The right questions to be asking about politicians and big-money finance

Justin - Politicians going to work for lobbying firms seems to have been the more traditional route of post- or between-governmental employment but there has been legislation to slowdown that type of thing. Perhaps hedge funds and private equity groups do not fall under the same regulatory restrictions?

Still, a reasonable set of questions might start with: what exactly were your job requirements? I cannot imagine that Edwards' job was to pick good short sale opportunities. Other than me not knowing what he would do there I do not really have a huge problem with the connection.

The conspiracy theorist in me would want to bring up the Carlysle Group and its growing collection of former world leaders and demand a wholly different set of questions be asked.

you wrote: "But the growing entanglement of politics and Wall Street is a really big policy question, especially when it relates to trade. " and
" My problem is with which questions to ask. "Hey John Edwards, are you a tool of the hedge fund industry?" doesn't seem like it would produce a very informative answer. Then again, maybe just the fact of asking of such questions -- repeatedly -- matters more than the content."

Here is the problem. Asking that question of JOHN EDWARDS simply singles Edwards out rather than addresses the actual issue -- its a question (or similar to a question) that should be asked of all the candidates that are raising millions and millions of dollars in the banking and finance industries.

And that's why we object to this kind of reporting.... reporting that is not about how nearly ALL the candidates (and nearly all federal officeholders) appear to be beholden to these interest, but a smear by innuendo piece on a particular candidate. And instead of portraying this job as giving Edwards a first hand perspective into the world of international finance, its designed to raise questions about Edward character ("is he a hypocrite?")

Its distressing that people like Karen and now you do get the distinction.

(are the borg-like assimilation techniques that you were exposed to at you little secret "Young Global Leaders" conference painful? Pleasant? Or are are you minds erased of the experience, and replaced with "memories" of boring speeches by White house insiders )

There's more inherent conflict in John Edwards, friend of the working man, getting paid by a hedge than in some other candidate doing so. Journalists like conflict, hence the WaPo story. Yeah, these kinds of questions should be asked of every politician with hedge fund/Wall Street ties. But I don't think it's nutty or sinister to ask them of Edwards.

Justin - The term 'inherent conflict' intrigues me. Are you using it to mean 'potential hypocrisy'? If so then I guess my question becomes: Are you kidding me?

Here is a simple explanation:

A wealthy landowner who tells his white sharecroppers that his policies will protect their culture but instead breeds racism against minority workers as a way to keep labor costs down is a hypocrite.

A wealthy individual who attempts to enact policies to provide health insurance, decent wages and job security to all workers is NOT a hypocrite.

You see, it comes down to the policies themselves. Was FDR a hypocrite for enacting the New Deal? If so then I guess I need to seek out more hypocrites. The GOP has worked this subtle form of class warfare for decades now. They have taken the negative unintended consequences of liberal social programs and attempted to portray the Dems who supported them as hypocrites who were all wealthy individuals that didn't really want to help the poor. That sickening talking point has been repeated so often that I suspect many believe it without even realizing it. And now, by raising questions about Edwards' finances they are seeking resonance with that deeply buried falsehood. Thus, 'inherent conflict'.

really Justin? Do you really believe that its somehow evidence of a character flaw that John Edwards didn't choose a post-Senate dishwashing career?

And precisely WHICH FREAKING PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE has claimed that he is "not the friend of the working man?" I mean, holy crap, everyone of them frames every vote they've ever made, and every economic position they've ever taken as "will create jobs" or "good for working Americans." NOBODY says "hey, I'm voting this way because its good for Paris Hilton!"

Progressives are tired of MSM folks like yourself imposing THOUGHT FREE GOP-friendly frames on politics -- and this idea that somehow "[t]here's more inherent conflict in John Edwards, friend of the working man" PRESUPPOSES SOMETHING THAT IS DEMONSTRABLY FALSE, i.e. that the other candidates don't present themselves as "freinds of the working man."

Look, I just happen to find it vaguely unsettling how Wall-Street-friendly both the Democrats and Republicans have become over the past couple of decades. And now here's John Edwards, who's got to be the least Wall-Street-friendly of the major political candidates, on the payroll of a hedge fund. That surprised me. Surprise = story. Dishwashing would have surprised me, too.

But hey, I'd rather be writing about tax policy.

"Surprise = story."

Much better.

"But hey, I'd rather be writing about tax policy"

much safer (unless deLong or Krugman decides to take a swipe at it)

**********

I guess my point is that the information did not deserve the story it got -- an innuendo filled hit piece on the front page of The Post. The fact is that the job was no secret -- it just hadn't been widely publicized.

It would have been fine to spend four or five paragraphs on it in a longer piece that focussed on what Edwards has been doing for the last four years other than campaigning -- either from a "human interest" perspective, or a "presidential resume" perspective. But this was a hit piece, pure and simple -- and I think that people like you, who are part of the media, should be able to differentiate between decent reporting and this kind of offal.

Justin, thanks for posting my comment.

Would you answer this for me: why is it that these "entanglements" are only a problem when the one entangled is a Democrat? Why didn't we hear more about Bush's entanglement with oil companies in 2000? Is it a coincidence that there's an oilman in the White House and Exxon/Mobile is posting record profits?

I think you know the answers to all of these questions, though I doubt you're brave enough to write them on your blog. But if you want to be more than purveyor of right-leaning dinner party centrism (and I'm not sure why would, given that being such a purveyor is the only way to rise in the media establishment), you should address them.

I won't hold my breath, though.