Why is media not in 'feeding frenzy' over Democrats' Edwards, Clinton?
Editor:
//
I love how the leftist media and numerous Democrats chastise George Bush, Dick Cheney, Alberto Gonzales, et al. for not surrendering documents that the administration deems "privileged," yet there was not a word about Hillary Clinton's papers from her days as First Lady being off limits.
Why? She was not an elected or appointed individual, nor was she a government employee; in short, she was a civilian. So I ask, what was she doing that warrants her papers (being) hands off? Why are the network media afraid to pursue this with half as much fervor as it is Bush, Cheney and Gonzales? At least these three can logically and credibly present executive privilege arguments.
Since I worked in the U.S. Senate and attended the Senate's Whitewater hearings in 1995, I have a pretty good hypothesis as to why Hillary and friends would want to keep her writings censored from the public. Come on, lefties, give your patented "the people have a right to know" battle cry and then call those who stand in your way "Nazis."
Speaking of Democratic favoritism, John Edwards - Mr. Two Americas, Mr. $400-haircut, the one who went to New Orleans and announced his candidacy by sparking the DNC's rich vs. poor modus operandi: Edwards has approximately $16 million invested in Fortress Investment Group, a private-equity fund, which is fine in and of itself.
But: The Wall Street Journal reports that 34 homeowners in New Orleans have faced foreclosure suits from Fortress' units. Wow. Just think that in April Edwards said to a New Orleans crowd that sub prime mortgage companies' "shameful lending practices" are a threat to millions of homeowners. John certainly would know, wouldn't he?
The FEC reports that middle-class-John worked from Fortress in 2005-2006 and received $479,512 for part-time work. From January 2006-June 2006, Fortress employees have donated more than $150,000 to the Edwards campaign; this represents his largest class of donors.
Let's see, what else? This month, John lambasted Hillary for accepting more than $20,000 in contributions from News Corp., which is owned by Rupert Murdoch. John whined that Fox News is biased and that Democrats should avoid News Corp. Very well then.
Hey John, News Corps' subsidiary, HarperCollins, gave you a $500,000 advance for your must-read Home: The Blueprints of our Lives. Do you care to comment, John? Will you return the money?
These are facts, yet the diehard Democrats will somehow justify this nonsense and blame George Bush. Why is the media not in a feeding frenzy over John taking peoples' homes and Hillary hiding her papers? And you call Fox biased and Republicans corrupt. At least Fox puts Colmes on with Hannity.
Lee Benedict
Martinez