Saturday, August 10, 2013

COULD MURDOCH FAVOR HILLARY IN 2016?

This is amusing:
Fox May Produce Clinton Biopic Reviled by G.O.P.

The script for the proposed [NBC] mini-series on the life of the possible presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton hasn't even been written but we may already have a plot twist.

... the project may wind up being produced by another company: Fox Television Studios, the sister company of the conservative favorite, Fox News.

Leslie Oren, a spokesman for FTVS, as the studio is known, confirmed that NBC is in "the early stages" of discussions to bring the Fox unit in as the production company on the as yet unnamed mini-series....
Now, maybe we shouldn't make too much of this -- the non-political parts of the Murdoch empire don't tend to follow the party line.

On the other hand, Rupert Murdoch has not always treated Hillary Clinton as his mortal enemy -- he hosted a fund-raiser for her in 2006, when it seemed all but inevitable that a Democrat would win the presidency in 2008 and she seemed like a lock for the nomination. In May 2008, when Barack Obama had the nomination well in hand, Murdoch praised him:
"We're on the verge of a complete phenomenon," Murdoch said. "Politicians are at an all-time low and are despised by 80% of the public, and then you've got a candidate trying to put himself out above it all. He's become a rock star. It's fantastic...."

Murdoch heaped praise on Obama, saying he was a "highly intelligent man with a great record at Harvard", but stopped short of a full personal endorsement because he wanted "to meet him personally".
Obviously, Murdoch's news outlets didn't back Obama the way News Corp. papers backed Tony Blair's Labour Party in 1997, 2001, and 2005. But Murdoch personally isn't as far right as his news outlets, at least on some issues (gun control, immigration reform). And he seems to respect Hillary.

If the 2016 GOP nominee is utterly nuts (Rand Paul, Ted Cruz), and if that nominee is badly trailing in the polls, will a few of Murdoch's outlets -- maybe not Fox, but possibly the New York Post and The Wall Street Journal -- back off Hillary a bit? Especially if she's far enough ahead in the polls that giving full-throated support to the Republican means supporting a sure loser?

If this happens, it might be in part because Murdoch thinks Hillary would be more of a traditionalist on defense than Rand Paul in particular. But whatever the reason, I think it might happen. And it's just possible that, by not putting the kibosh on this possible NBC-Fox alliance, Murdoch is subtly tipping his hand right now.

10 comments:

Victor said...

Murdoch, I think, will ultimately support whoever will keep the money coming into his coffers.

It's Aisles, and the Editors at the NY Post and WSJ, who are the rabid Conservative ideologues and foot soldiers.

I think that, as long as it's not a "mockumentary," that Hillary and her image are already pretty well set in the minds of Americans.
Those who hate her, will continue to do so.
Those who like or love her, will continue to do so.
I don't see a lot of people's opinions being swayed, one way or the other.

Ultimately, I think it's pretty pointless to have an actress portray her.
We needed a great actress like Meryl Streep to portray Margaret Thatcher - at least here in America, because we don't know that much about her.
Hillary, on the other hand, has been front and center, for the past 20+ years.
And, after all of the pointless investigations back in the 90's, and now, with Issa's committee, if her life isn't as open a book as we've ever seen, I don't know whose is.

duffandnonsense said...

I almost agree with some of what Victor wrote - 'quelle horreur'! - certainly where he suggests that 'HillBilly's' image is well set in the American mind but image is just that that - image, chimera, which can disappear in the puff of an MSM headline. Not, mind you, that that it is likely to happen in 'the Land of the Free of Criticism if You're Democrat'!

It's good to see Steve recognise that Murdoch (like many of us instinctive Right-wingers) does not fit neatly into a box labelled 'Wing nut' or whatever the current jargon is for those incapable of writing sensible English. However, given that Obama's capabilities were unknown back in 2008, just as 'HillBilly's' are today, I wonder what his verdict would be now? I mean, irrespective of your inherent sympathies, you have to admit that as a president he has been decidedly third-rate which, I suppose, provides 'HillBilly' with a chance to do better.

David Duff

Victor said...

duff and, your usual, nonsense,

If Obama is looked upon as anything less than 1st or even 2nd rate - which, after W, should not have been too arduous a task - it's only because, after 2010, he's had a barely 5th-rate Congress - full of angry, whining, and petulant Kindergartners.

And that 5th-rate Congress has 2 Houses that make the "Do Nothing" Congresses that Truman bitched about, seem like the crew gathered at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia.

Obama is only a President, not a Dictator - despite the shrieks and lamentations of our Reich-Wingers.

And, despite his many flaws, is doing an astronomically better job, than either McCain or Romney would have, or could have, done.

Steve M. said...

It's good to see Steve recognise that Murdoch (like many of us instinctive Right-wingers) does not fit neatly into a box labelled 'Wing nut'

True for Murdoch. Not true for the vast majority of the zombies he's helped create who accept right-wing talking points as if they were handed down by God.

duffandnonsense said...

"the zombies [...] who accept right-wing talking points as if they were handed down by God", as opposed, say, to 'the zombies who accept Left-wing talking points as if they were handed down by Karl Marx'! And, Steve, you still have your 'Mr. Angry' badge - what happened to "Peace 'n' Love, man'?

Victor, the fact that it is exceedingly difficult (but not impossible!) for a president to become a dictator is, perhaps, the very greatest compliment that can be paid to your Founding Fathers. Also, in a very roundabout way, gratitude is due to the 'Great American Public' who sort of see to it that at least one of the Houses of Congress remains in opposition.

Actually, I thought Bill Clinton was not too bad as a president, particularly in his second term, but none of you on this site have offered anything substantial to convince me that Hillary would be any good at all.

David Duff

Victor said...

duff,
I'm not exactly a huge Hillary fan, either.

If a woman were to run, I prefer it be Warren, or Gillibrand, or Klobucher.

But I'll take Hillary, or any Democrat, over any Republican, based on what they have festering in the wings, for 2016.

duffandnonsense said...

Fair enough, Victor. Your doubts might be re-enforced by this which I just spotted:

"It’s odd that Obama, who once talked about being a transformational president, did not want to ensure that his allies and his aims were imprinted on the capital. Instead, he has teed up the ball for Hillary. Some of the excitement about Barack Obama was the prospect of making a clean start, after years of getting dragged into the Clintons’ dubious ethics and personal messes. Yet Obama ushered in the return of Clinton Inc. and gave it his blessing.

What he doesn’t seem to realize yet is that Hillary’s first term will be seen, not as a continuation of Obama, but as Bill Clinton’s third term."

Honestly, I dare not tell you who wrote that perceptive piece, especially the last sentence, because our genial host might suffer apoplexy! Let's just caller her 'MD'!

David Duff

Victor said...

duff,
I'll take that, over anyone the Republicans will put up there.

They literally scare the sh*t out of - since I have to go poop, now that I'm writing about them! :-)

Steve M. said...

And, Steve, you still have your 'Mr. Angry' badge - what happened to "Peace 'n' Love, man'?

Hey, Duff, 1971 called -- it wants its talking points back.

Victor said...

*snickers*

*chortles*

GUFFAW'S!!!!!!!!!!!!!