Murdoch to host fundraiser for Hillary Clinton

[leftchick]

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/61faabde-deb8-11da-acee-0000779e2340.html

Rupert Murdoch, the conservative media mogul whose New York Post tabloid savaged Hillary Clinton’s initial aspirations to become a US senator for New York, has agreed to host a political fundraiser for her re-election campaign.

The decision underlines an incongruous thawing of relations between Mr Murdoch and Mrs Clinton, who in 1998 coined the phrase “vast rightwing conspiracy” to denounce critics of her husband, such as Fox News, the conservative cable channel owned by Mr Murdoch’s News Corporation.

Mr Murdoch will host the fundraiser, due to be held by July, on behalf of News Corp.

One person involved in the event said it reflected his views of her as a senator, rather than as a presidential candidate. “They have a respectful and cordial relationship. He has respect for the work she has done on behalf of New York. I wouldn’t say it was illustrative of a close ongoing relationship. It is not like they are dining out together.”

The decision reflects an assiduous courtship by Mrs Clinton and former President Bill Clinton. Last month Mrs Clinton surprised Washington by attending the “Fox News Sunday” 10th anniversary party, where she chatted with Mr Murdoch.




... well isn't that special? :eyes:

[Selatius]

1. They REALLY want Hillary to run, don't they?

It's so appallingly transparent that Democrats should stop to take measure of what it means and, if need be, formulate a different course of action.

[xultar]

From what I read they don't. They want to keep her in NY. Where

do you get they want here to run from that article?

[wookie294]

38. They want her to run for president

The Repubs don't believe a woman can win in 2008, so they are badly hoping Hillary gets the nomination. It's why Fox News keeps babbling about her while most of us yawn.

[motocicleta]

46. Oh, they think a woman might win

just not a woman with 'Clinton' after her name. I don't think they would rule out a woman named Rice at this point, but I think they can tell they will get whoever the hell they want if a woman named Clinton is the D nominee.

Just my .02

[mdmc]

4. they know that she will win

there is no way that she is going to lose. They are just betting on a winner. :shrug:

[Hoping4Change]

11. If that is so then Hillary should decline their support.

[mdmc]

16. yes she should

but they givin her cash ducuts

[Hoping4Change]

22. Pray tell what are ducuts?

:dunce:

[freefall]

37. I believe mdmc meant ducats which is pronounced more like the

way he spelled it. It is often used as a slang term for money, usually lots of money.

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

Main Entry: duc·at
Pronunciation: 'd&-k&t
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Old Italian ducato coin with the doge's portrait on it, from duca doge, from Late Greek douk-, doux leader, from Latin duc-, dux
1 : a former European usually gold coin

Peace,

freefall

[ToeBot]

65. I'm thinkin' more like shekels, as in 30 shekels. eom

[mdmc]

78. or shillings

ductets, shekels, shillings... the kids in the hood say, "I'm gonna make cash ducuts when things turn around."

[Critters2]

49. They know she can't win

She has no Dem support. They're trying to clear the way for whatever Repuke gets the nod.

[mdmc]

77. that is just foolish mycritters2

she will win. The GOP can't even find anyone to run against her! I bet she gets elected with over 60% of the vote. REALLY!

[november3rd]

94. She's definitely got support if Ruppert is hosting her fundraising

They risk losing if they elevate her in the Republican/Independent perspective. She's a middle of the roader, they can sell her on that.

But it must be because they own her somehow. You know how these people operate. They're playing on her ambition. She's going to promise them more relaxation of media regulations or something.

Murdoch is Australian, for God's sake! What does he care about the future of America?

I say, Tasini for Senate.http://www.tasinifornewyork.org/

[susanna]

53. You really think that? n/t

[anitar1]

61. I believe it. I do not know a single person who would vote for her.

She is a loser and the right knows it. Just look back and see how they support her. No more dynasty people for me. I want a fresh face and fresh ideas, in other words , get rid of the usual hacks.But , we will end up with another weak one. Isn't everyone sick of the same old rhetoric ?

[mdmc]

79. Susanna, it is money in the bank. She has a primary, but she

will win that and the general. Honest to God. She will be re-elected.

[susanna]

106. For Senator, maybe...

...but not for President. Maybe I didn't understand the thread, I thought it was about presidential aspirations. Reminder to self: read better! Sorry.

[ecoalex]

40. Clinton is a Dirty Bird an agent of AIPAC another antichrist

[AuntiBush]

56. I'm telling ya!

It's overwhelmingly obvious how badly "they" want her to run. That should be our first warning sign.

Amazing how stupid they think we are, and to choose a Dem for us!?! Un-believable!

GORE/?

Kerry
Finegold
Edwards
Clark...

[NJ Democrats]

2. Murdoch!?

Ok, they REALLY want Hillary to run.

[Hoping4Change]

3. Accepting money from Murdoch is appalling.

[xultar]

5. I agree. The only reason they are doing it is to keep her out of 2008

[Hoping4Change]

13. How would it keep her out of 2008?

[xultar]

28. They are rasing for her senate campaign.

[Zhade]

10. This shouldn't come as a surprise to any honest person.

She's clearly not well-informed, or she's not on our side anymore (if this former Goldwater Girl ever WAS on our side).

[IndianaGreen]

15. She is still a "Goldwater Girl"

The sad thing is that Barry Goldwater would have opposed Bush's power grab and would have called for an end to the Iraq war. Hillary has done neither!

[mdmc]

17. AU H2O

:kick:

[corporate_mike]

85. Policts = lots and lots of compromise

that's the reality

[Hoping4Change]

105. No its just plain dumb. Murdoch is playing her.

By his hosting a fundraiser for Hilary he can contunue spouting the crap that his news outlets are fair and balanced and Hilary's handing him that on a silver platter. So what happens when another swiftboating gets under way against Democrats? Murdoch's off the hook.

[SaveElmer]

6. Keep your friends close...

And your enemies closer!!!

[Zhade]

12. So you don't have a problem with Murdoch raising money for her?

Really?

[SaveElmer]

19. No I don't...

I have enough confidence in her integrity not too worry about it. I'd rather have him raising money for her than attacking her in his paper daily.

[Critters2]

50. He's doing both

or don't you watch Fox?

[SaveElmer]

64. I try not to...

In fact I never do!

[motocicleta]

60. where do you get this confidence from?

I'd love to pick some up, but she really doesn't do it for me. I can't get over her stance on this idiotic war.

[Hoping4Change]

14. So using that logic she should accept money from Osama.!

[SaveElmer]

20. Ridiculous strawman argument...

Not worthy of comment...

Quite juvenile!

[Hoping4Change]

23. At least elucidate why its a strawman?

[SaveElmer]

25. Last time I looked...

Rupert Murdoch was not a terrorist wanted for the death of thousands of people. He may be a conservative wank, but to equate him with Bin Laden is just stupid. You employ the same argument Republicans used in Virginia criticizing Tim Kaines death penalty stance, claiming that he would not have had Hitler executed.

[Hoping4Change]

27. But Murdoch has protected and faciltated the BFEE which has

been responsible for the deaths of thousands of people in Iraq, of US soldiers,... need I continue.

[SaveElmer]

31. So have you...

Did you pay your taxes last year?

[Hoping4Change]

90. Besides the fact I'm a Canuck that is a lame retort.

Murdoch more than anyone other media baron is responsible for the corruption of news, making his news empire the propaganda arm of BFEE. I

[SaveElmer]

91. Lame retort...yes!

Now you know how it feels.

You wanna have a serious discussion about why Hillary would agree to have a fundraiser hosted by Rupert Murdoch, I'm all for it. You want to insinuate the Hillary would agree to a fundraiser from OBL if it raised her money, then you get lame retorts...you get what you pay for!

[Guaranteed]

66. It's a loose analogy,

not a strawman.

[Weaksauce]

87. I'm sure she would.

[IndianaGreen]

26. Birds of a feather flock together

who buys who?

[leftchick]

35. yep!

doe-doe birds hopefully.

[SaveElmer]

92. Good return cliche...

Wrong...but clever!

[Daphne08]

7. Amazing, isn't it? The Republicans are going to nominate our

presidential candidate.

[Robbien]

9. If they can tell Britain who can run their country, I guess they feel they

can tell Democrats who is going to be the Democratic candidate.

[scarletwoman]

24. Bingo! Wow, you've just totally nailed it!

It's really been amazing, hasn't it? For YEARS now, the right wing has been non-stop in flogging Hillary as the 2008 Democratic presidential candidate.

What's REALLY interesting is how the Hillary="Dem Nominee" idea migrated from right wing conventional wisdom to the present presumption on the Democratic side. But it started out on the right -- we should always remember that.

It is clear that Hillary has the approval of the plutocrats.

sw

[pokercat999]

29. They will if we let them. They KNOW Hillary cannot

win the general election. They could put up David Duke against her and win. That MIGHT make it a tight race but with Diebolt on their side he'd win by a couple of points.

If Hillary is the Candidate of the Democratic Party in 2008 I will not vote and I will not reach into my pocket unless there is a 3rd progressive party candidate.

[motocicleta]

62. I'll still vote, because I like to, but

there is no way in hell she can win. We can win every freaking seat in Congress, and McCain or Rice or anybody on the right will beat Hillary.

[Kolesar]

8. Bizarro World .... eom

[havocmom]

18. Probably printing up stickers: "Run, Hillary, run!" for FRONT bumpers now

They want her to be the DEM nominee. What does that say?

Don't know about the rest of you, but any candidate of Rupert's is no candidate of mine.

[BrklynLiberal]

21. I cannot help but wonder what she has done that has endeared her to

Murdoch. I cannot imagine that it would be anything that the "masses" would appreciate.
Somehow I feel that if something makes Murdoch happy, it would piss me off.
I do not consider this a good thing.
Isn't there an old saying about judging people by the company they keep?

[blm]

30. The whole of corporate media wants a Hillary vs McCain race in 2008.

Because they hate Hillary and love McCain, and want to help McCain win a landslide against her.

[scarletwoman]

34. Controversy sells! The right wing has been salivating over a Hillary run

for YEARS now.

Just think of the ratings for Fox! A non-stop media circus of polarization, vitriol and hysteria!

Red vs. Blue -- The Death Match! It's PERFECT!

The best part is, while the masses are distracted by all the shiny things, the Plutocracy wins no matter who becomes president. Only corporate-approved candidates will be allowed to run. It's win/win for the Owner Class.

sw

[BrklynLiberal]

36. That is the worst-case scenario. I hope the grass-roots is able to

change that ending to this story.

[scarletwoman]

39. Worst-case scenarios seem to be the norm these days. (nt)

[BrklynLiberal]

42. Sadly, you are right.

x(

[PassingFair]

73. The Grass-Roots are still limping from 04...

when our own party cut us off at the knees.

I am NOT dragging what's left of my political self
down the street on my elbows for Hillary!

[Freddie Stubbs]

101. She has become a shoe-in for reelection

[EST]

32. How illuminating!

Hillary has more money than she'll ever need to keep her senate seat, so the argument that this is simply a fund raiser for that purpose doesn't hold water.
Sleeping with the enemy is too much, especially now. In our attempt to elevate the dem party to a new standard of honesty and integrity, avoiding even any semblance of evil is of paramount importance. This, to me, represents a betrayal of values and, in my universe, betrayal is the very worst of sins. I was not particularly enthusiastic about a Hillary presidential candidacy but now I am expressly against it.

[corbett]

33. Opponents Of Her 2008 Presidential Campaign Should Take Notice

I've predicted since early 2005 that the Democratic ticket for 2008 will Senator Kerry for Prez and Senator Clinton for Veep. I stand by that prediction. This fundraiser has little to do with her Senate reelection campaign in my humble opinion. Regardless of the real reason, though, it is significant because having Murdoch in her court means that she'll have armor-plated boxing gloves against the Republican ticket, what with her hubby campaigning for her, too.

Perhaps Murdoch dislikes Senator McCain more than either of the Clintons and has decided that he'd be happier with Mrs. Clinton over in the executive branch.

[GOPNotForMe]

41. Seriously? Hill, you got some 'splainin' to do. nt

[Matilda]

43. There's always a price to pay for getting into bed with Murdoch.

Blair did it, and now the BBC faces changes to its structure that will involve privatising parts
of its operations. And the biggest winner? Rupert Murdoch.

[drduffy]

44. did Hillary attend one Bilderberger meeting?

She is simply another corporatist middle manager.......

the empire must die if the republic is to live
there can be but one conclusion
and for those who serve the empire...
there must be retribution for all the lives murdered

[bvar22]

45. No conflict here.

Hillary would make a good Republican president.

The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

[DiverDave]

71. LOL!

Well, now I got coffee to clean up, dangit!

[LiviaOlivia]

47. I guess Markos's article pissed her off

see:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/05/AR2006050501717.html

[Us vs Them]

48. Even more reason to vote for Al Gore in this here AOL poll

http://news.aol.com/dailypulse/050806/_a/will-he-run-again/20060508101609990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001

[SHRED]

51. Doesn't she remember?

What they did to Kerry?

FUCK!!!!!!!!!!!

[corporate_mike]

107. She remembers but she doesn't care about the past

[Ciggies and coffee]

52. Bet she has first dibs on the voting machines in 2008 n/t

[mconvente]

54. This is rediculous

Why would Hilary accept this fundraiser - she must want to alienate liberals...

I think people would have greater respect for her if she declined, showing she won't bow to REPUBLICAN corporatists, but that'll be the day...

[MindPilot]

83. She alienated this liberal a long time ago;

somewhere around the time of that IWR vote...

[AuntiBush]

55. Sick of Dirty GOP Politics Pushing Clinton on Us!

They talk about her running till they're salivating!

That tells you what they're thinking: a) how desperate they are to hold power b) Americans are stupid

Gore/? 2008. Listen to his speechs nowadays - he's unbeatable and this country would vote him in so quick, it would probably break records.

Kerry
Clark
Edwards
Finegold

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2613407&mesg_id=2613407

[TriMetFan]

57. What every one needs to remember is......

Hillary Clinton has raised a lot money and has given a lot of money to other Democrats that are running in other races in the Nation. She has not been a tight wad with the cash like others. It could be that she is using him to make more money for other Democrats.

Just my .2

[kick_them_hard]

67. BINGO! n/t

[Media_Lies_Daily]

69. But what does she have to do for Murdoch in exchange?....

You know for a fact that he's not going to back her financially unless he gets something in return.

So, what is it?

[TriMetFan]

82. She could be stringing him a long making him think that she is....

going to run or may-be he understands that the Democrats are going to take over and HE is just KISSING ASS!

[alcibiades_mystery]

58. I said it once, and I'll say it again: FUCK the Clintons

Yes, both of them.

Awful shite, the both of them.

Enough with the hero worship.

[TriMetFan]

59. Well I would rather have Bill

back any old day over the shit we have in the White House.

[primavera]

93. I'd rather have Russ

Couldn't we at least express our preference for a Democrat before caving in and throwing our support behind a Vichy DINO?

[motocicleta]

63. Seconded.

I disliked Clinton back in the day for NAFTA and for needing validation so badly that he would play politics with what he knew was good for the country. Good lot of crap playing nice did for him, eh? Really ended with a fine rep, didn't he?

[TriMetFan]

84. But Clinton was and always will be better then that

shit we have in the WHite House today.

[motocicleta]

86. No argument on that point.

It doesn't make me happier with Clinton, though, is all I'm saying. I think you and I agree more than we disagree, just sometimes I let my anger at Clinton come through on this board. I almost feel more hurt by his work than *s, because I expected good from Clinton and evil from *. And I think Clinton really didn't help us out by having a sex scandal.
Would I rather have Bill than W? Absofreakinglutely, 24/7/365.

[TriMetFan]

88. I know what you mean, but......

The sex thing was and will never have any thing to do with us. This was between to adults. The only bad thing Bill did was NAFTA. Other then that the man did pretty good. This Nation was on the move.

Bush is Evil!

[Expose_the_Elite]

100. You're exactly right...

NAFTA, GATT, WTO... soon CAFTA... These are the issues near and dear to our elitist establishment and I guarantee you, no matter who you guys "think" you nominate or who the Pubbies nominate, that same elite will get what they want.

I'll make a wager with anyone on this forum and I'm not a gambling man. I don't have to be, because on this wager, I won't lose.

If Hillary or any leading Dem wins the general election, the Patriot Act will not be repealed. The Department of Homeland Security will not only not be abolished. It will be strengthened. I'd even be willing to go out on a limb and argue that NSA warrantless wiretapping will continue against American citizens (actually if it's Hillary, I virtually guarantee it). And when the time is right, Patriot Act II will become the law of the land. These people leave nothing to chance. We are heading into a surveillance society police-state takeover. When are we going to drop the stupid labels and stop fighting each other? When are we going to demand constitutional restraints on our federal government?

I watched the FReepers for years document and catalog the Clintons' abuses of power, cover-ups and assaults on the American people. And they did happen and were real folks. Remember those FBI files. It's amazing how one group's memory goes blank when it's their "heroes" that are under analysis.

Now I watch in amazement as a so-called grassroots activist group has winked at every abuse of power of this corrupt administration all in a guise of fighting a "war on terror". Anyone who dissents is labeled a traitor. Since when did being a "conservative" mean that I'm supposed to shut my brain down when referring to our dear "Leader"? When did it become unpatriotic or un-american to ask questions?
I thought a conservative, according to Buckley, was supposed to "stand athwart history and yell stop!" Now apparently it's "Go baby go!"

I have no problem eventually posting this on FR as well, but I'm sure that when I do I will be "banned". I really don't care if I'm banned here or there. I'm tired of playing this game.

[Rainscents]

68. This for real?

:crazy:

[Divernan]

70. "Murdoch. . . smart enough to know that the Republicans might not win."

I'm wondering if the quid pro quo is in part that Fox backs off attacking her, then will they also back off the endless attacks on all politicians and all things "liberal"? The question has been asked here on DU before as to what Fox would do if the GOP loses the majority/presidency, would the network change its spots, so to speak. So the quote which jumped out at me from this article was that Murdoch "is smart enough to know that the Repubilcans might not win." Will his empire only back off on attacking Hillary Clinton, or has she also neutered him in respect to other dem candidates and policies? It will be very interest to watch this play out.

Here's the rest of the column, including what I quoted above.

The fundraiser for Ms Clinton’s re-election is in stark contrast to the
brutal coverage from the New York Post of her first Senate campaign.

The partisan tabloid ran unflattering pictures, and frontpage headlines
pleading: “DON’T RUN”. A poll from the Post’s website during the
campaign identified her as the sixth “most evil” person of the
millennium, ahead of Benito Mussolini and Vlad the Impaler. Her husband
ranked second.

One media lobbyist said: “Murdoch will be for the Republicans but he is
also smart enough to know that the Republicans might not win. At some
level, whether nationally or in New York, Hillary is the future and what
savvy businessman would not want to put a line of interest in someone
who will be the future?”

Mrs Clinton’s campaign office declined to comment.

[Expose_the_Elite]

99. Stop believing the hype...

Ask yourself this? Did being out of the majority hurt Rush Limbaugh's ratings? This has nothing to do with left or right. This is about the consolidation of power over and against the wishes of the American people.

I'm amazed at how "regular" grassroots FReepers and Dems snipe at each other but neither have any true power or platform within the respective parties. Both are being screwed by corporate interests who have brilliantly constructed this false left/right paradigm to keep the sheeple preoccupied with fighting the "bad guys" and give them the illusion of a choice. Pretty convenient, eh?

The Republican Party may have the neocons but you guys have the DLC. We're virtually assured, at the national level, a corporate internationalist stooge who will give the establishment what they want on the issues dear to them all the while throwing out buzzwords: "abortion" "gay marriage" "activist judges", etc.

These shills have nothing but contempt for the American electorate, whether they have an (R) or a (D) behind their names.

[Freddie Stubbs]

72. Betting on the winning horse...

She is a shoe-in for reelection. Why would anyone antagonize her and support her opponent?

[mopinko]

74. who's your daddy? that's what i want to know about every

politician. that is THE question that we should be asking.
even if hillary is passing this money on to other dems, as another poster stated. imho, that makes it that much worse. dirty money is dirty money, and guys like murdoch always want something for it. if he is giving it to hillary, he must have a reason to think he will get something in return.

[oc2002]

75. She is a DLC democrat. A Wholesale Whore to special interests.

Anyone who supports her, is supporting special interests lobyists and corporate whoring to them.

DLC = Hillary - GOP name

[AzDar]

76. Someday, we will have a female President...but it AIN'T gonna

be Hillary Clinton (nor Kindasleezy Rice).

[Coventina]

80. Well, that's the last straw for me. n/t

[SOS]

81. Tasini responds to Hillary's sell out:

"You need no better example to understand the close relationship between my opponent and the corporate world than the embracing of Rupert Murdoch by the incumbent. At a time when average people are under attack because of abusive corporate power, New Yorkers need a Senator who will confront the greed and out-of-control corporate power that is stealing our pensions, hammering our wages, denying health care to 48 million Americans, and outsourcing jobs in the name of the "free market.""

Fellow NYers, let's send a message to Hillary in September. Vote Tasini!

http://www.tasinifornewyork.org

[PhuLoi]

89. Hillary: Murdoch's new codpiece.

(Putting on Nomex coveralls.)

[Expose_the_Elite]

95. Bush Clinton Oligarchy continues...

I predict Hillary in 08 and after she and the Republicans successfully amend the Constitution, Arnold.

Oh, yeah, I'm really out there...

[arwalden]

96. Who Benefits Most? Hillary Or Murdoch?

Does Murdoch "need" Hillary as a target that his viewers love-to-hate? Does a highly visible Hillary Clinton mean more viewers for Fox News?

Color me suspicious.

[corporate_mike]

98. Will Hillary be a regular on The O'Reilly Factor?

or debate Hannity for more votes?

[kster]

97. Republicans know there is no way to

win in 2008, (((UNLESS))) They pick our candidate for us, which looks like what Murdoch is trying to do right now with Hillary.

Get Hillary out in front early so she has a chance to win, then run McCain against her, then run on national security.

McCain will run circles around Hillary on national security, our candidate loses McCain wins.

Thats why I think Murdoch is having a fundraiser for Hillary.

My 2 cents.

[dunn]

102. She Was on the Board of Directors of Wal-Mart

I think that may indicate she is Republican Lite.

[dabluz]

103. Or a closet Neo-con

[Fluffdaddy]

104. Murdoch is backing a winner

GO Clinton