I really am tired of reading stories like this. Can't his candicacy just end... http://www.nypost.com/seven/0803200...h_nationalnews_charles_hurt__bureau_chief.htm
I especially can't stand the way he pretends to be able to "speak to the other side" and bilk money off of little old ladies. His show has been debunked by skeptics like Shermer, Randi, and others who have shown how he uses cold reading and a staff of investigators that look into the lives of people that participate in his studio audience. I think they've even been caught at it. Crossing Over With John Edward was the worst show on SciFi. Oh... you're talking about a different John Edward. News flash: all politicians are frauds. Take the monkey in the Whitehouse now for instance.
, said the nation and picked an alien from Proxima Centauri as their president... ...the ashes of Earth were long seen as a popular attraction for the Nemesis children.
Thats a funny site, I didn't realize News Corp. also owns The New York Post. Reminds me of The Sun in the UK.
that's too funny didn't he cry only a few days ago about some rich people who make >$100M/yr that are trying to shut him up? they're his prime compain contributors! hahaha what a douche but he's got great hair!
He wrote a book and is collecting the royalities on his work. Big freaking deal. This is just a partisan hack job by a biased rag.
This is something I like: the GOP is even more frightened by Edwards than his Democratic contenders. Of course, since conservatives can't tell the difference between money earned and money donated, we can expect to hear more of this kind of crap from the GOP and its poodles.
In the GOP coffers (under the current Newt/Delay incarnation of the GOP) often there is no difference - influence money and pirated corporate swag is both "donated" and "earned", simultaneously.
Well, now we know why the GOP is banking on Hillary. They pretend she can win the primary but not the election, but we see the real source of their fear is John Edwards. Hillary Clinton's name is mentioned more than anyone else's. Some are defending her recent debate dustup with Barack Obama, adding that they never thought they'd support a Clinton, but most think she's going to win the Democratic nomination and then lose the election. (TheStranger.com) The entire article is actually funny. Some part of me wishes the author had used a different phrase: "... they never thought they'd support a Clinton, but the alternative is a ...." Would've been priceless.
He's fifty-four. How old need he be? Clinton was 46, and GW Bush 54. Carter 52, Nixon 56 at inauguration, and only 47 when he lost to a 43 year-old JFK.
There is the Ken-doll factor. It served Quayle well enough until he actually got into the Veep's office. I don't know Dan Quayle. Dan Quayle is not my friend. But I can tell you that John Edwards is no Dan Quayle.
It may be a hack job, but logically speaking, I fail to see how a person can criticize Murdoch and characterize his donations as unethical or immoral in some way if that same person has done business with him. Plus, this is just his latest holier-than-thou remarks to back-fire on him. Let's review, shall we? - He criticizes Wal-Mart, then sends a campaign staffer there to purchase a game system for his kids. Story comes out, Edwards fires the staffer. - He criticizes hedge funds. NYT points out he worked for one. He says he did so because he wanted to "learn" about them so when he became president he could regulate them better. NYT quips that's like hiring a stripper to learn about how women are exploited. - He has business interests with pay-day lenders, the same pay-day lenders who do business with John's "other America." - He set up a non-profit center to study poverty. NYT exposes the fact he used the majority of the donations to finance his "education" as a candidate in the years leading up to his latest run for office. The funds paid for staffers and trips to primary states. There's also the fact he used his wife's cancer to generate sympathy donations for his campaign...
and Teddy (my favorite) was 42. Do you think Edwards will get a lot of the sympathy vote. dead kid, cancer stricken wife? I know nothing about the man except for those 2 things
there is a rather big difference in between being paid for a book you wrote and accepting campaign donations considering the second implies you will do things favorable for your donors and their intrests
I really don't think there is. If you're positioning yourself as a man of integrity, then how strong is that integrity if you're willing to do business with people you openly criticize and disdain?
