I don't have a problem with capitalism (it powers my website!), but John Edwards seems to. I base this on his stated plans of raising taxes, nationalizing healthcare, redistributing the hard-earned wages of the middle class, and his willingness to let government intervene in almost every private market.

Thus, I see another genuineness problem in former Senator Edwards' stance on poverty where it clashes with his personal habits. What's good for John Edwards (the super-rich) is not good for everyone else (read: the middle class).

According to the Wall Street Journal:

There are "34 New Orleans homes whose owners have faced foreclosure suits from subprime-lending units of Fortress Investment Group LLC. Mr. Edwards has about $16 million invested in Fortress funds .... Mr. Edwards worked for Fortress, a publicly held private-equity fund, from late 2005 through 2006."

Furthermore, "after leaving the firm, he kept about half of his net worth in Fortress funds. And Fortress employees have collectively made up the largest class of political contributors to Edwards. Workers there put up more than $150,000 toward his presidential run in the first six months of the year."

Of course, Edwards' campaign acted outraged that this was happening in the place where he announced his campaign. (It's hard for me to believe his ignorance when he has half of his net worth in the company. I have have of my net worth ($.01) in a company, and I track it like a hawk).

The end result is that John Edwards again comes of as disingenuous on the issue of poverty, class, and the economy. John Edwards chose to run as the common man. That's like Barney Fife trying to run as an investment banker, it just wouldn't be genuine.

I encourage you to read both of the articles below.

Link: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118728685546999884.html
More: http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2007/08/17/fortress-questions-for-edwards/