Reader Blogs
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER BLOGS HOME | next »
Outfoxing Hillary
Anyone who pays attention to network news can identify the
significance of Hillary Clinton's interview on Fox News last night.
After Anderson Cooper and Larry King announced to their audiences that
Hillary Clinton had an open invitation to appear on their shows, she
choose instead to appear on the network on which Karl Rove is a popular
pundit. To her credit, the interview was short, seemingly focused on
only the things Clinton wanted to talk about, but this isn't the first
time in this campaign that Clinton has chosen to ally herself with the
media of the right.
After just enough time for the media to start to give up with the Rev. Wright scandal, Hillary made a statement that pushed it back into the spot light. She felt that she needed the American people to know that Rev. Wright "...would not have been my pastor." Much has been made of her declaration, and much too has been made about the publication she made it to: The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, a paper so far right that it tried to accuse the Clintons of murder.
Why is Clinton reaching out to the same media that feeds off of liberal blood? When looking for an answer to that question, it may help to look at it from the perspective of the right. Fox News couldn't be happier to have Clinton, and help her campaign, because simply, the longer this infighting goes on the better for McCain. Just as Rush Limbaugh with his "Operation Chaos," the media of the right has a vested interest in dragging out the nomination. Hillary seems to want the same thing, and proves it by flirting with the enemy.
Comments (14)
Right, you would think in the democratic nomination process you'd want to reach as many democratic eyes and ears with your message. I see two reasons for her doing this.
1. On this particular subject she will get a lot of mileage out of Fox news who are eager to keep the Wright story on loop from now until November.
2. She wants to reach PA Republicans that can cross over to the PA primary and Rural PA Democrats who may not differ so greatly from their Republican neighbors, as Chris Mathews called them, "White guys with guns and boats." Those guys might be registered Democrat but still check out Fox NILF.
March 27, 2008 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hah, Chris Matthews will never waste an opportunity to hamfist a generalization.
March 28, 2008 1:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting point. Let's examine:
FNC feeds off liberal blood. Metaphorically true.
HRC goes on FNC.
Is this a form of support for FNC?
You bet it is! Notice that Obama doesn't go near it. In fact, if the Dems boycotted FNC, it would wither as a force in MSM politics eventually.
(Why do you think Hollywood types always get softball questions in magazines? Because if hard questions were asked, the celebrity would cut off the magazine's access -- which would affect magazine circulation. FNC needs politicians to go on their for ratings -- to sell adds. No politicians, eventually, no ratings.)
Okay, so now we have HRC supporting an organization that feeds off of liberal blood.
Now this is what I don't understand: people who claim to want to vote the Dem ticket regardless of who is on it are Dem Party stalwarts. I will assume that stalwarts are very much left-of-center. So the stalwarts want to support someone like HRC who feeds a machine to hurt their left-leaning agenda?
Truly amazing. No wonder why this party is constantly imploding.
March 27, 2008 10:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not to mention the right-wing dollar:
http://opensecrets.org/indivs/search.asp?key=8GW3E&txtName=murdoch,%20rupert&txtState=(all%20states)&txtCand=clinton,%20hillary&txtAll=Y&Order=N
March 28, 2008 2:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama went on Fox News before Clinton ever did - right after Fox released those tapes of Rev. Wright, Obama appeared on Fox News. So what do we have here, a case where both candidates are supporting blood suckers?
March 28, 2008 9:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
But Bev, he had to go on Fox news because their audience is EXACTLY the people who believe that nonsense. Obama had to put that constant loop of purposely edited crap into context.
Hillary on the other hand, went on Fox Noise to give it legitimacy. That is pretty despicable for a Democrat to bolster Fox Noise racial spin.
March 28, 2008 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm far too tired to look this up, but didn't Clinton get some fairly significant indirect contributions from Murdoch and Ailes? Rupert Murdoch supported Tony Blair, remember. He helps who is most likely to help him--just because Hillary is a Democrat doesn't mean Faux can't support her.
March 27, 2008 10:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not at all indirect. See above.
March 28, 2008 2:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Link doesn't work (for me anyway). But yeah, I'd seen that--just couldn't remember the details.
March 28, 2008 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's a case of if you can't beat them, join them.
March 28, 2008 3:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
The MSM media feeds on blood. They're not particular about whose blood it is. Faux News escalated the Wright story and the MSM ran with it for two weeks. I'm sure they are grateful to Faux News. I guess in that regard Faux News is a testing ground of right wing talking points for the MSM.
March 28, 2008 5:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Who really cares? I hate it when politics is described as a war between the left and the right, so that appearing on Fox is "fraternizing with the enemy". Isn't this criticism the flip side of the Clinton campaign's BS attacks on Obama for praising Reagan? Isn't this criticism an example of politics as usual that Obama is trying to transcend?
March 28, 2008 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
From my perspective it isn't a left/right criticism, it's that the Clintons know the lengths Fox will go to against Obama and seem to be using that as a tool for themselves. From a purely human standpoint I'm disturbed that the Clintons would grant interviews to the same people who insulted and smeared their family on a daily basis (Bill on Limbaugh, etc.). It isn't Fox's political slant that bothers me, it's that I suspect Hillary knows what she's getting by appearing there and no Democrat should be doing that. Choosing to appear on Fox over other networks isn't a good way to reach the most Democratic voters. So why is she doing it?
March 28, 2008 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Genghis:
The WSJ is on the right side of things. So is the NATIONAL REVIEW.
FNC is an outfit of no journal standards. It's purpose, therefore can only be one of two things:
A cheap, "reality like" ratings grabber (for $$).
A broad editorial platform to push a public agenda.
However, cut off the ratings, and you've brought FNC to it's knees.
March 28, 2008 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment