" $700 million, the rough amount that Hughes earned when he cashed out of the company in 2007, is a pretty good take for a glorified call-center operator."
Source: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/12/08/the-rise-and-fall-of-chris-hughes-and-sean-eldridge-america-s-worst-gay-couple.html
And let's not forget about this:
Source: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/12/05/the-new-republic-implodes.html
Who even writes these articles? Why do they get money for it? If living out your personal vendetta is what earns ya money these days, where can I sign up? I have some bones to pick, too! :D
Whilst it is clear that Chris Hughes isn't the shaggy-haired boy wonder I (and many others) wanted him to be, it's vile and, quite frankly, juvenile to paint him as an incompetent villain who's throwing his money at innocent and completely disinterested bystanders. It's safe to say that people were very glad to have his money. What they couldn't handle was a young man turning an old boys' club upside down. There's some serious jealousy going on here. How dare Chris Hughes have money and, you know, actually do something with it?
Another quote from the first article shows the sheer incompetence and any lack of real skill that went into this journalistic bar brawl :
"Several years ago, before he ever announced his candidacy, a source close to Eldridge told me that he had SKDKnickerbocker draw up a plan for him to become the first openly gay president of the United States." x
Unless Canadian-born Sean Eldridge is in league with the Illuminati, it seems really unlikely that he ever harboured any hope of becoming the president of the United States. So where did that, well, 'journalist', come up with that? Does he know that sources, especially emotionally involved sources, are not necessarily the most reliable? Does he simply not care? He does admit that he is aware of Sean Eldridge's citizenship, so that makes no sense whatsoever. It seems to me like this entire piece is meant to somehow discredit these two men for no good reason.
I do not think that article is all wrong about the Hughes-Eldridges, but it's not so much what you say as how you say it. Ya know, just to end this with a platitude similar in scope to these articles.