2008 The John Edwards Book Deal
posted by on August 13 at 10:18 AM
As The Politico reports, here is John Edwards on Rupert Murdoch:
“The time has come for Democrats to stop pretending to be friends with the very people who demonize the Democratic Party,” [Edwards] said recently in a statement that referred explicitly to Murdoch, News Corp.’s chairman and CEO.
And here are still more details about that book deal between Edwards and Murdoch-controlled HarperCollins:
Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards recently defended taking a lucrative book contract from a publisher controlled by Rupert Murdoch — whose News Corp. empire Edwards has sharply criticized — by insisting that “every dime” of his $500,000 advance went to charity.Left unmentioned by Edwards, however, was that Murdoch’s HarperCollins paid portions of a $300,000 expense budget for the book to Edwards’s daughter and to a senior political aide, Jonathan Prince.
"The Politico, a brand-new political fanzine that combines the biting wit of a high school slam book with the nuanced policy analysis of Tiger Beat"
http://www.esquire.com/print-this/edwardscontest0807
Edwards, what a douche.
ps- Will: nice ad hominem.
Heh. I'd say if he can take the guy's money and still demonize him in public, the joke's on Murdoch.
All politicians are whores. I can not belive that anyon is shocked by this in the slightest.
this is no worse than any of the main dem contenders' stand on the iraq war. the ny times had an amazing article yesterday that basically showed the rank hypocrisy of the dems, who all more or less say they want to bring the troops home in their stump speeches. they mouth platitudes about standing tough against republicans and new directions for america and the world, rhetoric they borrow wholesale from their grassroots base. but they develop policy statements that are basically just staying the course and cater to the same special interests that dominate the republican party, minus the rabid social conservatives.
check it out:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/12/us/politics/12dems.html
John Edwards, the former North Carolina senator, would keep troops in the region to intervene in an Iraqi genocide and be prepared for military action if violence spills into other countries. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York would leave residual forces to fight terrorism and to stabilize the Kurdish region in the north. And Senator Barack Obama of Illinois would leave a military presence of as-yet unspecified size in Iraq to provide security for American personnel, fight terrorism and train Iraqis.
I've always thought Edwards was slimy. He's got the morals of Bill Clinton but without the political acumen or intelligence. I'd say he's the Democratic version of George W.
why, that john edwards is a hypocrite! that makes my choice so easy, since no other politicians are hypocrites.
kucinich, please.
Ef them all...they're all morally bankrupt republican-lite. The only current politicans I'd even CONSIDER voting for would be Al Gore or Russ Feingold. The rest can go straight to hell.
When did politics become a branch of the priesthood, with a vow of poverty and everything?
Seth
Edwards never screwed around on his wife nor lie to a grand jury.
Why you gotta hate so much? From where i sit, Edwards is the most decent of the bunch. Much as I want to vote for a woman or a black man, he's holding my vote.
Comments Closed
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).