Hillary and Rupert....TOGETHER AT LAST!


----

(AP) NEW YORK - Media mogul Rupert Murdoch, whose Fox News Channel and other conservative news outlets have been skewering Hillary Rodham Clinton for years, will host a summer fundraiser for the senator, mystifying some observers and enraging others.

Especially incensed are liberal activists, who for months have decried what's seen as a shift to a right on Clinton's part as the Democrat contemplates a run for president in 2008. They are stunned that she is associating with a man viewed as a cornerstone of the "vast right-wing conspiracy," the term Clinton herself coined.

"Hillary, help us. Who the hell are you?" thundered Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen.

Liberal blogger David Sirota complained: "The brazenness of this move is almost too much to stomach."

Neither Clinton nor Murdoch have had much to say about the fundraiser since it was first reported this week by The Financial Times.

"I think this is about New York. It's about the kind of job that I'm doing as a senator from New York," Clinton said Friday.

Murdoch, for his part, dismissed the event as "no big deal."

"We think that she has been effective on state issues and local issues here in New York," Murdoch said on a News Corp. earnings call.

The Clinton-Murdoch alliance is not entirely new. The two have been moving toward a detente since 2000, when she won her Senate seat after a campaign that included a series of not-so-flattering Clinton headlines in another Murdoch property, the New York Post. The Post even ran a pleading headline, "Don't Run!" before Clinton formally joined the race.

Murdoch also has developed a relationship with former President Clinton, a prime target of criticism from Fox and the New York Post during his presidency. Murdoch participated in a conference of the Clinton Global Initiative last fall, and the former president is scheduled to address a gathering of News Corp. executives in California later this year.

Murdoch, whose $60 billion empire is a major presence in New York, is more shrewd businessman than ideologue, and friendly relations with a powerful New York senator are in his best interest. Murdoch also organized a fundraiser for New York Sen. Chuck Schumer, a Democrat, during his re-election campaign in 2004.

But Clinton's motive for accepting a Murdoch-sponsored fundraiser is not quite as clear. She faces minimal opposition in her Senate race — something Murdoch acknowledged this week in an interview on Fox News. And with at least $20 million in her campaign account — a figure that dwarfs that of all her potential rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination — Clinton doesn't really need the money.

But Maurice Carroll, director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute, said the arrangement suits Clinton and Murdoch equally well.

"She's reaching out to a guy who's on the right side of the spectrum, and she needs some friends there," Carroll said.

And Murdoch?

"That's simple — Hillary's going to run for president, and she might win," Carroll said.

__________________
The Phils are champs, go phuck yourself!

I've been wondering for a while what Fox News will do when there's a Democrat in the White House again (which, despite the lameness of the donkey party, is at least a possibility given W's incredibly low numbers). That is, would Fox remain the mouthpiece of the conservative right & so become the voice of the political opposition? Or would they, in true corporate opportunist fashion, swing to the new ideological position and become a mouthpiece for the new administration?

Hard to say, but this item suggests it's option (b).

That would be like Nike changing its name to Reebok...it won't happen. Fox News is a brand name, which has taken years to build, they would lose too much to flip the script in that way. This does not suggest that they won't be a lil' more friendly to us Dems, but, that's about it.

Also, I do not think that it's all that bad to have a conservative leaning network, 'fair and balanced' can be a good thing. It' s just that they are a little too blatant with their endorsement of the GOP agenda. I actually feel that they would have more credibility if they were a bit more objective -- while still coming down on the conservative side things.

My 2 cents...

__________________
Most people do not really want freedom, because freedom involves responsibility, and most people are frightened of responsibility.
Sigmund Freud

Fox sees the writing on the wall.

People are upset with the GOP, including inside the GOP. They want a piece of the action and will capitalize on the drama in the upcoming DC race and the aftermath of it--to keep those viewers hooked. The NYT is not getting a big huge new following like Fox does with its current event issue coverage.

__________________
WHYY pays their CEO $750,000 a year. So WHYY should I renew my membership? Seems they have no problems finding money and spending it unwisely.


And this is why you should donate to PACCA, not PETA:

In September, PETA made headlines in Vermont and across the nation for asking Ben & Jerry's ice cream to use human breast milk in their ice cream, instead of cow milk

I only watch Brit Hume on Fox News. I really can not stand any of the alleged 24/7 news stations.

Rush Limbaugh came to obscene popularity by fighting against the Clintons. Fox would see their ratings climb even higher with a Democratic majority in 2007 or a Democratic president in 2009.

__________________
The Phils are champs, go phuck yourself!

It's really very simple. The Clintons can be bought and Murdoch is buying them.

That Murdoch is helping Clinton raise money cannot be a good thing for the Democrats. If she ran, Fox would have a field day with her, and it would also probably mobilize a lot of Republicans who otherwise wouldn't vote.

Or, he's just doing the typical special interest thing of buying both parties.

I think you're right about Murdoch just putting money oin both sides like a lot of other big contributors.