Murdoch’s Attack Team Sets Sights on Edwards

[antiimperialist]

It’s a clear attempt to undermine what Wall Street hates most: a populist candidate. Any candidate who’ll try and fight for the middle class and people struggling to get by month-to-month will quickly be targeted by the Money Class. Spread the suspicion successfully that anyone with money can’t possibly give a damn about American workers and you can prevent economic fairness from ever moving forward.

The elitists in the Money Class view compassion for the poor as the work of a class traitor. Teddy Roosevelt, the trustbuster. Franklin Roosevelt, the New Dealer. JFK and RFK and their kid brother, Teddy. These are a few outstanding examples of very wealthy men who made life better for the middle and the poor. They came under fire, mostly after they’d acted with fairness and compassion. Today, however, that’s not how the moneystream media works.

Instead, Edwards is intervening directly. For the homeowners impacted, he’s trying to secure help. And if they can’t get the help they need, he plans to help them directly. For all we know, in return for the services Edwards provided the company, he could now end up taking a loss. At the least, he’ll likely lose tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars because of the actions of a company that he doesn’t make the decisions for.

...The WSJ is Murdoch’s newest attack team. Look for the candidates they attack the hardest. Pay attention to which ones they leave alone. That’ll be a pretty good indicator who Rupert thinks is owned by Big Money. The ones he attacks the most are the ones he fears will limit Big Money’s greed.

Read the story in The American Street.

[bluestateguy]

1. Murdoch's empire has been remarkably soft on Hillary

I think that they would at least tolerate her if she became president, even though they prefer a Republican, and Murdoch himself might even endorse Hillary to show a pretend objectivity. Or they may hold back their fire if and until Hillary is nominated and then let the attack dogs have at her in the general election.

On the other hand, they have been rather hard on a candidate who is in third place.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

9. Their tune on Hillary will change dramatically once...

...she's installed as the Dem nominee. For now they spend their efforts trying to derail the campaigns of her viable opponents. Neocons don't think they have a good chance in a general election against anyone but Hillary, and they aim to make sure she is the Dem nominee.

[Ron Green]

2. The most amusing aspect is how they try to convince the middle class that they're somehow part of

an "investor class" whose interests are looked after by Neo-cons, Wall Street operatives and TV screamers.

[orpupilofnature57]

3. Murdoch is a Misanthrope ,Ergo anyone he attacks should be proud...

as anyone off the hook is suspect and unelectable ,sorry hill you are what you eat.

[saracat]

4. Murdoch has effectively endorsed Hillary by throwing a fundraiser for her and

contributing to her campaign. So now he is doing her dirty work for her! Hmmm. Anybody even think all this is connected?

[antiimperialist]

5. The anti-Edwards campaign is working

30% of likely Democratic primary voters believe Edwards' policies would benefit the rich. 24$ say the middle class, while only 10% think his policies would benefit the poor. (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/08/17/opinion/polls/main3178773.shtml)
I find it mind-boggling that a candidate who is advocating huge tax increases for the wealthiest in order to pay for universal health care for all, is seen by so many as friend of the rich.
But if you stop and think that the Wall Street Journal reaches more than 2 million readers daily (DU gets that same amount in 3 months), without counting right-wing blogs who link to its lies and hit-jobs against Edwards, you would understand why so many Americans, including Democrats are being brain-washed. We won't be able to afford a great candidate such as Edwards until steps are taken to eliminate concentration of the media in the hands of the super-wealthy.

[orpupilofnature57]

6. Media needs to be Acknowledged as Shrubs biggest Allies.

[MasonJar]

7. Who even watches Fox that would vote democratic? Ditto WSJ editorial page?

[antiimperialist]

8. 21% of Democrats watch the Fox News Channel

More than you thought, isn't it? Those millions are enough brain-washed voters to swell the number of Democrats who believe Edwards' politices would benefit the rich. And I'm not even counting the independents who lean Democratic who will vote in the primaries, who are apparently not represented in this poll.

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=348

and get this...Democrats are more likely than Republicans to believe the Wall Street Journal, according to this 2004 survey that i'm using because I can't find a more recent one.
http://wiredpen.com/2004/06/09/pew-research-suggests-news-and-audiences-politicized/

[depakid]

11. More than you thought, isn't it?

Not really.

Easily that many legitimize, enable or actively support far right policies of one type or another.

[IndianaGreen]

10. Very peculiar that they target Edwards who is polling third, rather than Hillary.

Murdoch has raised money for Hillary in the past, and it sure it wasn't because Murdoch is turning soft in his old age. Clearly Murdoch sees Hillary as someone that will not try to reverse media concentration, or significantly challenge the status quo to any extend.

Beware of Hillary's corporate friends. They own her!