Updated: Is Edwards Sincere About Economics?

Is Edwards' entire campaign image just the most transparent of lies? That's the most toxic criticism I hear, along with "he's too broke to win" and "close third isn't worth considering". But maybe "insincerity" really is a problem for Edwards, if the career of his economic adviser Leo Hindery, is a clue.

Edwards is defining himself as the anti-corporate crusader, whose economics serves the disadvantaged America, even when it costs the privileged. But how can the details of that crusade work out that way, when the person in charge of his economic policies is living a lie contradicting it?

Updated below, at the end of the body of this diary.

I like Edwards. He's become my favorite candidate for president, as actual voting has begun, though only just ahead of Obama. Though Hillary is a clear #3 among the 3 who could probably run in the general, any of those 3 would make a decent president (and a renaissance after the Bush nightmare). So I'm trying to wrap my head around what I've just learned about his campaign's #1 economics policy adviser, Leo Hindery. I want to see the discussion today, because this suspicion about Hindery is holding me back. If I can get some credible reassurance today, I'm going to donate a substantial amount to today's big Edwards fundraising campaign.

As reported by Barry Horton in the 1/6/08 Huffington Post:

Leo Hindery, formerly head of scandal-ridden Global Crossing, who walked away from that stockholders' disaster with $250 million? Leo Hindery, who as George Steinbrenner's head of the YES cable channel, squeezed Yankee fans out of every last dollar to watch their games? Leo Hindery, who as head of cable television giant TCI, then arguably the country's worst cable operator, managed to con AT&T into buying the company at a premium price? That Leo Hindery?

And after the sale, in a coup of tremendous chutzpah, Hindery then talked AT&T into making him head of the new company. The new AT&T Broadband then made TCI look like a public service enterprise as it screwed customers, employees, and its corporate parent, lost billions, and debased parent AT&T to the point that SBC was able to buy the remaining corporate shell for a song.

It's not like Hindery's background is a mystery. Back in 1998, when the TCI deal was in the works, Leo Hindery, Jr. was the subject of a highly unusual New York Times profile which debunked his frequent claims of a boyhood out of Dickens: leaving home at 13 to fend for himself, Horatio Alger-style, at a series of menial jobs. Fact-checking Hindery's self-serving bio, Geraldine Fabricant found that despite Hindery's insistent declarations otherwise...

So why shouldn't I be concerned that Edwards' economics will be different from what he's selling in his campaign, if Hindery is helping him craft both, and therefore expects to have power in the new campaign? Just as doubts about the integrity of that economics raises my suspicion about Edwards' overall integrity, its specific area of business worries me, too. What's that flippy cableco mogul really advising about Net Neutrality? What about monopoly regulation, which needs a 180 degree reform to turn back their tide, and corporate power in general?

I want to like Edwards. I know I like his image. How can I be more sure that his image represents him accurately, when just beneath the image lurks a guy like Hindery? Will Edwards represent me, or Hindery, when president?

There's now been almost 2 weeks for people to debunk or otherwise mitigate Horton's charges about Hindery. What's the verdict here on DKos? Remember that mere partisanship in your answers will just make Edwards look worse (and make the partisans look like suckers or worse). Where's some real evidence and logic to help me support Edwards, including a big donation today, countering these legitimate concerns about his top economics advisor?

<HR>
Update 20:37/Pacific 1/18/08: After reading mini mum's comment, I researched Hindery a little more. He seems to me to be probably an exec who made a bundle in the excessive telecom Bubble, and now works to promote corporate social responsibility. As mini mum suggested, Orton's career advising governments on telecom has probably put him at odds personally with Hindery in some way that neither Orton nor the Huffington Post revealed. A few other comments also helped add some perspective.

But most of the commenters in this diary did not help at all. People baselessly accusing me of merely attacking Edwards, or just flatly asserting that Edwards is OK, despite the evidence I asked to discuss, all worked against defending Edwards. Just like I asked in the diary that people not do.

But I didn't hold that against Edwards. I just donated $100 to his special fundraiser today. I suggest that you do, too.

•  yes, it's concern trolling, but...

  I'll answer anyway.

  I really do think Edwards is sincere on economic issues, despite some spots in his background and choice of associates.  Where I see insincerity is Iraq ("He'll fight as hard to end this war as he fought to start it!")... I see his Iraq position as 100% political, then and now.  

  But economics?  If there's one thing he DOES sincerely care about, it's working people.

  by Leggy Starlitz on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 08:12:13 AM PDT

  •  No It's Not

    How many times do I have to say in this diary that I'm legitimately concerned? That I like Edwards, he's my favorite candidate, that I want to donate money today to his campaign (even including links to his fundraiser)? To say nothing of the many comments I've posted defending and otherwise speaking in favor of Edwards.

    All I want is to get some counterpoint to that credible point against him. A real problem, if it has no counterpoint. Which I haven't seen discussed on DKos, but which I want to see discussed so I can make an informed decision (about my vote, and about my donations). Which I think others in this site, where Edwards is consistently the most pop

    What do you offer in return? You call me a troll. And then you offer nothing but a short assertion that he's sincere. No evidence, no logic.

    In short, precisely the empty partisan response I said would do nothing but work against Edwards. But it's early. I'm not going to let your blowing your chance to help the discussion taint the rest of a real one.

    by DocGonzo on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 08:23:25 AM PDT

    •  I think what you're dealing with in this instance

      is the peculiar problems of an Obama supporter (Leggy) coming into a diary which s/he sees as sincere, but that will branded as concern trolling by Edwards folks.  It's dicey trying to make a comment that won't start a flamewar in such a situation.

      by Pegasus on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 08:34:09 AM PDT

      •  Maybe

        I dunno, calling the diary "concern trolling" doesn't indicate they see it as "sincere".

        But maybe you're right otherwise.

        I did warn against mere partisan assertions in the diary. And not just "Edwards partisan", either.

        But I'll separate the wheat from the chaff. That's the point of a diary like this, anyway.

        by DocGonzo on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 08:45:56 AM PDT

        •  I mean, this diary is a flamewar

          waiting to happen, in any case, lol.  The hardcore Edwards people are understandably edgy with their premature finish line in sight.  

          I hope the fundraiser goes well today, because I'm one of those who wants Edwards to continue in a meaningful way past SC.

          by Pegasus on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 08:48:36 AM PDT

          •  Not My Fault

            I'm not flaming. I deliberately stated my sympathy to Edwards, and have evidence to demonstrate my sincerity. I have done what I could to reduce the openings for people to just flame on this issue.

            Short of not raising it. Which would be unacceptable. If we can't ask relevant questions about a candidate when they're supported by evidence, out of fear of that candidate's fans behaving too abusively in response, then that candidate's fans count against them.

            by DocGonzo on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 11:49:28 AM PDT

        •  how is what I said a partisan assertion?

          If I was being partisan, I'd have said he ISN'T sincere about economics.

          by Leggy Starlitz on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 08:57:36 AM PDT

    •  concern is concern

      And there's a fine line between legitimate concern for you choice of candidate, and just tossing chum in the water.

      And no, I have absolutely no evidence that he's sincere about economics but my gut feeling, enforced by observations of his career and his previous presidential run.  

      As I said, I'm no Edwards supporter, and I DO doubt his sincerity on non-economic issues.  But I DID give you a positive response to your question.  I don't see how that's an "empty partisan response".  What were you looking for... for me to jump down his throat and call him a liar?  That's concern trolling.  Or looking for me to come on as a doe-eyed Edwards supporter who swears he walks on water?  That's just a different kind of concern trolling.

      by Leggy Starlitz on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 08:56:39 AM PDT

      •  Evidence is Evidence

        I am firmly inside the line of legitimate concern, as I have demonstrated amply in this diary.

        What you offered in return, as you did again just now, was no evidence or logic. Just your "gut feeling". And then you called me a troll. And now you're making strawman implications about what I wanted. What I wanted was some evidence that discounts this evidence about Hindery that appears (legitimately) to discredit Edwards' economics promises in his campaign.

        Legitimate concern, where I want the person that I'm concerned about to do well, is not "concern trolling". Unless they're dishonest, and not the person I think they are, especially when that's what I'm concerned about. It's just plain concern.

        Making statements about someone without evidence because of who you support in an election is partisan. Whether you're an Edwards partisan, or in someone else's camp that produces views of Edwards without evidence, that's partisan. It's a worthless source of valuation when evidence is required.

        What you offered was "chum in the water". No thanks, because I'm looking for a lifeguard to save Edwards from what looks like a shark in Hindery.

        by DocGonzo on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 11:46:50 AM PDT

•  making another donation

  to edwards
  right now

  by BBelle on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 08:15:26 AM PDT

  •  Me too! n/t

    by enough already on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 08:19:36 AM PDT

  •  I'm slow on the draw

    got my credit card out too.

    by mini mum on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 08:20:58 AM PDT

  •  Where's Your Part of this Discussion?

    I asked for help to feel as sure as you do. You haven't given any. All you've done is imply that my diary is just an attack on Edwards, which it is explicitly not.

    Your donation would go a lot further if you could help me with some reason not to be concerned about Hindery's effect on an Edwards presidency.

    by DocGonzo on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 08:25:03 AM PDT

    •  you could do your part

      by learning more about him

      http://www.tradereform.org/...

      by BBelle on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 09:06:18 AM PDT

    •  Like George Soros,

      Hindery has a business background that could be portrayed unfavorably, as you have done in your diary. I don't follow business news carefully, so I cannot comment on the HuffPost piece. I can, however, say that Hindery is, like Soros, now a philanthropist who clearly sees what's wrong with the corrupt corporate business/polical culture in this country and wants to change it. That's why he has allied himself to Edwards' campaign. Before you cast judgment upon either Hindery or Edwards for associating with Hindery, I recommend you view Hindery's appearance on C-Span's Wahington Journal. Link

      I will also note that 30 of the world's most prestigious liberal economists, led by John Kenneth Galbraith, have endorsed Edwards' candidacy and his economic prescriptions. Link

      (And I'm not even including Paul Krugman, who cannot formally endorse Edwards because of his position at the NYT, but has all but done so in his columns.)

      by Inky on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 09:18:05 AM PDT

      •  As has been pointed out elsewhere, the '30'

        ... are mostly not prestigious, and some are not even economists.

        The Hindery question is a legit concern, per Edwards' own standard of assailing everybody else in the system as corrupt by association.

        by RonK Seattle on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 10:22:21 AM PDT

        •  John Kenneth Galbraith

          is prestiegeous enough for me. And I'll take Hindery over Obama's chief economic advisor, Austin Goolsbee, any day of the week.

          Although maybe you also agree that the free market holds the solution to absolutely everything.

          per Edwards' own standard of assailing everybody else in the system as corrupt by association.

          Honestly, where do you get this stuff??

          Btw, did you bother to check out the C-Span interview? Inspiring stuff, I tell you.

          by Inky on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 10:52:16 AM PDT

          •  Oops ... Make that

            James K. Galbraith, the renowned son of John Kenneth Galbraith.

            (But I'm sure that if John Kenneth Galbraith were still alive, he'd be supporting Edwards as well.)

            by Inky on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 12:05:55 PM PDT

•  Hmm. I'm not sure what to make

  of that. I've always thought looking at advisors was worthwhile. Is there, to your (or anyone's) knowledge, an upside to having this guy? He seems like a weird choice for an economic advisor even without the ethical concerns, given his extensive record of failure.

  One thing to note, even though its not my area, is that I've heard good things about Edwards' net neutrality plan.

  by brklyngrl on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 08:16:01 AM PDT

•  You know my favorite part of this?

  This sentence right here:

  Is Edwards' entire campaign image just the most transparent of lies?

  On the hit piece scale I give this a B-.

  Content: slightly new, but at least you didn't put "Breaking" in the title.

  Writing style: leaves something to be desired. Yes, you hit all of the "I was for him until I found this thing while surfing the internets" point pretty well. But where's the pizzaz? Where's the noteable quoteable? Where's the zing?

  Poll: Good to try to "test the meme" and see if the attack sticks, but honestly...aren't you afraid folks will just try to game it?

  All in all, just slightly below average. But a good first effort if this is your first attempt.

  by grannyhelen on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 08:16:12 AM PDT

  •  Your Tinfoil

    So what does a legitimate Edwards favorer like me do when I find out something troubling like Hindery's background and campaign role?

    There's no "zing" or "pizzaz" because it's a legitimate question. There's no "notable quotable" because instead there's a properly researched journalist's report quoted and cited. And then questions asked, with the legitimate question it raised with me.

    It's not a hit piece. Just because you're a partisan who can't constructively engage some actual evidence that there could be a problem doesn't mean that I've got some other agenda.

    You have done nothing to help me decide to give Edwards my support in light of this reported defect. All you've done is call me a troll. Which, as I said, will only work against my support of Edwards.

    by DocGonzo on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 08:28:45 AM PDT

    •  See mini mum's response to you below

      And, if you notice, I actually do not call you a "troll". I try not to name call.

      by grannyhelen on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 08:34:58 AM PDT

      •  Your Response

        You didn't use the name, but calling my sincere, and balanced, diary a "hit piece", and other accusations that I posted not in good faith to my clearly asked question (looking for a reason to continue supporting Edwards), is the definition of "troll".

        mini mum's response is entirely different from yours. It's an actual response with cited evidence and logic, respecting my good faith question. I don't see where you get off trying to talk like yours had anything to do with hers.

        by DocGonzo on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 08:43:03 AM PDT

        •  I don't call folks "trolls" because generally if

          I disagree with what they're writing I don't think it reflects on the person.

          I have nothing to add to mini mum's response.

          Here's a vid to enjoy:

          by grannyhelen on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 09:19:03 AM PDT

•  Points of consideration

  I think the fact that Hindery works for Edwards is one in the plus column for Edwards.

  Steve Clemons of The Washington Note provided an even-handed assessment:

  [Hindery] has had a spectacularly successful career in the media and broadcast arena but his passion is restoring the health of the American economy and achieveing more equitable sharing of the growth and gains in that economy among its key stakeholders -- in other words with "workers."

  Hindery has been one of the few CEOs who has argued that overall the current crop of American business leaders are shipping out jobs and manufacturing capacity overseas to benefit their own personal financial interests -- but are crippling their firms, their workers, and the long term health of American society.[...]

  Hindery's book It Takes a CEO: It's Time to Lead with Integrity and his interesting recent report on the American economy under the auspices of the Horizon Project give good insight into the kind of stakeholder-oriented economic counsel Hindery will most likely provide presidential candidate John Edwards.

  An op-ed Hindery wrote in the Politico:

  Average public company CEO compensation is now about 400 times average employee compensation, compared with 22 times in Britain, 20 times in Canada and 11 times in Japan, all similarly calculated. This comparison may be an embarrassment of riches to the American executives receiving this royalty-like amount of compensation, but it is an ethical embarrassment to our country and an affront to workers.

  Congress needs to immediately grant public shareholders the rights, on their own, to call a shareholders' meeting, to vote out the current board and to render an advisory vote on executive compensation. [...]

  As every Democratic candidate for president, starting with John Edwards, is now arguing, it is very important that this Congress get behind the Levin-Rangel bill on carried interest (H.R. 2834). In the future, it should also get behind every other bill like Levin-Rangel that will help restore the fairer and more balanced sense of corporate responsibility which so distinguished our country for most of the 20th century.

  Hindery letter to the Financial Times, Dec. 17, 2007:

  The US's trade deficit this year with China alone will exceed $250bn, and our overall trade deficit will exceed $800bn. Our former trade surplus in high-technology products has now turned into a rapidly increasing trade deficit. And in just the past six years the US has lost overseas 3.3m manufacturing jobs and 1.6m service jobs. The continuing loss of high-paying, high-technology jobs does not help our nation compete better in a global economy, because there is no commensurate inflow or creation of jobs here. And the countries to which we are sending our dollars for imported items are now using them to buy our vital productive assets.

  The interests of US-based multinational corporations are often not aligned with our national interests. Yet other nations, particularly those in Asia, have instituted economic policies with incentives, including illegal subsidies and underpriced exchange rates, to induce foreign corporations to transfer production facilities and technology there. Sixty per cent of China's exports now come from foreign-invested companies, which may be good for China and those companies' shareholders, but it is certainly not good for our economy. Most Americans now believe our nation's present international economic and trade policies are undermining our nation's standard of living, and ultimately our national security.[...]

  Our nation must address the unfair mercantilist practices being used by our global competitors to entice US-based multinational corporations to serve their interests and not our own. And responding to the challenges of globalisation certainly also demands reforming our tax system, reforming healthcare and worker education, achieving energy independence and modernising our outmoded infrastructure.

  But with respect, Mr Mayor, making America's trade policies fairer and furthering American jobs is absolutely not protectionism.

  Barry Orton is a veteran telecommunications consultant to local governments, according to his HuffPo bio.  Perhaps Orton has an axe to grind with Hindery and see this opportunity.

  by mini mum on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 08:19:29 AM PDT

  •  But Huff Post is usually

    so pro Edwards!  They certainly have no history of promoting dishonest, insulting  Edwards attacks. snark

    by enough already on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 08:23:43 AM PDT

  •  After reading this, I'd like to change my vote in

    the poll to but now I see you don't have this option "I was FOR him and this confirms it"

    by cumberland sibyl on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 08:25:33 AM PDT

    •  Yes I Do

      You said

      now I see you don't have this option "I was FOR him and this confirms it"

      The poll's first option is

      I was for him, and haven't changed my mind

      There's even
      

      
      I'm for him precisely because I think he's really a corporate shill
      I'm for him, and nothing will change my mind
      

      for completeness. What's the problem?

      by DocGonzo on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 08:39:41 AM PDT

  •  Obviously this guy knows what he's talking about

    because didn't Edwards come out with an economic stimulus proposal more than a month before Hillary, Barack, and Congress.  Didn't he anticipate and provide a detailed proposal in December to stimulate the economy, well before his rivals and the damned government that should be on top of this stuff.  I would say that his economic adviser is doing a damn good job, and shows concern for real Americans.  

    by ceenatoli on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 08:31:10 AM PDT

  •  If the diarist were sincere, perhaps he/she

    would have examined the credentials of Economists for Edwards, a group led by James K. Galbraith (http://www.johnedwards.com/news/press-releases/20080102-economists/). That would be a more serious approach than focusing on an apparent hit piece from the Obama house organ "The Huffington Post" on Mr. Hindery. Liberal economists are a vanishing breed; one survivor Paul Krugman has seemed sympathetic to Edwards. Edwards is the only one of the leading candidates whose family emerged, in three generations, from real poverty. Perhaps, the smaller gains made by Edwards' father required an even greater struggle than his son's spectacular success. Edwards speaks feelingly of his father's experience and the obstacles he faced. The remembered details (e.g., his father's early morning viewing of educational TV) are not fake. Edwards remembers very well, and there is no reason to doubt his sincerity.

    by sherrylynn on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 08:33:21 AM PDT

    •  I'm Sincere

      I am most certainly sincere, and I resent your implication that I'm not.

      Just because I don't have your specific evidence you've offered doesn't mean I'm not interested in it. In fact, that is precisely why I asked for that kind of thing in this diary. I appreciate getting it.

      Even though I don't appreciate your impugning my sincerity without legitimate evidence that it exists. Which it does not.

      by DocGonzo on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 08:36:12 AM PDT

      •  Good

        Here's the link
        30 Leading Economists Endorse John Edwards For President

        Sorry if you have been unfairly judged.  It happens to the best of us.  Just ask John Edwards.

        by enough already on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 09:05:26 AM PDT

      •  I also doubted Obama's sincerity in the debate

        Edwards asked whether contributions from the insurance, pharmaceutical and defense industry were made purely in the interest of supporting "good government" and without the expectation of something in return. Obama answered primly that the donations were from employees of those industries who had been "inspired" by his campaign. I don't doubt that some contributors have been inspired. But it was an easy answer that eluded the question. Obama knows full well that a substantial portion of his $100 million contributions, especially those from the corporate world, are not from idealists. Was Obama's answer truly sincere? I don't think so. Similarly, I thought that making the centerpiece of your diary an article from the Huffington Post (The New York Post of "liberal" blogs) was questionable. If you are indeed sincere, I earnestly urge you look at the Huffington Post with a more skeptical eye.

        by sherrylynn on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 09:07:37 AM PDT

•  Here's my take on it

  Edwards has never taken money from corporate interests, GE fears him, corporations fear him, he is not the DLC candidate, either Barack or Hillary is.  So the powers that be seem to think that he's serious about his economic proposals.  So I am sticking with him.

  by ceenatoli on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 08:26:51 AM PDT

  •  Barack is NOT the DLC candidate

    Debunked and denied.

    by Greuben on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 08:27:53 AM PDT

  •  Hasn't He?

    I know Edwards has sworn off corporate donations for this election cycle. It's one of my main reasons for liking him best.

    But didn't he accept them in the 2004 election? Didn't he accept them in his Senate election in 1998? I don't know, maybe he didn't. I think I'd have heard about it if he had, especially in the 2004 election. But if he did, then perhaps his current rejection of it is more PR, and he already owes enough favors for it to matter.

    In any case, if he has, then "has never taken money from corporat interests" isn't quite correct.

    by DocGonzo on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 08:33:45 AM PDT

    •  He has never

      taken money from these interests his entire public career, period

      by Guadalupe59 on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 08:37:34 AM PDT

      •  Link?

        I'd like to believe that. It doesn't seem possible that his 2004 campaign in the general election as VP with Kerry could have refused those kinds of donations, especially without it becoming a big issue. But maybe I just missed the news. Do you have a citation to prove it, and about his 1998 Senate campaign? Because such a policy is extraordinary (though certainly welcome), it requires some evidence beyond a one sentence assertion for me to believe it. Which I would be very happy to, if I can.

        by DocGonzo on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 08:52:23 AM PDT

        •  Trust me if he had Obama

          would have used it.  Obama took money from lobbyists for his state and federal senate campaigns.

          by ceenatoli on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 09:05:04 AM PDT

        •  And didn't you just write about your concern re

          Edwards' financial advisor.  You know that this is something that Edwards has over Obama, and now you want to question it.  As much as the press and powers that be hate Edwards, if he had taken money, they would have broadcasted it all over the globe by now to remove this positive from Edwards.  

          by ceenatoli on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 09:08:52 AM PDT

        •  I don't have

          a link for you, but he has said it over and over again, and you and I both know that if it were not true, the other campaigns would have buried him with it.

          by Guadalupe59 on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 09:09:18 AM PDT

    •  Nope, never has!

      by ceenatoli on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 09:03:36 AM PDT

•  Maybe it's the same reason Edwards gave

  for working at a Hedge Fund:  To regulate evil, you gotta KNOW evil, and who knows evil more better Leo Hindery?  

  Or maybe Leo Hindery has had a conversion to progressivism - you know, the kind that can only happen after you bank your $20 millionth dollar of net worth after a career of rapacious capitalism.  Hey, if John Edwards can change his mind, who is he to begrudge a conversion by one of his peers?

  by Greuben on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 08:26:59 AM PDT

  •  Maybe

    Maybe, but if I am to believe Hindery has changed, I'll need to see some evidence of it. Which there should be by now. Actual acts that commit him to that new path, not just talk which gets him through an "accountability moment" like an election, and then into the "Kitchen Cabinet" where they can do whatever they want for at least 4 years.

    by DocGonzo on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 08:54:08 AM PDT

•  Maybe this will help

  More Than 30 Leading Economists Endorse John Edwards For President

  by Guadalupe59 on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 08:31:56 AM PDT

•  Dascle seemed to think that

  he is sincere and that is coming from an Obama co chair.

  http://www.charlierose.com/...

  by cwaltz on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 08:51:38 AM PDT

•  Edwards has made his positions clear

  on all of the issues you are discussing.  Have you looked at his written, detailed plans?  

  What possible reason do you have to justify suspecting him of being nothing more than a lying con artist? Does he need to cross his heart and hope to die before you are willing to take him at his word?  He doesn’t lie. He is up front and approachable about everything.  Maybe you should address your questions directly to his campaign.  It makes absolutely no sense however, to throw over a candidate who publically commits himself to fighting for everything you care about, providing you with specific detailed plans that can’t be denied, on the off chance that he might really be a liar - in favor of a candidate who avoids committing to any kind of real policies.  No sense what so ever.

  Net Neutrality? Monopoly regulation?  Here -
  One America, Many Voices: Open Media For The 21st Century

  Or for in depth on every issue, here -

  John Edwards' Plan To Build One America

  by enough already on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 08:59:30 AM PDT

  •  Hindery?

    But Hindery's actual actions in his past weigh against those campaign promises. How can you explain Hindery's influence when Edwards' policies seem to pit Edwards against Hindery and people like him?

    by DocGonzo on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 10:17:21 AM PDT

•  push poll

  Do you support John Edwards?
  Does knowing that some CEO you'd probably never heard of unless you buy every "I'm such a great business leader and you're not" book to ever be published is his economic adviser make you more or less likely to support John Edwards over Barack Obama who does not have some obscure CEO advising him?

  
  This survey is not affiliated with the Barack Obama campaign and has not been approved by Barack Obama. Or Hillary Clinton. Or Mike Gravel.

  by votermom on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 01:52:41 PM PDT

  •  What?

    Did you read the diary? I explained my support of Edwards. I also quoted a profile of Hindery, his top economic advisor, that seems to be at odds with Edwards' campaign image.

    What difference does it make whether he's obscure or not? I'm interested in what he's proven is his policy priority. Do you have anything to say that counters the appearance that Edwards talks about corporate rollback, but employs a top corporate logroller to produce his economic policy?

    And what does that have to do with Obama?

    by DocGonzo on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 08:32:04 PM PDT