digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Hillary Clinton Accepted $20,000 In Campaign Donations From News Corp.

news.yahoo.com — 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.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • robojerk, on 10/10/2007, -8/+69It was a "fair and balanced" donation.
    • Muyoso, on 10/10/2007, -21/+12I love how Edwards is trying to get his name out there the only way he can, by attacking anything and everything conservative.

      Create fake controversy with Ann Coulter? Check
      Create fake controversy with Fox News? Check
      Criticize others for dealing with Fox News while you yourself had gone on the network several times? Check.
      • BlackMagic2, on 10/10/2007, -8/+2obnoxious comment abuse? I'm not sure about Edwards, but you definitely have that down pat.
        • mdhauke, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8That's the best comeback you could come up with? Pulling the "comment abuse" card? lol, pathetic
    • ahammett, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3You know, Democrats have jobs too. Sometimes even jobs with evil corporations.

      This seems to suggest that an employee can't support a candidate because his bosses don't. Pretty lame if you ask me.
    • Charlotte_Web, on 10/10/2007, -6/+11Surprise! John Edwards received $800,000 from News Corp!

      http://www.nypost.com/seven/08032007/news/nationalnews/edwards_in_a_biz_hate__witch_nationalnews_charles_hurt__bureau_chief.htm

      Yup, he's a hypocrite.
      • doogie68, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5Whoa, just wait a minute there. If you RTFA in your own link, you'd see that he EARNED that money from a book published by HarperCollins, a News Corp. subsidiary. Your statement implies this was a donation much like what Hillary was given. I agree that it might have been better for him to have used a different publisher not owned by Murdoch, but this is vastly different to me than a POLITICAL CAMPAIGN DONATION.

        Disclaimer: I dislike both Edwards and Clinton and do not support either of them.
        • dinostabOMG, on 10/10/2007, -5/+2pwnt
        • Charlotte_Web, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Yes, I read it.

          This is a no-win argument for you, because what you are pointing out is EVEN WORSE.

          Whereas the campaign donations to Hillary by News Corp employees were a write-off, JOHN EDWARDS CONTRIBUTED TO NEWS CORP'S BOTTOM LINE!

          They may have paid him $800,000 for the book he wrote, but I'm sure that they used that book to make a LOT more money!

          If Edwards is so dead-set against News Corp, he should have taken his book to another publisher, possibly for less money.
    • chukd, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2This doesn't surprise me at all. They all take money from people they demonize. Back with the Rutgers womens basketball thing with Imus, she was out there saying that rappers need to stop degrading women in their lyrics but she took money from them in a fundraiser. Al Gore took money from the same musicians, even though in the late 80's, early 90's he was the start of the movement against music and labeling of music. This happens with Republicans too. This stuff is out in the open but people vote for them. You get the government you elect and probably deserve for electing the same type of person year after year.
      • Charlotte_Web, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Frankly, I think it's pretty dumb to criticize your opponents based on who they accepted donations from. Last I checked, our elected officials were supposed to represent ALL of the people.

        What bothers me is that Edwards is trying to build a campaign based on personal scraps with various people (Coulter, Murdock, Ailes, Clinton), and not on solid ideas of leadership.

        Who will John and Elizabeth target next? Who cares.
    • otheruser, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5@Charlotte Web

      Wow, that's total *****. He EARNED $500,000 from the SALE OF HIS BOOK, which was published by HarperCollins, which is owned by News Corp.

      Hillary received a donation from Rupert Murdoch.

      HUGE, ***** DIFFERENCE.
      • Charlotte_Web, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Yes, the HUGE ***** DIFFERENCE is that John Edwards helped News Corp to earn a profit, whereas Hillary simply accepted donations.

        Wow, I've never heard of attacking your enemies by helping them to earn profits. Is that some sort of Machiavellian strategy?
      • hoovcluck, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1BLOOD MONEY!
    • otheruser, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Update to my above post:

      Here's an excellent website that sums up candidate-donations by industry (lobbyists, insurance, health professionals, energy, etc.):

      http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=K02

      As you can see, Edwards is consistently significantly lower than both Hillary and Obama in questionable industries (Health Professionals, Lobbyists, Oil & Gas, etc).
  • carbon12, on 10/10/2007, -15/+120Obama was right, she is "Bush-Cheney lite".
    • darkmule, on 10/10/2007, -2/+14She *was* a republican.
      • jottton, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0when? im actually curious and dont wana look up this claim myself. I am not saying your full of *****....
    • domomike, on 10/10/2007, -1/+21Amen to that. I just hope others can realize that Hilary is OBVIOUSLY playing us.

      I don't get why people think Hilary will actually do the things she says she will. I know that if she becomes president, she'll just be another average president... Not changing much, not doing much, not helping much. She's a politician, that is all she wants to be.
      • WilliamDavis, on 10/10/2007, -0/+18Almost all of them have been playing you. For decades.
    • Observant1, on 11/02/2007, -0/+1bill clinton hands a ton of technology to china and in a clinton bush baton pass they rammed NAFTA through (Not Allowed Freedom To Approve!) trade and border issues that should have been put to a vote. Corporate welfare handouts so companies can leave the country making millions of workers unemployed, hillary on the board of directors to WALMART 6 years importing Chinese slave made consumer goods bankrupting American manufacturers unemploying millions more, WALMART building a superport in Mexico for Chinese super-cargo ships to unemploy US longshoremen and truckers also bringing in more and faster. RUDY GIULIANI's lawfirm making millions representing CINTRA from Spain building the NAFTA SUPERHIGHWAY for transporting these slave made goods. (notice he's ex mayor of NYC and hillary the rep for NY state). RICK PERRY governor of Texas is land grabbing for this NAFTA superhighway. BUSH tries and fails 3-4 times to pass amnesty for illegal immigrants then hands the keys to US highways over to 100 Mexican trucking companies out of spite.
      people need to understand they are all business partners in TREASON !!
  • thesixthdesign, on 10/10/2007, -48/+50Obama for 2008
    :)
    • jmpeagle, on 10/10/2007, -15/+14you want to invade Pakistan too?
      • sulthernao, on 10/10/2007, -7/+11Considering that they actually have terrorist, it might be a good idea to do something about it. But I agree invading at this point would not advisable, partially because I do not want to hypothesis with nuclear war.
      • tehpwnrate, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10He said that he would put conditions on our aid. Conditions like, if they have knowledge of terrorist meetings, they act. He said if they don't act, then we will. Good for him--that's called reasonable but firm foreign policy. He also said Iraq was a mistake back in 2002 (and laid out the reasons--Sunnis v Shiites, etc) while Hillary was talking about what a threat they were. Anyway, it's obvious you never actually read the content of Obama's speech.
      • soomprimal, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Entering another country with a military force without their consent is an act of war, even in this ***** war on terrorism.
      • UglieJosh, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1I have no problem with Obama. I sincerely hope he will put someone like Gravel or Kucinich on his ticket after he, undoubtedly, wins the primary (mark my word), though. He needs someone like that at his side to influence him in the right direction and help him to not fall victim to the world of corruption he seems ignorant to the fact he is walking into.

        He seems like a, legitimately, good man. He is not my first choice but he may get my vote simply because old Mike doesn't have a legitimate chance as of yet. Seems kinda' like a vote for Gravel or Kucinich is a vote for Hillary because the Gravel/Kucinich people would DEFINITELY vote Obama over Clinton in most instances, if Gravel/Kucinich were not an option.
      • doogie68, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Truth is, Obama probably did more to address the sitation of Pakistan harboring terrorists with his saber-rattling statement than the Bush Adminstration has done in the past 5 years.
        • SpaceMonkeyZero, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1OH yeah... he said that BEFORE Musharraf finally allowed US Special Forces in to help Pakistani troops target taleban.

          Oh wait. No Obama said that AFTER that happened. He's a 5th grader trying to play Model U.N.. It's pathetic.
    • Fireinthedisco, on 10/10/2007, -12/+408ama
    • M4tt3r, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4I will always keep an open mind, so could someone please elaborate as to why one should vote for Barack Obama? I haven't kept up on him. Even though it may not be popular, I'm still going to ask. What has he done that would make his a good President? Or is your opinion based all on what he has promised/said?
      • Jacenjames, on 10/10/2007, -7/+6He's running on the I'm new campaign. That's about it.
      • kingkilr, on 10/10/2007, -4/+10He has opposed Iraq from before it began, he will restore habeas corpus, end extraordinary rendition, end torture, revise the patriot act, and already has a solid plan for universal healthcare.
        • kingkilr, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9He also has a history of working with lawmakers form both sides of the aisle to get things done, he has a history of weeding out corruption, and he was a constitutional law professor, not a professor in, "How to ***** the constitution in 7 different ways", like some other candidates and our current president.
        • JulioJuliopolis, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3His solid plan for universal healthcare is not giving "health care" to everyone... it's giving "health care INSURANCE!!!" to everyone. Which is pure BS.
          • Pssdoff, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Exactly, 65 Billion dollars a year in tax increases. That money is then handed over to insurance companies. Whoo. What a plan. clap
        • sugablonde, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1"REVISE" THE PATRIOT ACT?!?!?!?! WTF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!???? DESTROY IT!!!!!!!!!!!!! Stop spying on us, douchbags!!!!!!
        • OralCavity, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2but i like spying on you.
        • natenovs, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0he will also magically turn all criminals into cuddly puppies, stop global warming, make the world love us again, cure cancer and aids, and in his final act in office he will completely disband the federal government thus allowing US citizens to live freely in the utopian society he built for them

          yeh right...he'll probably just invade pakistan, and ***** up the healthcare system even more than it already is...
      • dinostabOMG, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1You deserve more diggs for an honest question. Dugg up.
    • Reponere, on 10/10/2007, -13/+5You heard the news going around the block? Obama plans to keep men in Baghdad if he's elected.

      Ron Paul - 2008
      • m0tbaillie, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7Um actually, Obama himself has authored a good majority of the legislation that pertains to pulling troops out of Iraq.

        Pulling ***** out of your ass isn't going to fly, here. Bush/Cheney are soon going to learn that the hard way.
    • Frnnkdlxx, on 10/10/2007, -7/+2I was thinking of staying my lefty trolly self, with Mike Gravel. Then I got all interested because, HEY! A BLACK CANDIDATE WHO DOESN'T HAVE A MOUTH BESIDE HIS THIRD ***** ORIFICE! FINALLY! THIS COUNTRY IS SAAAVED! But then I researched Obama's take on gov't programs, continuation of the welfare state, extending non domestic aid when this cou ntry is already bankrupt: see - http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b5f56ad3dd5.htm
      So, with Mike Gravel being a complete non entity candidate, and me actually wanting to save this country from the psychopaths like cheney and his vice jester bush, i think i'll go with dr. paul. despite all this skullduggery going on, he is actually skyrocketing in all the polls i've looked at: Fox and Haaretz not being one of them.
    • 0zzy, on 10/10/2007, -7/+16I'm more of a Ron Paul man myself.
      • vSuperLuminal, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0You're a woman? Strange. "Ozzy" makes me think "male". Go figure...
    • IAMSMRTK, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9"He's also contributed $2,100 each to Democratic presidential candidates Barack Obama and Chris Dodd,"

      Am I the only one that read the full article or..? You can't damn Hillary for accepting money from News Corp. and then go worship Obama when he's doing the same thing.
      • jdh24, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Fascist scum! How dare you question Obama?
      • Sippi, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3I Damn all of them for taking the money, and for News Corp. for giving it to them. It is obvious now who will get much more "face time" in the news than the rest of the candidates.
  • AKBryant54, on 10/10/2007, -39/+49Hilary is just another sell out, everyone knows that.

    Same goes for Obama, sure, he wants out of Iraq, but you ask him why and he can't even give you a specific reason. Why does that matter? Because he said that he will ***** nuke Iran. He doesn't give a ***** about this country, he just wants to get elected, and is using Iraq accordingly.
    • tehpwnrate, on 10/10/2007, -13/+28He didn't say he would nuke Iran. He said he wouldn't take nukes off the table. No Commander-in-Chief should take nukes off the table. He gave specific reasons as to why Iraq was a mistake in 2002 before the invasion. Saying that after 9/11 was risky. You are simply ignorant as to his policies and what he's said.
      • Rob1430, on 10/10/2007, -8/+20A quote from Obama, "I think it would be a profound mistake for us to use nuclear weapons in any circumstance, involving civilians." He actually seems quite a bit more against using nuclear weapons than Hillary is.
        • m0tbaillie, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Way to take a quote out of context. Here's the FULL quote.

          "I think it would be a profound mistake for us to use nuclear weapons in any circumstance," Obama said, with a pause, "involving civilians." Then he quickly added, "Let me scratch that. There's been no discussion of nuclear weapons. That's not on the table."

          http://english.pravda.ru/news/world/03-08-2007/95612-obama-0

          Ass.
          • SpaceMonkeyZero, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Obama for 5th Grade Model U.N.!
      • AKBryant54, on 10/10/2007, -4/+7Obama has said that he will strike Iran if they were to resist economic and political pressure and continue their nuclear programs. People are afraid that if a Republican is elected we'll go to war with Iran, some people think that war would be possible even within the Bush administration's half term left.

        Obama brags about how he was against the Iraq war from the start, and yet he wants to get us into another middle eastern conflict? Please tell me who the peace candidate is among this political nonsense, because the way I see it, if you pick any front-runner for either party you get to have a new war.
        • tehpwnrate, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5Basically, from Obama's record, I'd trust him to make the call. That's what you do when you vote for a president. I guess we simply disagree on that, which is fine--that's how America works.
        • Frnnkdlxx, on 10/10/2007, -5/+6I think this should go unsaid but... Ron Paul anyone?
          • m0tbaillie, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2Shut the ***** up. You idiots touting RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL all day are going to do nothing but piss off everybody else and alienate the guy's campaign. You're ***** annoying, come off it.
        • card51short, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3But the President doesn't make the call to go to war, that's the thing. It's never in the hands of one sole person.
          • SpaceMonkeyZero, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1The President of the United States has 90 days to do whatever he wants with the military without Congress' approval.
            It's after the 90 days that he would need approval to continue. This was made the case after the Vietnam War I believe.
    • fadeout, on 10/10/2007, -5/+14He said the EXACT opposite about nukes. Your reading comprehension (or trolling) needs work.
      • AKBryant54, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Firstly how does expressing my opinion make me a troll? As far as I can recall this is the first time I've said what I think about Obama on digg, so I'm not exactly a spammer... Secondly my point still stands, He has said the exact same thing about Iran as Bush has, if Obama is elected expect a war with Iran. And not only Iran, but Syria, Lebanon, Pakistan, and any other nation harboring the evil terrorists.
        • pauliusuza, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2US will not be able to afford another war.
          • FriskDown, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1WE CAN'T AFFORD THE ONE WE HAVE!!!
          • Pssdoff, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1You've been buried! Apparently someone believes the US can afford another war. Hell, why not six more wars??? LETS BLOW UP THE ***** MOON! Luckily the US has rivers of gold to pay for it all...
    • wm2010russ, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3and hypocritical edwards took 800k from murdoch... so id add him to the list as well.
    • otheruser, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2@wm2010russ

      That's *****, and you know it.

      He published a book with HarperCollins, a huge publishing company that is owned by News Corp. He EARNED 800,000 dollars from the sale of the book and publishers expenses.
  • airwalkery2k, on 10/10/2007, -9/+114Mike Gravel was right. Follow the money.
    • hiphoc, on 10/10/2007, -2/+18True, I hear Rush Limbagh saying how Hillary is a lock for 08. And I have been hearing that Roger Ailes is helping her to run her campaign. She also meets with Rupert Murdock every week or so to talk strategy. I dont know why the "Liberal" media isnt all over this like Loofah on Bil O's producer. Gravel is right, follow the money, look behind this scenes to see who is running *****. I cant belive we are falling for this dog and pony show again afer the whole Bush shadow Gov't with Cheney and Rove behind the scenes. Its not the person in front of TV everyday you got to worry about. Its the puppet master behind the curtain.
      • Waterrat, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2 So very true...But America has turned into a country of sheep giuded by big business,which runs the show in the background...It's just disgusting.
        • SpaceMonkeyZero, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1You keep telling yourself that.
    • hoovcluck, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Mike Gravel is a no-talent ass-clown.
  • Babykitkat, on 10/10/2007, -18/+8Obama is no Angel both these pigs are EVIL both are in The CFR

    They are Both eat from the same Dog Dish dont be fooled by these clowns

    Watch "Indicting Hillary" The Documentary
    http://www.hillcap.org/default.php?page_id=2


    Sen. Barack Obama’s Stock Deals Questioned
    http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/3/7/112154.shtml

  • drunkentoad, on 10/10/2007, -23/+158 comments in on a political digg story and not one Ron Paul comment yet ! What the hell is going on here ?
    • silverchrysalis, on 10/10/2007, -11/+9i guess the ron paul comment troll is sleeping or something...
    • briansearles, on 10/10/2007, -10/+8Ron Paul wouldn't have accepted those monies!
    • tehpwnrate, on 10/10/2007, -12/+4They brought up Gravel, which is bad enough.
    • Jacob, on 10/10/2007, -5/+8Well the article had nothing to do with Ron Paul so why bring him up? And btw you just did, the anti ron paul people are much more annoying than the spammers imo. (though I am a supporter I don't spam I only bring him up when it directly relates to the topic at hand, which this doesn't)
    • drunkentoad, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2oh, there they are.
    • WickerMan601, on 10/10/2007, -4/+12Well what's with the anti-Ron Paul bias here at Digg? Every time Ron Paul is mentioned that comment is immediately dugg down. Electing Ron Paul is our only chance for saving our government and country.
      • tehpwnrate, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5It's because we see it too much. I understand that he seems a very honest and consistent candidate. But when every single thing has a "RON PAUL 2008 SAVE OUR NATION!!!!!111 [url]" on it, we get sick of it.
    • SpaceMonkeyZero, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Ron Paul killed my dog. I'll never vote for that dog killing bastard!
  • EscapeVelocity, on 10/10/2007, -20/+17I'll take 20,000 dollars from anyone
    • BlackMagic2, on 10/10/2007, -6/+7But would you take it on the conditions that you are essentially in their pocket on certain key issues?
      • jmpeagle, on 10/10/2007, -7/+3they can't take it back
      • Subterfug, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Do you think out of all the millions of dollars of campaign funding Hillary has that $20,000 mades a difference?
    • expert01, on 10/10/2007, -9/+6Exactly. Boo friggin hoo. They can give ME $20k if they want. It's not like she has to actually do anything for them once they hand the money over.
      • BlackMagic2, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6It's not like she's JUST going to get 20k, there will be donations of long periods and, as Escape said, you'd be insane to reject that sort of money, it could mean not getting re-elected in 2012. So what a few issues you give up on, I mean it is 'all for the greater good' right?

    • Frnnkdlxx, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2whores
  • sourwood, on 10/10/2007, -12/+5So would I.
  • JackHorner, on 10/10/2007, -24/+14Ron Paul 2008.
    • 9Digits, on 10/10/2007, -9/+12***** off August 2 2007
      • 0zzy, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5Ron Paul 2008.
        Check when I joined.
        • JebBlack, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2People digg you down if you're passionate about someone who wants to uphold the constitution and supports liberty and freedom? If this is any indication of the direction this country is heading, we're all screwed!
          • SpaceMonkeyZero, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1No, we digg you paulies down because you're so ***** annoying with your ***** constant Ron Paul spam!
    • deadmann, on 10/10/2007, -3/+9It's true. Neo-cons would rather see a Democrat win than Ron Paul. And they will.
      • WilliamDavis, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Yep. They're all on the same team, and they don't need anyone who talks sense getting the attention of Americans. I love how republicans and democrats fall all over themselves trying to pretend they're different. Their followers fall all over themselves repeating the same crap. Go Team!!
      • hoovcluck, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1You are doing too much of your political research on digg. You sound like a fool when you use the term neo-con.

        People will not vote for ron paul because he is a do-nothing naysayer.
    • WickerMan601, on 10/10/2007, -5/+13Electing Ron Paul will be better than voting for a political opportunist like Hilary, an inexperienced token like Obama, and a corporate puppet like Edwards.
      • otheruser, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Wait a minute,

        How is Edwards a corporate puppet? He actually has a very good record of returning lobbyist donations and rejecting "dirty" money.

        Stop making up *****.

        Also, Obama is not inexperienced. Presidents are RARELY political-veterans.
        • SpaceMonkeyZero, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2He's worse... he's a trial attorney who causes us ALL to pay higher premiums on our insurance because of his zany court room antics.

          Google John Edwards and him channeling a dead baby in court!
    • Frnnkdlxx, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2Couldn't have said it better than wickerman

      ....That said, i'm copying and pasting your comment EVERYWHERE! Digg brigade better hurry up and close my account...
  • Daiken, on 10/10/2007, -17/+10Well frig, can't vote for Hilary anymore. Plus after Obama's recent speech, it seems like he's trying to outdo Bush by going into Pakistan, Africa, and Indonesia chasing terrorists without foreign consent. Besides these 2, I don't think any other candidate even stands a chance at getting elected.
    • Rob1430, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Do you mean 'elected' in the general election, or nominated for the democratic ticket? Because according to most recent polls, John Edwards actually matches up the best in head-to-head matches against all of the potential republican candidates, the only one to beat them all. So I'd say others have a chance at getting elected, though he certainly has a lower chance of being nominated.
    • Jacob, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2I can think of a few others that have a chance. Honestly I never thought Hillary had a chance and I still don't, many democrats won't vote for her and most in the middle wouldn't either. As for republicans I doubt she will get any of them to switch and vote for her. If she gets the primary then she effectively splits the democratic party in half and she won't pull anyone else, thus losing the campaign.

      Note that this isn't because she is a woman it's because her politics are insane. And also because many people don't like her on a personal level.
  • enki25, on 10/10/2007, -10/+3It would be news if a politician didn't accept a campaign contribution from anybody. I'd like $20,000 from Fox, but I still think it sucks.
  • notque, on 10/10/2007, -14/+10Angry? Don't know what to do?

    Join our General Strike on 9/11/07!

    Digg up my #1, spread the word. Print out flyers and hand them out. We can make a difference if we choose to have solidarity with one another instead of being isolated.

    We've tried isolated for the last several years. Let's try doing something by not doing something. It's one day. Join us.
    • Osjpr, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5It's so ironic that an attempt to organize protest is getting buried.
      • WilliamDavis, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2Protesting is lame, useless, and ineffective. At most, you get a news-blurb for it. Protest all you want. Unless you're more serious than that, no one will pay attention to you.
        • m0tbaillie, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3If it was really so useless, lame, and ineffective, it wouldn't be hard-written into the Constitution you tool.
  • Me1000, on 10/10/2007, -12/+7Good for her!

  • TheLastFreeMan, on 10/10/2007, -11/+12Well Hillary's out. To the Obama-Mobile!!!
  • f8tbrautmehere, on 10/10/2007, -5/+820k? That's it?
    • DruSam, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Damn cheap-skates at Fox News!
    • WilliamDavis, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I'd like to know what their return will be on the 20k. I bet it's huge.
    • wm2010russ, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1well, edwards himself took 800K from murdoch. so this story is actually funny, in a way.
    • justinjstark, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"20,000 dollars can't even be considered a bribe these days." --Today's epidode of The Fresh Prince of Belaire
  • JinnRikki, on 10/10/2007, -7/+14Old news, she's been playing footsy with Murdoch for a while now. She also gets mucho funding from the banking and pharmecutical industies. Does anyone think she'll turn her back on these cash cows once elected? If you do I have some "stuff" to sell you. They all reek of funny money except for Kucinich, Gravel and Paul and those guys won't sniff an election.
    Politics in the USA, by the rich for the rich.
    • obixx, on 10/10/2007, -7/+1Paul Shmall... enough already.
    • BrewmasterC, on 10/10/2007, -5/+2Please don't mention Dr. Paul with the likes of pinky and the brain.
  • kaidovak, on 10/10/2007, -3/+37It makes sense for Murdoch to do this. When comparing most of the Democrat candidates, Hillary is the least likely to draw any middle or right wing votes. If Hillary wins the primary, it cripples the Democrat campagn as a whole.
  • donkeyshow, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4Proof at least...I knew she was a cyborg. Oh, wait...campaign donations? What??
    • cloudyprison, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Are you Monica Lewinski? *Fires laser beams from her eyes*
  • nekochan, on 10/10/2007, -5/+9i don't even know who to vote for anymore. hillary's still too republican for my tastes ("looked to god" during the whole monica incident) and obama is overmarketed and trying his hardest to get the myspace vote. i guess either Gore or this guy: http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Move_Over_Ron_Paul_A_Werewolf_is_Running_for_President
    • Jacob, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Gore is not running and has said so many times. Also don't put categorize religious as being republican. I know many democrats who are also Christians and many republicans who are atheist.
  • siszam, on 10/10/2007, -8/+8We're voting for Edwards because he supports universal healthcare.........unless he totally screws up. Hillary has too many similarities to Bush.
    • Barbarino, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1We can't afford universal HC if John puts his 400 dollar hair cut on the tax payers dime. He has 0% chance of winning, your vote is a vote for a Rep you just don't know it.
    • angers, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1what makes you think that Hillary has too many similarities to Bush?
    • otheruser, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1@Barbarino

      Are you saying that the rich can't and shouldn't help the poor?

      Edwards has done an INCREDIBLE amount for poverty issues in America.
  • Deliman, on 10/10/2007, -8/+20fox news is so corrupt it makes me sick
    • ominpotent123, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Maybe so, but what the hell has that to do with this column? 20k is actually a pretty freakin small amount of cash for a corporation of that size to give anyone, and it's not like they were secretive about it here. They do, the last time I checked, have the legal right to give donations to anyone they want to. I guess I just don't see where corruption comes into play here. If I am missing something, though, please let me know.
    • hoovcluck, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Fox slanting to the right is nothing compared to CBS news and Dan Rather forging documents in a last ditch effort to change the outcome of an election.
  • minox, on 10/10/2007, -10/+6John Edwards is just trying to bring everyone down to his level. His pettiness has no end.
  • mcmullet, on 10/10/2007, -3/+12Who cares - they are all corrupt anyway.
  • Wartyboskfapped, on 10/10/2007, -12/+16She's a stupid bitch.
  • PabloMac, on 10/10/2007, -12/+5And the rest of news media isn't biased to the left...
    • lennyrrt, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I suppose in the marching band you were the ONLY one that was "in step."
    • hoovcluck, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Shouldn't you be digging stories in the apple section?
  • discozone2, on 10/10/2007, -6/+6hahaha and the redneck bible readers thought fox news was conservative!!! wait until fox news changes from pro bush to pro hillary.
    • mepol, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Fox will be for whoever furthers THEIR agenda.
      • JebBlack, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I can see it now, Hannity praising Hillary for sticking with the War On terror. Lmao And a bunch of dumbocrats that voted for her, all pissed off.
    • vSuperLuminal, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Good going discozone2! You just potentially offended two very large and overlapping demographics in one sentence with your bigoted close-minded attitude! Way to show your hypocritical leftist tendency! Grow up kiddy.
      • discozone2, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1haha very funny no wonder you have 0 diggs. your comment had nothing to do with the article. go hide under your yellow magnetic ribbons.
  • garethrr1, on 10/10/2007, -3/+14Hey,

    Not being American, I am just wondering why the "General strike" post has been dugg down 6 times? Without putting up my own foreign opinion can I ask what your thoughts are about this strike?

    Peaceful protests are basically a weekly event in many of the countries in Europe and it seems, as much as America "the land of the free" touts its freedom, I don't really SEE anyone exercising it.

    I have total respect for the general population of America as I would any other human being. I do however feel that as an international identity, "America", is becoming more and more hypocritical/nasty without the slightest amount of internal resistance. (I am talking a per capita comparison with the smaller Euro Nations.)

    Individuals PLEASE take notice that I am speaking of the international identity and not the people!

    As an outsider I would love to hear some internal viewpoints on this.
    • rokinroj, on 10/10/2007, -2/+12Sadly, you are right. However, the part that you may not be aware of (since you are out of the country) is that due to a very clever campaign spin created by Carl Rove during the last presidential elections, anyone who speaks out or has an opinion about anything, is considered an anti-American, god hating, Iraqi loving, hippie. Even while the president and the congress have barely one quarter of the countries support, speaking out against them still makes you a "nut-job wacko". It's the craziest thing. I envy Europeans ability to mobilize and make changes.
      • garethrr1, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6You are right, being outside it all means everything I hear has passed through the standard 100 BS filters. Which definitely attributes to my careful (walking on egg shells) approach to my original post.

        From what you are saying, it is both relieving and worrying that American people, in their vast majority, must be/feel so disempowered to form a nation which actually reflects their values.

        I dont really know what to say. We here in Australia are heading down the exact same path and I too envy many of the European nations (although who undoubtedly have a lot of other issues)

        Seems to me that this whole thing in massively unsustainable (Maybe not in our life time, but I wouldn't be surprised). Any environmental issues aside, how can we conceivable continue living in the long term when so much power is being wielded by such dictator like regimes.

        Very worrying indeed.

        I plan to buy a property on a hill and grow all the food I could ever need.
    • minox, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5The reason these movements don't get much support is because they are promoted by conspiracy theorists who profess to know the inner workings of the US government, while they still can't grasp the proper spelling of "Karl Rove."
    • tmick7, on 10/10/2007, -6/+0As an American, here's my viewpoint: mind your own business.
      • gogun, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I need the money, I am not taking a day off
      • awesomeface, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3wouldn't it be impressive if the US and Americans minded their own business too?
  • justinp, on 10/10/2007, -14/+4So. *****. What.
  • DMCer, on 10/10/2007, -8/+3How much more stupid can you idiots get?! It's impossible for News Corp. to "donate" to any single campaigner. The most they could do is donate to PACs. 2 words: campaign finance.
  • barktwiggs, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3So, is Alan Colmes not allowed to donate to his favorite candidate because he works at Fox?
    • WilliamDavis, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Actually, he's not allowed to donate because he's an alien. (not an illegal alien... just a space alien)
  • davebg8r, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Because a TV station has bias leaning away from you is exactly the reason you should go on their network. Why talk to only people who agree with you? In order to win, you need people from the other side to vote for you. I know its not many people, just about 50% of America.

    Democrats dont need to worry about avoiding things with a rightwing bias, the public is more than happy to avoid the democrats.
  • daxsymbiont, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2let's not forget he got donations from medicare after seizing fighting them and she would be nothing without her husband.
  • bimtott, on 10/10/2007, -3/+19The real news isn't that Clinton accepted 20K from Fox, but that Fox gave 20K to Clinton
    • Hacbarton, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Actually, it seems the most likely that this would happen. The Republican field isn't looking great for mainstream Republicans, so the conservative world is hooking up with the most conservative Democrat. After all, the only thing they disliked about her was her health care stance, which she's since dropped.
    • gpollard, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Exactly! How much money have CNN or MSNBC folks given to Republicans? My guess is < 20K
  • seomike, on 10/10/2007, -3/+0Poor guy, hes just feeling left out. The Soros money is going to Obama. Hillary's got a nice base of supporters as well as Bill. What it all boils down to is he's a loser. His money has always come from the slip and fall lawyers and even they aren't stupid enough to throw their money at someone that couldn't even win the popular vote back in 04.

    As for Fox giving 20k to Hillary...Well duh, if she wins the nomination that big news, they're just securing future viewers. Nothing wrong with that IMO. The longer she stays in the race the more news they can spew.
  • davin510, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3What should she do instead? Reject the 20k and make a very powerful political and social enemy? 20k is nothing to these politicians; this is nothing more than a sign of political correctness on behalf of both parties.
    • WilliamDavis, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3No. It's a sign that the bed is open for anyone with money. Edwards is just mad that nobody wants to sleep with him.
  • JackHorner, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7We saw it all through the 20th Century. And now on the 21st Century, it's time to stand up and realize, that we should NOT allow ourselves to be crammed into this rat maze. We should not SUBMIT to dehumanization. I don't know about you, but I'm concerned with what's happening in this world. I'm concerned with the structure. I'm concerned with the systems of control. Those that control my life, and those that seek to control it EVEN MORE! I want FREEDOM! That's what I want, and that's what YOU should want! It's up to each and every one of us to turn loose of just some of the greed, the hatred, the envy, and yes, the insecurities, because that is the central mode of control, make us feel pathetic, small, so we'll willingly give up our sovereignty, our liberty, our destiny. We have GOT to realize we're being conditioned on a mass scale. Start challenging this corporate slave state! The 21st Century's gonna be a new century! Not the century of slavery, not the century of lies and issues of no significance, of classism and statism, and all the rest of the modes of control... it's gonna be the age of humankind, standing up for something PURE and something RIGHT! What a bunch of garbage, liberal, Democratic, conservative, Republican, it's all there to control you, two sides of the same coin! Two management teams, bidding for control of the CEO job of Slavery Incorporated! The TRUTH is out there in front of you, but they lay out this buffet of LIES! I'm SICK of it, and I'M NOT GONNA TAKE A BITE OUT OF IT! DO YA GOT ME? Resistance is NOT futile, we're gonna win this thing, humankind is too good, WE'RE NOT A BUNCH OF UNDERACHIEVERS, WE'RE GONNA STAND UP, AND WE'RE GONNA BE HUMAN BEINGS! WE'RE GONNA GET FIRED UP ABOUT THE REAL THINGS, THE THINGS THAT MATTER - CREATIVITY, AND THE *DYNAMIC* *HUMAN* *SPIRIT* THAT REFUSES TO *SUBMIT*! WELL THAT'S IT, that's all I've got to say. It's in your court now.
    • mashw, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2It's impossible! You're just like, on a higher level of consciousness to all us sheeple. Cry y'all.
    • Osjpr, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1It will take a lot of sadistic fools in government to aid and abet the revolution. Somehow I don't see that happening, since that would go against their evil nature.
    • polyGone, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Was that from Waking Life?
    • vSuperLuminal, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0One word, JackHorner: Valium.
  • ndonohue, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5here's an idea- why don't we stop these "donations" (read: bribes) from happening AT ALL?
  • Sazime, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Wow, a 20K donation to a Dem. How much have the conservative candidates received? Does anyone look at these numbers? Anyone? Or are you all knee jerkers?
  • felyduw, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4I'm amazed at the quality of political discussion on digg.
  • akirakurosawa, on 10/10/2007, -12/+2Giulliani all the way baby...
  • filmbandit, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2if edwards gave a ***** he'd make an issue of media consolidation across the board -- these assholes have all been bought and sold
    • Osjpr, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1That would be political suicide, wouldn't it? The media control the media and what is shown and not shown. Also, that wouldn't help the average idiots who are too clueless to know better.
    • wm2010russ, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1why would edwards do that when hes making 800k from murdoch as well?
    • otheruser, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Actually, Edwards HAS:

      "John Edwards Rails Against Corporate Media Conspiracy"
      http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/john_edwards_rails_against_corporate_media_conspiracy/

      There's a reason that Edwards gets the least amount of press coverage...
      • hoovcluck, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1He gets the least amount of press coverage because he talks about two Americas.

        He is a champion of the poor and gets a 2,000 dollar hair cut!

        He is a champion of the environment and global warming but clear-cuts hundreds of trees to build a 28,000 sq ft mansion.

        He is a champion of cheaper health care but is responsible for rising health care costs because he got rich suing hospitals.

        Edwards gets the least amount of press coverage because he is a ***** hypocrite!
  • mashw, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1So long as this information is made public and people can decide for themselves on these things I don't see anything wrong in this.
  • bobbilljoe, on 10/10/2007, -6/+12Ron Paul 2008 ! The only guy who will try and bring order and honnesty to the corrupt system.
    • allan17, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1He doesn't support universal healthcare, doesn't care what the companies do to the internet and while many of his ideas seem good, they simply won't work.
  • obxjdt, on 10/10/2007, -6/+3Edwards is an idiot!
    Fox (like it or not) is rated #1. Seems to me that the Dem's would want to appear on Fox to get their message out. No point in going on Hardball (pMSNBC), and preaching to the choir, they already have that vote...
  • bwhancock, on 10/10/2007, -5/+7$20,000 - I wish Edwards would put this in terms I understand like..

    "Hillary took the equivalent of 500 haircuts from....."
  • caponumen, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Least I have to remind you, QUACK QUACK QUACK.........
    • m0tbaillie, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, looks like a duck...
    • fobio, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0ducks fly together?
  • JohnnyXmas, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2All I'm saying is, if George W Bush himself came up to me, and said "Hey, here's $20,000, go buy yourself some tacos." I'd be making a trip to the bank.

    And then the liquor store.
    • fobio, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0he gave you tax breaks buddy. dems just want to take it from you. lol
  • sol2006, on 10/10/2007, -0/+120K is 20K whether it comes from Fox, CNN, PBS or even Jesus. I see no problem in her accepting that kind of money, I'd probably do the same. And I dare anyone to stare 20K in the face and say "No, I think I'm good, I don't like Fox."
  • myxyplik, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Hillary has always been a shill for the media conglomerates. If she gets elected, expect DRM to be the law of the land.
    • vSuperLuminal, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Dugg down for use of the over-used word, "shill".
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 79 of 79 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.