I want to preface this diary by stating that I understand I'm making a tough point on a tough issue and that many Edwards supporters are not going to like what I have to say. Nevertheless, I think that the point I'm going to raise is an important one for us to discuss in this primary. I'm going to be connecting the issue of good judgment with some criticisms Edwards has received for his investments in and consulting with a firm called Fortress Investments. My hope is that I can do this in a way that invites a constructive dialogue. However, I am sure that many will call this a "hit diary". So be it. I have become convinced that we're too often avoiding tough questions about our favored candidates by tossing around that label, and I won't be intimidated. The best of Edwards' supporters ought to see this diary as an opportunity to answer concerns that many have about their candidate.
At the recent New Hampshire debate, John Edwards hit Hillary Clinton hard for failing to learn from her vote on the blank check for war that Edwards himself had co-sponsored. Edwards has learned from his mistake. Clinton has not. The point is accurate and well taken. Clinton, if she wins the nomination, may have my vote but she cannot expect the active support of those of us that had the good judgment to oppose the war from the start, and especially to recognize what seemed obvious at the time that Bush had no intentions of letting the inspectors finish their jobs. If Edwards manages to gain momentum and win the nomination, then he will have my support.
However, Edwards does not have my support now in part because there are better ways to learn than the hard way. Senators Durbin and Graham, who sat on the Intelligence Committee with then Senator Edwards, learned from the National Intelligence Estimate and other sources that Bush was not being truthful about the risk of WMDs. Many of us, even without access to classified sources, were able through research to reach the same conclusion. Learning from your mistakes is good. Making evidence-based judgments is better.
Now the question of John Edwards judgment is raised again by news that Fortress Investments, a hedge fund that employed him as a consultant and with which he has been heavily invested, has been involved in foreclosures on sub-prime loans in both New Orleans and, in news just out today, in the crucial early caucus state of Iowa: LINK, Talking Points Memo.
I do not question John Edwards' sincerity. He strikes me as an authentic person. However, I do question his judgment. Most of the people I know that are very concerned about social issues are values investors. I've watched my parents awaken from their Reagan induced slumber, transform their portfolio, and ultimately put their savings and their hearts into a fair trade coffee shop, where they are able to work directly with a number of social justice organizations. My father insatiably tracks down information on what is being done with his money. My mother proudly brags about the good she's doing through her investment in the cafe.
I have no doubt that Edwards is learning from his mistakes and the bad publicity he's receiving due to his involvement with Fortress Investments. Surely, like many progressives already have, he is on the way to becoming a values investor. However, there are better ways to learn. If Edwards had done his homework on Iraq perhaps he would not have co-sponsored the blank check. If Edwards had done his homework on his investments perhaps he would not have become so involved financially in activities that run so counter to his stated values.
Ultimately, I am an evidence-based voter. So my question for Edwards and his supporters is this: What evidence can you give me that Edwards makes evidence-based judgments? Edwards has responded to these criticisms about Fortress Investments by telling us we know where his heart is. Fine, but where was his head?