BOY the media must really think Edwards is a serious threat. guess what there talking about now

[bigdarryl]

this book that was done and they saying that the money from the book that went to charity according to Edwards NOW the media are saying his daughter and his deputy campaign manager received most of the money.I have a felling that the media is afraid of Edwards he gets more scrutinized than any other candidate on the democrat side. my question is who's feeding the media this info on Edwards?

[AlCzervik]

1. who is "there" and what book are you talking about?

[bigdarryl]

4. he wrote a book some time ago. i forgot what it was about

[AlCzervik]

7. do you any links at all? I don't know who is spreading what from your op

and when i say link i mean something not from Drudge.

[Adelante]

21. Here's one, chimps

http://www.newsobserver.com/politics/politicians/edwards/story/668031.html

But the OP is referring to the Politico, I believe. However, the OP even misrepresents what Politico said. As I read it, Cate Edwards was paid out of expenses for her editorial work, as was the other co-author. John Edwards has said every penny of his earnings went to charity. He did not say his daughter's earnings went to charity. So this is bullshit.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0807/5345.html

But neither article said Cate Edwards is taking money that was supposed to go to charity as has been intimated in this thread.

[penguin7]

53. So Edwards said that he gave all the money to charity,

but his daughter got money in expenses.

This is another in a long list of problems for Edwards if it is true.

[Adelante]

60. His daughter was co-author

There were three co-authors including Edwards himself. It's not like he gifted her share to her and to the deputy campaign manager. They earned it on their own. As I understand it, he gave his income from the project to charity. I don't think it's a problem unless he persists in not disclosing the numbers and contract terms. He should just come out with it and get it over with.

[penguin7]

68. But he said he kept none of the money and gave it all to charity,

except for the part he gave to his daughter.

There is a problem.

[Adelante]

69. I'm not so sure of that

His advance was $500,000 - this is what he says he gave to charity. There was a separate expense account of $300,000 which paid the other two co-authors. It wasn't a gift to his daughter, but a payment for her own work - her money, not his, and she's under no obligation to give her earnings to charity. Unless Edwards changes his mind and proceeds with transparency on this, though, anybody can making anything they want of it. That's certainly a problem for him. And the whole thing plays into the Edwards as hypocrite thing, telling other people they shouldn't take Murdoch money, shouldn't go on Fox, when he's taken Murdoch money himself. In addition, it's just plain stupid politically for him to have started this anti-Murdoch crusade knowing full well Murdoch had this hanging over him.

[slick8790]

71. HE didn't give anything to his daughter.

The publishing company gave it to her as an editor and co-author. Am I to understand he's supposed to force his daughter to donate the money she earned?

[penguin7]

78. But Edwards said that every penny went to charity

http://youtube.com/watch?v=kMM0_lOVTh8

This is disingenuous.

[Bongo Prophet]

81. Well, that does it then. First he pays people for cutting his hair...and TIPS them!

...and then he talks about doing something for workers, poverty issues while having a BIG HOUSE!
(unlike other people with money to run)
...and now he pays co-authors, editors and such?

What is wrong with a man's morals that he would PAY them for their work? With money, no less. Sheesh.
OUTRAGE!


Every cent of HIS SHARE of the PROFITS is how that usually works, Mr. Penguin, sir.
At least that is how I took it.

Edited for civility. ;)

[penguin7]

82. I have a problem with him building a 28,000 sq foot house also

It does not send the message that we need to save the environment. He must have known that he might run for president when he decided to build the house. These types of houses are the wrong thing for Mother earth.

But he said every dime that Harper Collins gave me went to charity. He did not say his share of the profits. If he was forthright, he would have said then and there that his daughter was paid for her expenses.

[Bongo Prophet]

83. Umm, actually I was being sarcastic about that.

The house is a multi-use home, office and lodgings for guests, secret service, family--IOW, not a big deal to me.
Some solar and well insulated energy footprint helps that.
Do you know if they are paying carbon credits?

Maybe a clarification on the profits would help us figure that out.
Does a publisher pay the author gross profits, which he then has to further distribute to all others involved, like co-authors, editors, printers, distributors, etc?
I really really don't think so.

Seriously, do you believe that?
Anybody in publishing here?
Harper Collins gives Edwards a big ass check and then he has to distribute it?

Wow....

[AlCzervik]

56. thank you for the links, i appreciate it.

[Triana]

24. i think he meant "they're" (n/t)

[Chipper Chat]

2. He works in the White House

and his name rhymes with stove.

[Colobo]

3. I don't know why it is, but whatever the reason

the media is trying to destroy a good man.

[Supersedeas]

89. meanwhile, the Rethugs candidates get a free ride (Odd ain't it)

[Stand and Fight]

5. there...

They are

OR

They're


=================

Democrat side??? Try Democratic side...


Also -- try some punctuation. It would help to get your point across better. :eyes:


Good, if questionable, points though.

[RufusTFirefly]

6. Also being discussed on this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1571133

[JDPriestly]

17. RufusTFirefly

I quote from the article you cite to:

Murdoch and his company have made a habit of doing favors to politicians. If Edwards got a good deal on his book, it was pocket change compared to the $4.5 million advance HarperCollins offered former House Speaker Newt Gingrich at the height of his power.

The company has also published books by Republican Senators Trent Lott, Arlen Specter, and Chuck Hagel and Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. (The website Gawker offered the headline: "News Corp.: 'News Corp. Book Contracts Aren't Donations Unless We Give Them To Democrats Who Don't Like Us.'")

I wonder how much Lott, Specter, Hagel and Thomas got and what they did with it. Also, $500,000 is a lot less than the $4.5 million advance given Gingrich.

There is no discussion regarding what Edwards' daughter and aide did with their money. Maybe they gave all or part of it to charities. $300,000 divided by 2 is $150,000 each. We do not know what expenses they had in addition to being paid themselves.

This information obviously comes from sources controlled by Murdoch and are therefore very suspect.

I would also like to add that Hillary will suffer from this. She has rudely attacked Obama, treating him with condescension in public in debates. If you recall, that snobby attitude is exactly what got Gore into trouble in 2000. He was accused of sighing at Bush in the debates. Now, personally I thought the accusations against Gore were exaggerated, but they were effective. Ordinary people tend to side with the person being ridiculed as stupid. It's OK to criticize what other candidates say on the issues, but Hillary's statements have been ad hominem attacks on Obama. That is a stupid strategy because one of Obama's biggest strengths is his personability -- his natural charisma. Unlike Bill, Hillary does not have that. She cannot afford to be attacking the other candidates about who they are.

Murdoch is not the friend of any Democrat and Hillary needs to realize that. Murdoch is a conservative Republican. It is just a fact. This article on Edwards is not only intended to hurt Edwards, but also to drive a wedge between Edwards' supporters and Hillary. And it is effective. Hillary should come out and denounce the attack, apologize for her condescension toward Obama and give back her Murdoch money. Whether she likes it or not, by taking Murdoch's money, Hillary accepts responsibility for the Murdoch enterprises' dirty tricks.

Hillary needs to run on her own ability to attract voters, not on big money's ability to buy voters. If she ran on her own, it would be a fair contest -- one which I frankly don't think she would win.

[rasputin1952]

57. A book by "Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas"...now THAT is

funny!

Thomas has written some 700 words since he's been on the bench, and suddenly he is the author of a book...:rofl:

Must be like Hannity's famous, "no words over 5 letters in MY book".

For crying out loud, if I wanted a book from the RW, I'd pick one up in the produce aisle at the local store...just where the content would come from. :eyes:

[JDPriestly]

66. I wonder how much he was paid. Probably more than $500,000.

The stuff of a best seller no doubt. LOL

[rasputin1952]

72. I figure he'd have to pay a publisher....

:evilgrin:

The man is an idiot, a true embarrassment. And Poppy said this guy was the, "most competent man for the job"...sort of like a "stick, meet stupid" moment...:D

[Vincardog]

8. Who's feeding the media this info? Either KKKR or they just make it up.

[shadowrider]

9. Are you not the least bit concerned

That this article may be true? And if so, are you not concerned that money given voluntarily, by ordinary citizens, is not going to it's intended use but into the pocket of the person running the charity? IMHO, anyone, of any party, that runs a charity and pockets the cash is no better than a common theif.

I will grant you that it is patently unfair to go after Edwards for something his daughter MAY be doing.

[Adelante]

14. You are way off

From what I've read it's nothing whatsoever like that.

[Joe Chi Minh]

15. Not in the slightest. If he's always 100% it will be a bonus.

You know, malefactors of a certain turpitude can never persuade even half-sensible people, even if they could twist their mouths round sufficiently to tell the truth.

It is, after all, glaringly obvious to anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear, that Edwards has more patriotism in his little finger than any of these right wingers and their media minions would have in their whole body.

Correction. It didn't even concern Edwards, personally.

[JDPriestly]

73. The money was payment for writing a book, not charitable donations

from ordinary citizens. Please read the initial post. Welcome to DU.

[alfredo]

79. The good charities keep administrative costs low.

That's something you should check on with any charity you think of supporting. How much actually goes to the charity?

[Benhurst]

10. Recommended #5

[madrchsod]

11. it`s a fucking hit piece on edwards

anyone that can`t see that needs to read it very carefully and they`ll see it`s all bullshit.

[Catchawave]

39. Clever editing on DU methinks :)

I consider the thread starters, then sigh deeply. Ick. :rofl:

[MADem]

12. Gee, "they" are doing a shitty job of spreading this story. First I've heard of it is here. NT

[The Backlash Cometh]

13. Just listening how petty this argument has gotten only strengthens Edward's hand.

Because the media, which has dropped just about every major investigation piece on Bush, is now going after Edward's daughter!

[Joe Chi Minh]

23. Precisely. The right don't get. Don't want to. That's their misfortune.

[DemBones DemBones]

16. Another thread claims "they" fear Obama. . .

:shrug:

[JDPriestly]

74. They probably do also fear Obama. They fear anyone they can't control.

And Obama and Edwards are refusing to take their campaign donations. I am not worried about whether Edwards or Obama took money from the hogs like Murdoch in the past. I can forgive their mistakes. What matters to me is whether they are taking their money this year. As long as Edwards and Obama are not taking corporate money this year, I'm OK with their saying they are not taking corporate money for their campaigns. If they received money such as the Harper book deal in the past, I'm really not concerned about it.

Name the Republican candidate who is not taking corporate funds. Schwarzenegger accused Gray Davis of taking money and being influenced by the donors' interests. Schwarzenegger ran on the promise that he would not need or accept corporate donations for his campaign. As soon as he was elected, Schwarzenegger started taking corporate money and has taken more than Gray Davis could have dreamed of taking.

This attempt to blacken Edwards' reputation is sheer idiocy on the part of Republicans. It suggests that there is something wrong with taking money for writing a book -- and as we see, Republicans do it all the time and tend to get paid more than Edwards by far for books with less reader interest.

[Adelante]

18. Not a hard question at all

And the source has been covered: Murdoch. He's pushing back on Edwards' attacks. What's the mystery?

[hijinx87]

19. the timing isn't suspicious

he recently called hillary out for taking murdock money. now it turns out
he did, too.

I don't see the mystery.

[Mojorabbit]

20. I have no favorites in this race

yet. Still I don't like anyone on the Dem side taking money from Rupert Murdoch.

[cui bono]

47. He held a fundraiser for Hillary.

Murdoch fund-raiser for Clinton creates buzz
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12762092/

Rupert Murdoch Loves Hillary Clinton
Conservative Media Mogul To Host Fundraiser For Liberal N.Y. Senator
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/05/09/politics/main1600694.shtml

Hillary Clinton Defends Rupert Murdoch Fund-Raiser
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/5/10/100030.shtml

Murdoch Defends Plan to Host Hillary Fundraiser; Calls Her 'Effective, Good Senator'
http://www.humanevents.com/blog-detail.php?id=14727

[JDPriestly]

75. Hillary has taken money this campaign. Edwards and Obama have not.

I want to know what they are doing during this campaign.

And, by the way, no Republican is refusing corporate money. So if you are going to vote, you are probably going to vote for Edwards or Obama who are not taking corporate money or Hillary and the Republicans who are.

[Cameron27]

22. He should have disclosed everything

about the book deal before he challenged his opponents to give back their money. Of course the fact that his daughter and campaign manager received money from Murdoch's going to be used against him.

He's not being scrutinized more than the any other candidates, he's just been more careless than they have. (campaign paying for haircut, hedge fund involved in off-shore tax shelters, the poverty center/campaign employment issue; if you throw them meat, the sharks are going to bite)

[JDPriestly]

76. The book deal was not made this year. It has nothig to do with this campaign.

It was pay for work on a book Harpers wanted. This is utter nonsense.

[Triana]

25. Repigs and their operatives are afraid Edwards might win and then change the status quo...

...that keep them and their friends in business swimming in record profits - THAT'S what the problem is. So, they've targeted Edwards so they can swiftboat him to prevent it from happening.

[struggle4progress]

26. Senator Clinton got an $8 million book advance

Hillary Clinton Book Advance, $8 Million, Is Near Record
By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK
Published: December 16, 2000
... Eight publishing houses bid for the book. HarperCollins and Time Warner's books division dropped out on Tuesday. The German media company von Holtzbrinck Group's St. Martin's Press and Farrar, Straus & Giroux, as well as one of the media giant Bertelsmann's houses, left bids on the table until the end. The finalists included the British media company Pearson's Penguin Putnam division and Walt Disney Company's Talk Miramax Books ... http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE2DD1739F935A25751C1A9669C8B63

[Cameron27]

28. Clinton didn't go onstage and challenge everyone

to give up anything from anybody, Edwards did. He's lucky that Hillary doesn't challenge him to have his daughter give back the money.

[struggle4progress]

31. Somehow I missed Edwards asking the Senator to return her book advance. Got a link?

[Cameron27]

35. He asked her to give Murdoch's money back,

while his daughter was taking it. Do you not see hypocrisy?

[struggle4progress]

38. And I somehow missed Edwards taking campaign contribs from Murdoch. Got a link?

Conservative Cash For Sen. Clinton: Rupert Murdoch Quietly Supports Senator's Re-Election Campaign
NEW YORK, July 18, 2006
(CBS/AP) Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., attended a fundraiser Monday for her Senate re-election campaign hosted by conservative media mogul Rupert Murdoch ...
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/18/politics/main1816866.shtml

[Cameron27]

44. Look if he thinks Murdoch's money's dirty,

it's ALL dirty...even the money Edwards, and his daughter, and his campaign manager take from his book. His name and his book can now be exploited by Murdoch for the company's benefit, even if he gets no money from it.

[struggle4progress]

54. Edwards took a clear stand against media consolidation. Here's the quote,

and it shows he doesn't want Dems politically indebted to the mega-media:

Murdoch 'WSJ' Takeover Enters 2008 Presidential Race -- As Edwards Demands Hillary Return His Money
By E&P Staff
Published: August 02, 2007 12:20 PM ET

“News Corp’s purchase of the Dow Jones Co. and The Wall Street Journal should be the last straw when it comes to media consolidation," Edwards said ... "I’m challenging every Democratic presidential candidate to refuse contributions from News Corp executives and return any they've already taken, beginning with Rupert Murdoch."

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003620546

[Cameron27]

62. I think we'll have to agree to disagree

because in my opinion, if he was going to attack Murdoch and demand that others return his money, then he was wrong to take any money at all from Murdoch himself. Returning campaign contributions isn't going to send a protest against media consolidation any better than his (or his daughter) returning Murdoch's money from his book advance IMO.

[JDPriestly]

77. The book was not published until November 2006.

Edwards and his daughter presumably received their advances well before it was actually published. The book is a group of stories about people's homes. It probably required quite a lot of research, travel, photographic, editing and organizational work. A first time novelist would not get a tiny portion of the advance given the Edwards. But the amount of an advance usually relates more to how well known the author is than the amount of work. Edwards' book was written after the 2004 election, but before the declared his candidacy for this campaign.

Edwards' advance was too small to qualify as a pay-off or improper payment.

[Cameron27]

84. Maybe,

I hope he releases a statement with the exact figures he donated to charity though.

[saracat]

87. What does his daughter have do do with anything? Is anyone checking out Chelsea?

Has Hillary paid her anything? She did do some fundraising! Sheesh.I do see the hypocrisy but it isn't from the Edward's camp!

[NYCGirl]

33. Her publisher is not owned by Rupert Murdoch, so why should she give it back?

[struggle4progress]

40. Who asked her to give it back? Some of us can distinguish a book deal from a campaign contribution.

[struggle4progress]

27. Giuliani got a $3 million book advance

February 1, 2001
Giuliani to Get $3 Million In Book Deal With Ex-Foes
By ELISABETH BUMILLER
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D02E3D6173EF932A35751C0A9679C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print

[struggle4progress]

29. Obama got a $1.9 million book advance

Article published Jul 18, 2007
Here’s what the Democratic candidates are worth
http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070718/NEWS08/207180343&template=printart

[NYCGirl]

32. His publishers aren't owned by Murdoch, though. NT

[struggle4progress]

41. You've lost me. Edwards book advance doesn't seem unethical or even exceptionally large.

[NYCGirl]

42. When you're slamming Murdoch, you don't want to have taken money from him.

[struggle4progress]

43. So Clinton, who shunned the Fox News "debate" after taking Murdoch's donations, is a hypocrite?

[Colobo]

45. Yes.

[struggle4progress]

46. No, Random House is owned by Bertelsmann, which profited by slave labor in the Nazi era

Is it your contention Obama therefore cannot criticize Nazi slave labor, say?

[Colobo]

49. Nazis, 1930s. Murdoch, 2007.

Big difference.

[struggle4progress]

52. How long ago it seems, may depend on whether or not you know people involved.

Bertelsmann denied any involvement until fairly recently:


Tuesday, 8 October, 2002, 06:33 GMT 07:33 UK
Bertelsmann admits Nazi past
German media giant Bertelsmann has admitted it lied about its Nazi past and that it made big profits during Adolf Hitler's reign in Germany using Jewish slave labour ~snip~ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2308415.stm

[struggle4progress]

55. I don't want to give the wrong impression here: I don't think Obama inking a deal with Random House

was wrong, nor do I think it could or should keep him from condemning the past of the German corporate owner.

[struggle4progress]

30. McCain has received multiple book advance payments

Stocks and Speeches Fatten Wallets of Presidential Contenders
Article Tools Sponsored By
By JAMES DAO
Published: May 19, 1999
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A02E0D9133EF93AA25756C0A96F958260

... As a two-book advance, Random House had paid McCain $500000 ...
http://books.google.com/books?id=9jN5cwr_YIwC&pg=PA194&lpg=PA194&dq=mccain+%22book+advance%22+-clinton+-murphy+-nader&source=web&ots=PkQ979B3WF&sig=Jw6CkHbUUbM2AE3xLCmGwhX0PyQ

[wyldwolf]

34. IF and I mean IF Edwards said he donated the money to charity but didn't, it is a legitimate story.

Sorry.

The money is Murdoch money. Edwards wagged his finger at Clinton for taking Murdoch money. If Edwards kept it, it is a fair story.

[Adelante]

36. What I don't understand is how

he didn't see this coming. So weird. I haven't seen that he didn't donate the money to charity as he's said, but he will have to release the figures if he wants this one to settle. I agree with you completely that he has no business throwing stones from his glass house. But still. How the hell did he not think Murdoch would react and use this? I seriously don't get how Edwards' mind works.

[Pyrzqxgl]

51. I can't figure out how anti Edwards DU minds work.

It seems this was awhile ago and it was his daughter, not him.
At any rate if this continues to be an issue we'll need a proper
explanation.

[Adelante]

67. Well, they were co-authors on the book project

And he's the one running for president. And he's the one with an anti-Murdoch campaign going. So it's him.

But there seems to be confusion in this thread about the money.

There was a $500,000 advance, which seems to be what Edwards received and says he gave out to charities.

There was a $300,000 expense account, which is where the daughter and campaign manager were paid from as co-authors.

So the money supposed to have gone to charity is separate from the daughter's money, which I think should absolve her of criticism, as she is not running for president, she did the work and was paid for it - if I understand it all correctly.

As far as Edwards himself is concerned, I think it was a knuckle headed move on his part to go on this crusade against Murdoch without disclosing up front that he'd had this business dealing with a Murdoch company. He had to know it was just a matter of time before Murdoch would expose it. As ever, Edwards will have to reap what he sows, but I don't like to see his daughter dragged through the mud.

[Cameron27]

86. I've recosidered the daughter aspect of this

and I was too hard on her. You're right, if the money's separate, then she shouldn't be part of the criticism.

[Colobo]

48. Obama makes me proud- no ties with Murdoch.

[Cameron27]

50. Very smart move on his part

especially since this Murdoch thing's heating up. And he made big bucks for his books, so you've got a right to feel proud.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

88. He's received $14,000 in campaign contributions from News. Corp executives nt

[frogcycle]

91. glad you found something to be proud of n/t

[Catchawave]

37. OP - reference please. n/t

[rasputin1952]

58. Why is there a problem w/his daughter and another being paid for their

work?

If Edwards gave HIS portion to charity, that is what counts, which makes the entire story BS. Edwards kept up on his end of the bargain, this is a non-story, and something Limbaugh will distort tomorrow.

Sheesh, why the fury? Most of us know this is garbage.

[penguin7]

59. Nepotism is always an issue, and it should be.

[rasputin1952]

61. There are hundreds of people who are paid to edit/proofread/etc

books all the time, friends, family etc. Who edited Thaomas's "book", I'm willing to bet his wife ghost-wrote it, Thomas is an idiot and can't put 2 sentences together in his decisions!

If Edward's daughter is qualified and did what she was supposed to do, I don't see that as nepotism...:shrug:

Someone got paid for work done, no biggie. This is a non-story....unless she got something like a million dollars or something as ludicrous as that.

[Cameron27]

63. I doubt the story will go away until he releases the

exact figures on his charity donations.

[rasputin1952]

64. Probably not, although this is the first I've heard of it...

once the screechmonkies on the Right get hold of it, they will run it into the ground w/all kinds of disinformation and obfuscations.

If Edwards is smart, he'll come out tomorrow w/facts and figures...kill this thing before it takes off...:)

[Cameron27]

65. Absolutely right. They're pitbulls, and that's an insult to the poor dogs.

Yep, best bet is to just release all the info and shut this down.

[rasputin1952]

70. Way back in this nation's infancy....Alexander Hamilton was the target

of a smear campaign, he was publicly accused of having an affair...he ame out stating, "Yes, this is true, what is in it for you?". It worked and people just just said, the hell with it...:)

Coming clean, right out of the gate is always the best way top deal w/these things.

[AnotherGreenWorld]

93. If he cares about the poor so much, why not give that job to a qualified poor person?

Besides the job itself, experience in a viable presidential campaign would look great on a résumé, and rather than just talking about poverty, Edwards, by employing the poor, could say that his campaign itself is lifting people out of poverty.

His daughter didn't need this; she has, and will always have, plenty of opportunities.

[southerncrone]

80. This troubled me this morning when I first read it.

I REALLY like Edwards, but am bothered by the fact that he even considered, let alone signed his book deal, with Murdoch!
There are hundreds of publishers out there he could have gone with that aren't the biggest neo-con bank roller, not to mention media controller (& I mean that in the sense of controlling what the world does or doesn't see).

Especially if Edwards intended on giving the profits to charity. Why use Murdoch?

My tin foil hat :tinfoilhat:says it smacks of corporate control of another Dem candidate. If this is true than ALL 3 front-runners are bought & paid for already, waiting to hammer through the corporate agenda when elected.

I couldn't help but think that perhaps Edward's dissing Faux News debate was a cover-up of this relationship, since the article stated Edwards thought the agreement was "confidential" (in other words, the electorate would never know about it).

I hope Edwards comes out w/a GOOD explanation for this. He was my choice of the 3 front-runners, even though I favor Kucinich.

[calteacherguy]

85. The contraction for they are is they're, and don't forget to capitalize! nt

[frogcycle]

92. lol n/t

[frogcycle]

90. the corporate thugs behind the pugs

hate Edwards' guts; they know he'll be after them. He is to them what Bobby was to the mafia.

THAt is why we should support him!