and because Edwards has had nothing to lose in his campaign rethorics of promises......and has had everything to gain; including a solid base at the progressive end of the democratic spectrum...and these folks vote!

The well publicized media storyline of "Obama vs. Hil" rumbles have cleared the way for an Edwards rise just in the nick of time (funny how synchronized it all is). Now, please know that Edwards will not be rising because of anything special that he has recently said or done, but rather because he is now the underdog waiting to come on the scene who can provide Iowans another choice other than the over-reported candidates; Obama and Hillary. Going forward on, for the next two weeks, Edwards is about to garnet much more press, most of it positive (as he did in 2003-04 in the last two weeks prior to Iowa). Edwards' been weakened significantly by his acceptance of matching funds, which makes him a more acceptable candidate for the Corporate Media......as it could lead to an exciting and "against the current CW" GOP victory in the general election (which the Corporate media prefers at the end anyways....cause they are...corporate, after all). But till then, Edwards is now ready for his close up in the primary story line.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rydz777 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 03:03 PM
Response to Original message
12. The author of the Fortune article, Nina Easton, is ("full disclosure")
married to a Romney advisor. Of course, journalists never let such things get in the way of their objectivity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catchawave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 05:48 PM
Response to Original message
15. That was a great diary at Kos, thanks for sharing it here !
Go Edwards !
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stop Cornyn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 05:49 PM
Response to Original message
16. This populist theme about standing up to unregulated and reckless corporations crosses party lines
in its appeal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frogmarch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 06:58 PM
Response to Original message
17. Edwards is the populist candidate
and may very well draw in voters from both sides. If he becomes the nominee, more focus will be placed on him, and he'll get more air time. Then more people will hear his message, and that will help win lots of people over, imo.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
balantz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 07:11 PM
Response to Original message
18. Big business tries to keep their M$M hushed about Edwards
because he has them shaking in their $1000 boots. They don't even want his name mentioned, they want him to disappear. They know the corporate candidates would be playdough. Edwards would ream them a new hole in their goodie bag, much like Robin Hood did to the Sheriff's men.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
balantz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 07:14 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. It would seem the sensationalism of an Edwards ream job
is getting some attention though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Triana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 08:40 PM
Response to Original message
20. Poor CorpRats. Are they getting Skeered? (n/t)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Czolgosz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 08:53 PM
Response to Original message
21. They're SO scared of change!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Oct 25th 2014, 10:23 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC