NEW YORK, Oct. 30, 2006
Murdoch's New York Post Endorses Hillary
Right-Leaning Tabloid Once Said 'Don't Run,' Now Backs Sen. Clinton For Re-Election
-
Play CBS Video
Video
Looking Ahead To 2008
Only On The Web: CBS News political consultants Mike McCurry and Nicolle Wallace discuss possible Democratic presidential candidates Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton.
-
Video
Clinton Fires Back At Critics
CBS News RAW: Sen. Hilary Clinton, D-N.Y., called tactics being used this campaign season "sad" after a newspaper reported one of her opponents claimed she spent millions on plastic surgery.
-
Photo
(CBS/AP)
-
Interactive
Campaign 2006
Complete coverage and analysis of Senate and key House races, plus gubernatorial elections.
-
News Tools
Senate Showdowns
An analysis of all the U.S. Senate races, from Maine to Hawaii.
-
Interactive
Political Scandals
Politics can be a strange and dirty business. Check out some of the biggest missteps and mishaps in recent history.
The endorsement comes as a surprise given the right-leaning views of the Post, owned by media magnate Rupert Murdoch.
Clinton won her Senate seat in 2000 despite a concerted effort by the Post to attack her candidacy. The Post even ran a pleading headline, "Don't Run!" before Clinton formally joined the race.
During Bill Clinton's last year in the White House, the Post's news pages frequently referred to him as "horndog-in-chief."
"Surprised? Well, so are we — a little," said the editorial in the Post, which has a generally right-leaning editorial page. "But, then, there really isn't much of a choice in this race."
And what about Clinton's reported White House aspirations?
"...We think she's done such a good job these last six years that she'd do well to serve six more. If not 12," said the Post. "Re-elect Hillary. In 2012."
In addition to the Post, News Corp., the global media conglomerate controlled by Murdoch, owns Fox News and other television networks, as well as The Times of London and many other British and Australian newspapers.
Despite the general conservative slant of Murdoch's media, he hosted a fund-raising breakfast for Clinton in July, which was "a shock to both his right-wing allies and his liberal enemies," according to The New Yorker.
The Post seems to have been kinder to Clinton recently.
"Well, New Yorkers simply expect their major officeholders to be presidential aspirants — and the pols always rise to the bait (occasionally delivering ludicrous results; has anyone seen George Pataki in New York lately?)," the Post editorial read.
"So Hillary's caught the bug. So what?"
©MMVI, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.The Associated Press contributed to this report.




If everyone would stop voting all together---very quietly, as in zero publicity about it---watch the politicians as they count the fewest in history votes...claiming their winner anyway---they do not need our votes to win. The electoral college decides, not the people.
Does anyone every notice how CBS always points out "conservative" or "right" news organizations...... CNN does this also.
Have you ever seen CBS or CNN ever decribe the NYTimes as a "left-leaning" newspaper?
NO...... they just label the conservative ones....
CBS and labels, labels, and more labels...... and who keeps the hate going?????
Agreed. She makes me sick. Not just the person, but what she represents, which is the supremacy of the political machine over reason or good decision-making by voters.
Every time Hillary wins its a black mark for democracy, since she has no other qualification for office other than she had horizontal *** with the president. Actually, her real qualification is she operates a powerful political machine. It makes me too sick to even write about. I'm going to go throw up now.
Hillary's claim to fame has always been Bill Clinton. Just being married to him-that's it. THEY do not have ***. So exactly what is their marriage about if not money and power?
Hillary would be nothing to everyone had she not married Bill Clinton. Let's let her be the nothing she really is instead of some weird career-*** keeping herself going by hanging on to Bill's coat tails. IF not for politics, they would have divorced a long long time ago. Hillary Clinton is a huge nothing being touted as a big money maker for many in politics.
Hillary will make a good president for our country. Right now she's about our only hope for a better future after the extensive damage done by Bush. People are entitled to their own opinion of course, but I think they will do themselves a favor by reading more about her carefully and thoroughly before attacking her and calling her names, for Hillary may just be the best thing that can happen to this country.
Rupert Murdock holding fundraisers for Hillary and now one of his newspapers endorsing her?
My point here is most democrats and some independents thing/hope Hillary will be another %u201CBill%u201D and she may very well be. I doubt if this country is ready to elect a woman as president yet in any event.
Right now I would vote for Hillary if she were to be chosen as the parties candidate, because we desperately need change.
As I have said before, I voted in every presidential election since 1960 and the only times my choices lost were the last two elections. I believe that makes me an independent.
The country has previously always gone with my way o voting, which is another for me to be suspicious about The 2000 and 2004 elections
But the truth is, the is a moderate Dem who matches closer politically to Joe Leiberman than Nancy Pelosi. Many of her Republican colleagues have had good things to say about her, that she is knowledgeable on the issues and willing to cross party lines when necessary. Even the Republican who ran the Bill Clinton impeachment proceedings (I forgot his name) has worked with her and said she was cordial and that she was fair and that they worked well together.
She%u2019s also one of the few NY Senators who has given a *** about the Western side of the state. Most politicians out of NY think NY ends at the Hudson River.
But the right is so intent on hating Bill Clinton that they extend that hatred to anything even remotely associated with him, no matter how fair or truthful the criticism is. It's also interesting to note that most of the Hilary criticism comes from people who don't even know here. People that do know her though usually have good things to say.
Hilary may have gotten through the door on Bubba's name, but once there, she's proven herself to be a capable senator, even by the opposition's standards. And the right's fear of a moderate dem who's competent is sending the GOP into a panic.
Yes, I agree with you.
How can she be any worse than what we already have?
I believe with a woman in the White House, respect of some sort for the president might actually return.
In comparison, with all the hyperbole written about her in here thus far, they are making Bush into a genius.
This line "Every time Hillary wins its a black mark for democracy, since she has no other qualification for office," by SharnCedar is exactly my point: what qualification does Bush have? Except ***-ing with our minds?
Afterall she lived in the White House for eight years and knows how it operates (worked with her husband behind the scenes), is a Senator and
is brilliant. She's got my vote.
It is one thing to run stories that appeal to a conservative or liberal audience. It is another thing all together to create stories that appeal to that particular audience and that is what Fox and the rest of Murdoch's so-called "news" organizations do if you ask me. What the Chris Wallace interview with Bill Clinton was supposed to be is an example of that. Turns out they created some news, but it wasn't the news they intended to make thanks to the piece of Bill's mind that was shared that day.
This New York Post endorsement and Murdoch's fund raiser are just Murdoch trying to look (but not be)less slanted for the sake of avoiding the lose of the their more moderate audience members if you ask me.
Kudos to Murdoch for looking at the candidates and judging them at their worth and not their party affiliation. It's what more people should be doing.
Wallace explained his party affiliation... by noting that a large majority of D.C. is Democrat. "If you want a say in who's going to be the next mayor or councilman, you have to vote in the Democratic primary."
He however maintains that he has voted for candidates from both major parties.
Bob Novak once indicated that he too is a Democrat. Bob also lives in DC, where, as a practical matter, only Democrats get to vote, at least if you want it to count for some thing.
The Chris Wallace we've all seen and know is nevertheless extremely conservative.
Is that a promise?
Barack and Hillary agree on many more issues then they disagree on. And of course when Mr. Obama is ready, the righties will swift boat him just the same and misvision will certainly disovow the statement above.
-
by bluestardad
October 31, 2006 5:17 AM PST
- blah blah blah, win this election first then in 08 talk of 08
-
Reply to this comment
-
See all 30 Comments