Posted on 08/04/2007 11:47:20 AM PDT by LdSentinal
Wolfe Blitzer of CNN put 2008 US Presidential candidate John Edwards on the hot seat asked whether Edwards would return a half a million dollars advance he took from a subsidiary of News Corp, Harper Collins. The exact total was closer to $1 million ($800,000).
Edwards has been demanding that all presidential candidates - specifically Hillary Clinton - return any funds received from Rupert Murdoch or any of this companies including News Corp (parent company of Fox News).
At press time John Edwards was listed with 8 to 1 odds of becoming the next US President.
Edwards insisted the monies derived from this book all went to charity and that he would not be returning any of it. Fox points out that the charity he gave this money to would also provide tax relief for Senator Edwards.
Wolf Blitzer questions Senator John Edwards on CNN in regard to receiving funds from a News Corp subsidiary
Although often totally divorced from reality, perceptions in politics tend to overwhelm the truth. And these days the perception that John Edwards is a hypocrite now endangers his presidential hopes, writes Craig Crawford of the Congressional Quarterly.
Edwards has lashed out at Hillary Clinton for accepting campaign funds from Murdoch that do not even put a dent in Edwards $800,000. She only received a measly $20,000.
He probably traded the advance for future hair cuts and jet fuel for his planes.
He should say frankly that this is not a campaign contribution, but a payment for his book.
I assume Harper paid him this not because they thought he was a great guy, but because they expected to make money on this business deal.
Greedy self-obessed prat.
But hey, what am I to expect? He only holds others to that standard. Maybe Breck Girl needs another 2,000 haircuts between now and then?
Let's see $800,000...that's haircuts for 200 lucky underpriveledged kids.
Just when you think the Silky Pony has sunk to the absolute depths of hypocrisy, he slips into another hole.
Blitzer just gave Hillary the lead in Iowa...
“Rules for thee, not for me.”
Hypocrisy is abundant on the left.
Edwards is self destructing right before our eyes. He is dead as a candidate.
I am sure going to miss the Silky Pony, he’s so entertaining.
On the other hand and I mean this in ernest, he’s really got no chance having shot himself in the foot so many times, he really should quit and spend the time with his wife and family.
Like all large donor Murdoch gives to all sides so as to maintain access to the centers of power no matter who wins.
It goes to show how far left of center Clinton and Obama are. Edwards seeks to get to the left of Clinton and Obama and he cannot find any real issue on which he is more liberal than they are, so he pathetically makes Murdoch a bogeyman and seeks to engage them on a point that has no real traction with anyone other than the media who is forced to cover him as a serious candidate.
Hasn't anyone ever seen films of sharks in the ocean? They swim freely among each other. They're only dangerous to other living creatures. Does that help folks understand the essential nature of John Edwards? And why Edwards could never again be elected Dogcatcher in Durham, in North Carolina?
We got to know him, so you don't have to. It's a filthy job, but somebody had to do it.
Congressman Billybob
I'm sorry, but this is SO unbecoming in a grown man, much less in someone who wants to be the most powerful person in the world. Elizabeth should kiss his owie, put a bandaid on it and take him home, away from the big bad bullies who are being so mean to him, and wrap him in cotton for the foreseeable future, or until he is grown up enough to go out and play with the big kids.
A powderpuff interviewer puts a powderpuff candidate on the spot. Sorry I missed that. Did Wolfy say Senator I have always admired your hair, and Edwards responded by saying I have always like your beard?
bump
>>At press time John Edwards was listed with 8 to 1 odds of becoming the next US President.
That’s gotta be a misprint. Are we sure it wasn’t
supposed to say 8,000 to 1?
Oh, Murdock's not such an evil man
It's not that this is a contribution--it's a payment for a book. But HE is the one who made an issue of her taking the $$$ from a Murdoch company, so if he thinks that kind of money is tainted, he should do the "noble" thing and give the advance back.
What he should have done, of course, was shut up about money coming from Murdoch.
What a big-mouthed nothing--another Bill Clinton. That the media is obsessed with this nothing is not a shock, considering how many women and gays in the media are turned on by slick, shallow democrats.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.