Tuesday, May 9, 2006

Fox News To Host Fundraiser for Hillary

(Photo: Hillary Clinton and Rupert Murdoch, ultra-conservative founder of Fox News, at Fox News' 10th anniversary party. As this post explains, Murdoch later threw a campaign fundraiser for Clinton.)

: For more on Hillary's ongoing support by, and support for, Fox News, check here. Thanks.


No, it's not a joke. For everyone who rails at me for railing against Clinton and the DLC:

Tuesday, May 9, 2006 8:37 a.m. EDT
Rupert Murdoch to Host Hillary Fund-Raiser

Rupert Murdoch, head of the News Corp. empire that includes conservative favorites like the Fox News Channel and the New York Post, will be hosting a fund-raiser for 2008 presidential wannabe Hillary Clinton.

The Murdoch event be held by July on behalf of News Corp, reports London's Financial Times.

"They have a respectful and cordial relationship," a source familiar with the event told the Times. "He has respect for the work she has done on behalf of New York."

The source cautioned, however, "I wouldn’t say it was illustrative of a close ongoing relationship. It is not like they are dining out together.”

Still, news of the Hillary fund-raiser follows close on the heels of last week's report in the New York Observer, which announced that ex President Clinton had accepted Murdoch's invitation to speak at the Pebble Beach Golf Club in August.

"We have a good relationship with the former President," a News Corp. spokesman told the paper.

And last month, Mrs. Clinton turned heads when she turned up at a Fox News 10th anniversary party in Washington, D.C.


The two-party system works best when there are two parties. In the Senate, I will work for progressives in the primaries but will support whichever Democrat gets the nomination -- except Joe Lieberman. (I still sort of like Hillary where she is.) For President in 2008, I will work for Russ Feingold but will support whichever Democrat gets the nomination -- except Hillary Clinton.

Most of all, this increases my resolve to see anyone but Hillary get the nomination, and to work hard for that.

Update: P.S.: Ditto to Markos. And hear what Arthur Jensen has to say about it.


lucretia said...


Making a personal statement by not voting for Hillary Clinton will not help the many low-income people and others as well because her domestic policies will help by sustaining social programs, attempting to do something about workers'wages, improving the environment, providing some kind of generous health care for most people, safety nets where needed, more creative criminal justice system,meaningful education system unlike the lie we have now . This basic stuff will not be covered by the Bush successor, who will be a neocon and smarter than Bush.

Yes, she and any other Democrats will do Iran, Syria, Venezuela, the rest of the mid-EAst oil rich countries. Why - to save the dollar. And a certain number buy the Right's conquer the world and rule ideology--Bill Kristol will be sitting by then in a first class nursing home drooling into the television.

Anonymous said...

Nor will Hillary help low-income people, or the rest of us, because she's no less corporatist than Bush. That's the point that many people have a hard time understanding: BOTH will enact free trade rather than fair trade agreements. BOTH will hock America to foreign interests. Yes, I'd rather have a socially liberal corporatist prostitute than a socially conservative corporatist prostitute. But I'm a patriot; I still think there are more than those two options.

You say, "the Bush successor... will be a neocon and smarter than Bush." Do you really think that Hillary would be any less a neocon than McCain? I don't.

The social politics are there to distract us from the economic issues, on which Hillary and McCain don't differ one whit. But if Hillary wins the election it'll be like Carl's Jr. vs. Burger King. If that's our choice I'll at least sit it out, because America is so much better than that.

On the bright side, Lucretia, I at least acknowledged that I've still got your guest blog in stock, in the post above!

Fight Back said...

I think theresites2 is right. Hillary is a member of the corporate Democrats. They talk a good game to us "commonfolk" but their actions in Congress show their true colors. Check out David Sirota's blog entry 11-30-05 about Hillary and Goldman Sachs.

Fight Back said...

Can you add "The corporatists" to your title? Thanks!

lucretia said...

I understand both your points that the Democratic Party (DLC) is plenty corporate and imperalistic like Bush group. But domestically to compare to the Bushies based on the corporate control they all share may be too simplistic. I don't think it's there yet or that it has to be--I'm hoping not.

There are different corporate backers I think without the same kind of objectives domestically and even on foreign policy. Otherwise, what have we been doing all these years? This is not the best politics of course, but there's not else now. It's not Howard Dean, at least yet.

Also, you are so strong about Hillary. But is she worse than the rest of the Demo senators? Feingold possibly but he has to have the corporate backers too. Who else is any better?

P.S. I notice Jeb Bush is being mentioned by father and son to run. I've felt for sometime this would happen--it's no surprise.

lucretia said...

theresites2: Thanks for acknowledging you have my guest blog in the stock. But I don't see it in any post.

plattecohighschooler said...

Man, me and you could be friends. I hate Hil too. She hasn't done much to advance this country and she plays to whatever tune it takes to make the audience like her. So she wouldn't have any strong possitions on important issues, and would end up stabbing some old friends in the back. She's perfect... :}