Pot to kettle: “You are a very dark container for cooking!”

Former Senator John Edwards (D-NC) has criticized one of his opponents for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, Senatrix Hillary Clinton (D-NY), because her husband and she have ties with News Corporation, the Rupert Murdock owned company which runs the Fox News Channel.

    Edwards Raps Hillary for Murdoch Ties
    By Nedera Pickler,AP
    Posted: 2007-08-02 16:41:43

    WASHINGTON (Aug. 2) – John Edwards criticized Democratic rival Hillary Rodham Clinton on Thursday for taking more than $20,000 in donations from News Corp. officials, arguing that the company’s Fox News Channel has a right-wing bias and Democrats should avoid the company.

    Edwards led the Democratic candidates’ boycott of Fox’s plans to host a Democratic presidential debate. Now he is objecting to News Corp.’s purchase of Wall Street Journal publisher Dow Jones & Co. and highlighting the relationships that Clinton and other rivals have with the company’s executives.

    “The time has come for Democrats to stop pretending to be friends with the very people who demonize the Democratic Party,” Edwards said in a statement.

    He challenged his rivals to refuse contributions from executives of News Corp., and return any they had already received. The Edwards campaign sent an e-mail to supporters with the subject line “Unfair and Unbalanced,” asking them to donate in support of his stand against the company.

    Said Edwards spokesman Eric Schultz: “Thousands of good people work at Fox News and News Corp., but this is about the bias of top executives, those who make real editorial decisions like Rupert Murdoch, people who continually sanction unfounded attacks on Democrats. And that’s why Democrats like Senator Clinton should either reject their money or return it.”

    The campaign timed the challenge to come two days before Edwards, Clinton and other candidates are scheduled to appear at a convention of liberal bloggers, who applauded Edwards’ revolt against the Fox-sponsored debate in March.

More at the link.

Former Senator Edwards is just about the most hypocritical politician I have ever seen: he regularly excoriates parts of our economic system as unfair to the people, unfair to the working man, all the while holding investments in such companies, and making money from the very companies he criticizes.

    I have absolutely no problem with someone getting rich; I’d like to do it myself one day! :) But at least be honest about yourself, be honest in where you get your money. If you are going to combitch about subprime lenders, then have the honesty to divest yourself from companies which are in the subprime market! If you are going to rail against big oil, don’t own stock in BP! If you are going to campaign against the existing health care industry, don’t make money from Medtronic!

This is a man who charged a public university $55,000 to make a speech about how we have to help the poor, who has spoken out about genocide in Darfur, but has holdings in the Sudan, and who complains about WalMart while having staffers shop there for a Sony Playstation 3 for his children — and then blaming it on a “young staffer.” And this is a man who made big bucks “channelling” an unborn child in distress, in a medical malpractice suit, but says that a woman ought to have an unfettered right to abortion right up until birth; maybe some unborn children don’t channel quite as well.


  1. You know, I really want to see somebody, anybody, other than Hillary Clinton win the Dem nomination, but if this lame brain stunt by Edwards is the best that her competition can come up with, it ain’t gonna happen.

  2. Murdoch is more of a businesman than an ideologue. His media empire is reviled by the Left for its failure to follow their party line with a Stalinist blind faith. Fox news is more balanced than the other networks.

    Some imagined that the heavy hand of Jack Welch was behind the news coverage by one network on Election Night in 2000, but he, like many corporate conglomerate executives, is not dictating editorial policy.

    The support given to Hillary by Murdoch may be a way of covering his bets.

    Edwards is obviously grasping for straws to use as issues. He is becoming more politically-irrelevant with each public statement that he utters.

  3. Murdoch is more of a businesman than an ideologue. His media empire is reviled by the Left for its failure to follow their party line with a Stalinist blind faith. Fox news is more balanced than the other networks.

    Exactly! It’s not perfectly balanced (what is?), but compaped to what we normally call the Mainstream Media (or “elite media”) they are far less openly biased. On the whole, they do lean slightly right-of-center, but nothing like the way the NY Times leans left (and for decades, the Times pretty much set the agenda for the rest of the media). The liberal bias became so all-pervasive that, to libs, it was like water to a fish. Then they see FOX, and for the first time they’re getting news that doesn’t have any liberal bias at all, and for them it’s like watching TV beamed in from Mars.

  4. My daughter is home for the weekend. So we were sitting and talking about the mental midgets running for prez. (I’m including everyone declared to date) She asked about Obama and I mentioned his wanting to take Pakistan out and never use a nuke for any defense. She said, he’s out. So, we concluded that our best choice to date is not on the campaign trail. That would be “None of the Above” If it were only a choice.

Comments are closed.