O'Reilly: "Back Off Hillary!"

[flpoljunkie]

So here's a bit of a role reversal: Fox News's Bill O'Reilly defending Hillary from her New York Times-pedigreed biographers.

It's a truly bizarre interview, with O'Reilly's asking Gerth and Van Natta if Hillary has ever committed a crime, and theirnot quite answering. O'Reilly then expresses his view that she's not a criminal. (Faint praise, yes.)

Still, worth filing under something that shouldn't be unexpected any more: Hillary is the only leading Democrat with ties to Rupert Murdoch, and she's likely the candidate Fox is going to treat with the most respect in the Democratic Primary.

Full interview transcript after the jump.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0607/OReilly_Back_off_Hillary.html

Video at the above link, as well.

[wyldwolf]

1. "ties" to Rupert Murdoch?? ROFL!

:eyes:

[youngdem]

3. Yes. Ties. He hosted a fundraiser for her, if you didn't know

And Hillary has no second thoughts about it. See, she is a DLC stooge, a Repuke light. That's why O'Liely is going easy on her. He knows she's one of them.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/05/09/politics/main1600694.shtml
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/577ecd2e-dfc2-11da-afe4-0000779e2340,_i_rssPage=80fdaff6-cbe5-11d7-81c6-0820abe49a01.html
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/61faabde-deb8-11da-acee-0000779e2340.html


Still ROFL-ing?

[rinsd]

5. Wow a single fundraiser during her Senate run. That makes them best buds!

:eyes:

[youngdem]

11. A fundraiser is a culmination of an agreement

It isn't a single event. It represents that the Murdoch camp and the Hillary camp have negotiated who gets what for whom in return for Rupert's bribe party...ehem, I mean, fundraiser.

Rupert does NOTHING for nothing. All politicians are favor machines. In goes the cash, out goes the favor. So, what did she promise him?

He wouldn't lift a finger unless she supports something he wants.

I don't want a Dem president that has fundraisers hosted by Rupert Fucking Murdoch - who's political beliefs are just BARELY to the left of Genghis Khan. I guess that is too much to ask.

And comparing accepting a donation to having someone raise money for you publicly at an event hosted by Murdoch is pretty weak. Murdoch is a normal business man in that he puts a little something in all candidate's stockings at election time because that is smart business. Publicly backing and raising money for someone who you claim to be diametrically opposed to politically is fishy as shit. And Hillary already has some trust issues with the left on her liberal pedigree.

[wyldwolf]

13. in what bizzaro world is that true? Exchange of money, period, is a culmination of an agreement

By your reasoning, Murdoch has ties to the DNC.

[rinsd]

15. LOL.

Yes, Rupert has bought off Hillary.

And she has repaid Rupert by embarrassing his network by refusing to appear at their televised debate.

"And comparing accepting a donation to having someone raise money for you publicly at an event hosted by Murdoch is pretty weak."

Really? How different is it?

"Publicly backing"

A couple of articles talking in future tense about his holding a fundraiser for her? That's publically backing?

"some trust issues with the left on her liberal pedigree."

Some of the left have trust issues period. Hillary notwithstanding.

[ieoeja]

19. For the record, Genghis Khan was a liberal.

He unified his people into a single nation largely through peaceful means, even forgiving some of those who killed his father.

He made several efforts to establish a dialogue with his superpower neighbor despite that superpower's oppression of his people over the course of centuries. Only when that superpower continued their attacks did he finally go to war against them.

After his first victory over China, he quickly returned power to the Chinese with only one condition: an open border allowing their two peoples to interact peacefully and without restraint. Only when China was stupid enough to renege on their promises and attempt again to subvert the Khan's leadership in Mongolia did Genghis return to conquer China for good.

He created a postal service, schools, hospitals, codified laws, etc. In very many respects Genghis Khan was centuries ahead of his time.

Genghis Khan's bad reputation comes from (1) repaying brutality with more competent brutality (though usually after giving the original perpetrators a second chance) and (2) creating the only empire in history for which the losers wrote the history instead of the winners.

[wyldwolf]

7. yes, I know. But he outright donated money to Howard Dean and others. So I guess..

... there are ties, there, too. :eyes:

[fooj]

4. It's silly to suggest that Hillary has ties with Murdoch. Such tripe!

Rupert Murdoch Loves Hillary Clinton
Conservative Media Mogul To Host Fundraiser For Liberal N.Y. Senator

NEW YORK, May 9, 2006
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CBS) To call them a political odd couple would be a rash understatement.

Conservative media mogul Rupert Murdoch will host a fundraiser for liberal New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, the Financial Times reports.

The mating ritual of the unlikely allies has been under way for months. Clinton set political tongues to wagging last month by attending a Washington party celebrating the 10th anniversary of Fox News, the cable news channel owned by Murdoch.
<snip>

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/05/09/politics/main1600694.shtml

:eyes:

[wyldwolf]

6. want to pull out the FEC records of how much he donated to Dean, Kerry, etc.?

:eyes:

[fooj]

9. Naaaaah...

Just thought I'd help you out in showing that there is NO POSSIBLE tie to Murdoch. Just trying to help you all keep the record straight.
:hi:

I see the gang's all here.

[MGKrebs]

14. Yes and if you go to a thread about Edwards, or Obama,

I'm pretty sure you would find their "gangs" there too.

[fooj]

17. You betcha.

[blm]

22. Donated 2000 to campaign, and donated his NETWORK to attacking them

to the tune of about 100 million dollars worth of airtime attacks.

[rocktivity]

2. "Back off Hillary!" Or "Back off, Hillary!"

Don't be impressed. The play has been called--just as the right marginalized Dean to make Kerry the frontunner, they're marginalizing Obama and Edwards to make Hillary the frontrunner. And for the same reason--they're seen as the easiest Democrats to beat.

:headbang:
rocknation

[fooj]

8. Perhaps they see her as the best candidate.

It's a win-win situation for the Repubs.

[PurityOfEssence]

25. Ding ding ding ding ding!

The donating to Howard Dean should be a tip-off if nothing else is.

I must say, though, after watching Hillary in the last debate that I'm not totally convinced of her unelectability anymore. I'm still nowhere near being a fan, but she certainly handled herself well.

The right wants to run against Hillary and DEFINITELY doesn't want to run against Edwards. What their take is on Obama is anybody's guess, but here's mine: he's their second favorite to run against because they assume most other people have the same racism that they do.

Whenever any of these reactionaries defends or praises a Democrat, it's because they think they're vulnerable and want to have them be the nominee. Remember how hot Karl Rove was to have Howard Dean as the choice?

[Cosmocat]

18. Not the "easiest" to beat ...

but the candidate they have been preparing to beat for a decade and a half ....

Personally, I have seen a VERY clear pattern in the cable news and MSM in general ...

1) At first, Rudy was being type cast as the next GWB ... You don't have to like him, but he is a tough (albeit in reality a weasly little chickenhawk) SOB who will keep us safe ... It doesn't matter what flaws he has, just focus on him keeping us safe ...

2) However, now that Thompson is coming in, HE is the candidate ... They have been beating the Reagen belongs on Mount Rushmore thing for almost two years now, almost immediately after Bushco won reelection and they were out from under the burdon of proping him up ... Didn't hear Hannity use the "Reagen conservative" line until then ... Now, Thompson nearly completely fits the Reagan profile to a T ... Bigger guy, actor, "looks the part" ... All the superficial crape that means NOTHING to being a president is ALL they talk about making him a great president ...

Bottom line, unless Romney catches some serious wind in the primaries, Thompson is the guy the MSM is supposed to get elected ...

3) Hillary is ALWAYS to be mentioned in a negative tone in general discussion, or in comparison to to republicans ...

4) As noted with Dean and Kerry, Hillary is ALWAYS to be painted as the inevitable democratic candidate ...

Now, Hillary won't be as "easy" to beat as Kerry because she is A LOT more savvy and tougher than he is politically ... But, this is the fight they have been itching for for 15 years ...

[thethinker]

10. Yes

They will go easy until after the primaries to make sure she is the Democratic candidate, then in the general election they will cream her. They will because they can. They want to make sure a Democrat doesn't end up in the white house.

[KansDem]

12. "...likely the candidate Fox is going to treat with the most respect..."

It is unfortunate that a media news organization cannot treat all candidates with respect. It's almost as if we should shun the other candidates because they're not worthy of (FOX) respect.

[calteacherguy]

16. I'm sure FOX will be delighted is she is our nominee. nt

[illinoisprogressive]

20. Ah, the clintons cozy with murdoch is showing...

[William769]

21. Desperation, gotta love it!

:rofl:

[rinsd]

23. Just a small quibble but that is not a quote from O'Reilly but the title of the blog post (nt)

[AtomicKitten]

24. non sequitur

n/t

[BikeWriter]

26. IMO, Hillary, Obama the GOP's choice!