In Iowa, Clinton Is Pressed on Murdoch

[babylonsister]

In Iowa, Clinton Is Pressed on Murdoch

By Patrick Healy


FORT DODGE, Iowa – The curious relationship between Hillary Rodham Clinton, presidential candidate, and Rupert Murdoch, media baron, flashed briefly before the eyes of Iowans on Saturday night during a Clinton campaign event.

A woman in the audience rose to ask Mrs. Clinton about Mr. Murdoch’s ownership of multiple media outlets (Fox News, the New York Post, soon the Wall Street Journal, and various other organs), and also whether Americans would “lose out democracy” if one person is in control of the media.

And Mrs. Clinton played both sides in her answer, responding sympathetically to the woman’s concern about media consolidation, but also making clear that she wasn’t singling out “any company in particular” for condemnation.

Mrs. Clinton, as a senator from New York, has built a relationship with Mr. Murdoch over the years – not only due to his role as an employer in her home state, but also because, as the hands-on owner of the Post, he can make life easier or harder for her (and for her husband, who has been a target of the tabloid’s gossip pages at times.) And Mr. Murdoch has reciprocated, throwing a fundraiser on Senator Clinton’s re-election campaign in 2006 and participating in Mr. Clinton’s annual philanthropic conference.

As the woman asked the question Saturday night and criticized Mr. Murdoch by name, Mrs. Clinton nodded slowly – though, it should be noted, that is her standard habit when an ally or supporter is addressing her.

more...

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/25/in-iowa-clinton-is-pressed-on-murdoch/

[itsrobert]

1. K&R for the "Talking out of two sides of the mouth" crowd

She's Burger King. She likes to have it her way and the opposite way at the same time.

[Cha]

64. You bet your sweet

bippy "we would lose out on Democracy"..we already are under these A$$$$$$Holes' corporatewhoremedia CONTROL. And then we ol' uglyshit murdoch into the mix and hillary is all mind-numbingly disingenous. Mustn't rock the cash boat.

[MonkeyFunk]

2. What was wrong with Clinton's answer?

Nobody reading this thread can say, because you didn't post her answer. I'm not surprised - it's your modus operandi: post an implied smear with no context.

here's what she said:

“There have been a lot of media consolidations in the last several years, and it is quite troubling,” Mrs. Clinton began her reply. “The fact is, most people still get their news from television, from radio, even from newspapers. If they’re all owned by a very small group of people — and particularly if they all have a very similar point of view – it really stifles free speech.”

Mrs. Clinton pledged that as president, she would appoint commissioners to the Federal Communications Commission who supported “competition in the media,” and she hailed Theodore Roosevelt as a model for his trust-busting approach to monopolistic corporate impulse.

“It’s bad for consumers because you limit choice,” Mrs. Clinton said of media consolidations, and “it’s bad for citizens because it limits the diversity we have.”

[Evergreen Emerald]

4. hehehe

you and I responded at the same time. YOu are right: there was nothing wrong with her answer. I am getting so tired of the negative spin.

When Obama has a homophobic speaker he has a wider tent. When Clinton condemns the idea of media consolation without naming names, she is "talking out of both sides of her mouth." I wonder why she has to live up to a different standard.

[babylonsister]

5. I never said anything was wrong with anything; I posted an article. nt

[MonkeyFunk]

7. You posted an excerpt from an article

that included the editorial smear against clinton without including her actual answer.

[babylonsister]

9. I posted the first few paragraphs of the article, per DU rules.

Spin it however you want, but that's how I post usually. I think people are more inclined to read an article if it's not broken up, but that's just me.

[MonkeyFunk]

12. lol

you spend your days scouring the internet for stories that are negative about clinton, and I'm supposed to believe this was just an innocent adherence to the rules?

Well I don't believe that.

[babylonsister]

14. Ya know what?

I could care less what you believe.

[maddiejoan]

22. That would be part of the problem I think.

You could care less about anything that refutes your already formed belief.

[babylonsister]

32. Did you even bother to read this thread?

Your comment indicates you didn't, but thanks for bumping it up anyway. :eyes:

[maddiejoan]

38. yes, dear

I read it.

Did you?

[babylonsister]

43. I'm being criticized for how I posted an article and you're

commenting on my beliefs when you have no idea what they are.
And yes, I read it and posted it without comment. But thanks for playing!

[maddiejoan]

46. Taken with your posting history --

--and how you chose to title the thread with Healy's slanted title --as opposed to siting it as the title of an op-ed, I believe that one can make a reasonable assumption.

[babylonsister]

48. Hahaha! Now I should be rewriting titles? I think not. nt

[cuke]

69. Very disingenous

Your antipathy to Clinton is obvious. Your defense that the rules require that you post the first four paragraphs is ridiculous because the rules don't say that. It limits the # of paragraphs but does not say they must be the first paragraphs

Nothing wrong with not liking a candidate, but the fact that you have to hide behind non-existent rules to justify your spin suggests that even you realize how unfair your OP was by not quoting Hillary's response

[babylonsister]

75. Get over yourself. If this article was pro-Clinton, and there are

positive aspects of it judging from posts here, no one would have said a word. But because you didn't like the content, you're taking it out on me. Sorry, speaking of disingenuous... :eyes:

[cuke]

77. If the article was pro-Clinton, you wouldn't have posted it

You are being disingenous again.

[babylonsister]

79. Well that's very true; we all have our favorites, and I'm not jumping

down anyone's throat for posting anti-Obama or Edwards articles now, am I. I think balance is healthy!

[cuke]

81. Just as disingenous as ever

No one criticized you for posting an anti-Clinton article. The criticism is about how one sided you've been in the OP by not posting her response or commenting on it anywhere

[babylonsister]

83. Why should I have to comment? Is that a new DU rule I'm unaware of?

Besides, everyone else is doing a fine job! :D

[cuke]

84. More disingenioty

You said I wouldn't complain if you had a pro Clinton article, even though we both know that you would never do that

And now you're trying to hide behind the rules again and trying (very unsuccessfully) to distract from your obvious bias

[babylonsister]

86. Oh dear. I'm very sorry if you don't like the message, and I'm going to

curl up in a ball and weep because you're calling me names - NOT! But it does appear as if you're distracted, so make of that what you will. ;-)

[cuke]

88. And there you go again

I guess you can't help yourself. But I didn't call you any names. Nice try

[KoKo]

70. This DU'ers posting history has always been "Subject and Text" of an article....without personal

comment. But, then you knew that and just wanted to get into a little sparring match about this with insinuations, didn't you. Sort of to plant a little something that you hoped some peeps might pick up on somewhere out there. :eyes:

[Kahuna]

6. We don't need no stinkin' commissioners and she knows it. We need

an anti-trust suit by her administration if she wins one.

[MonkeyFunk]

8. no we don't

there's no single media trust, nor are the media engaging in obvious anti-competitive practices.

I know of no law or regulation the current consolidation violates. So what would a lawsuit do?

[denem]

19. She didn't rule it out

From the article:

"... she would appoint commissioners to the Federal Communications Commission who supported “competition in the media,” and she hailed Theodore Roosevelt as a model for his trust-busting approach to monopolistic corporate impulse."

[spotbird]

21. She says that while on Murdoch's payroll

My damn lying eyes again.

[denem]

31. Hillary = Murdoch is BS, pure BS

Murdoch backs winners. Always has. Hillary was odds on in the NY Senate in 2006. Murdoch climbs on board. It's what he always does. His greatest "friend" at the moment 'communist' China. Rupert has no ideology at whatsoever, unless megalomania can be described as an idea.

[spotbird]

42. If Rupert has no ideology,

he and Hillary have quite a bit in common. That explains his love for her.

[denem]

47. Prove Rupert loves Hillary

You can't. Rupert loves winners - he doesn't care who they are.

[spotbird]

49. ok

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

(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.

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

[denem]

53. Wrong

It was a fund raiser for Clinton's 2006 Senate race - a race she was certain to win. Rupert backs winners, it's as simple as that.

People look at Fox and decide thats his ideology. He has no ideology. He chases money and (the illusion) of power. In England his paper The Sun, the biggest selling daily by far, features bare breasted women on the 'Page 3' and is vigilantly anti - monarchist. Rupert searches out dependable, profitable markets, and milks them dry.

[spotbird]

56. Um, that was a verbatim quote,

You need to complain to CBS, not me.

Oh yeah, I don't give a fuck why Rupert did it, he isn't running for President and he doesn't claim to be a Democrat. It looks like he loves her, and she loves him. It is a vile statement about her loyalties, particularly since she celebrated the Fox news celebration as well.

She doesn't care whose money she takes because she stands for nothing but the quest for power.

[denem]

61. The only "love" was the Editor's spin

The actual text from the article was:

"They have a respectful and cordial relationship. He has respect for the work she has done on behalf of New York. I wouldn't say it was illustrative of a close ongoing relationship. It is not like they are dining out together."

You don't have to convince me the Rupert Murdoch is bad news. But it really wouldn't matter who it was. If Rudy was odds on running in 2006, Rupert would NOT have been at Clinton's fund raiser.

[spotbird]

65. The point is Hillary,

Rupert isn't running for president as a Democrat. The Democratic candidate thinks Murdoch is just swell. She attends his celebrations, accepts his money and this is just what we know about.

This is not about Murdoch's motivations, it is about Hillary as a sell-out neocon.

Why Rupert did it is irrelevant. What it says about Hillary is very telling.

This is about Hillary Clinton's moral vacuum.

If you want I will attempt to clarify the central issue further for you, if you persist in shifting the issue back to Murdoch's motivations, which don't matter.


This is about Clinton. She does not believe there is anything wrong in accepting money, generosity, and hospitality from the scum of the earth.

[denem]

67. Rupert Murdock is not the scum of the earth.

He is a amoral businessman with delusions of grandeur. If you think that its sensible to turn down an offer of a fund raising venue, perhaps adding - I am going to destroy you, then go ahead. Dennis went on Fox. So what?

[spotbird]

72. She thinks Larry Flint's money is too dirty

So she gets that not all money is equal.

It isn't only his money, it is his hosting her, and her celebrating the Fox anniversary.

She also attended a fundraiser in her honor hosted by a Wall Street Bush Ranger. That fundraiser wasn't even ostensible for her Presidential race, it actually was.

on edit:

Rupert Murdoch is the scum of the earth, he has caused enormous harm.

[denem]

76. I dont like Rupert at all

But he is all about winners. Put it this way, this week, Rupert's papers in Australia came out in support of Labor who's policies included signing Kyoto, pulling out of Iraq and scrapping anti-Union industrial laws.

If Clinton was FDR, Rupert would be backing her to the hilt, like Hearst did.

[spotbird]

80. This is about Hillary.

She has no standards. No integrity. No bottom. She is a corporatist neocon. Her friendly relationship with Murdoch et al are more examples of it.

[MonkeyFunk]

102. A "verbatim quote"?

Who said it?

[spotbird]

106. Oh dear, you must have missed it,

the answer to your question is found here.

[MonkeyFunk]

107. Oh dear

you must be illiterate.

It's not quoting anybody. You quoted a headline. Thats not a "verbatim quote". Who SAID that line?

As far as I can see, the headline is just some editor's take on the story.

I'll give you half a point if you can name the low-level editor who wrote that headline. Full credit if you can name an actual person involved who said it.

You can't. Nobody said it. It was a headline on a story.

That's not a "verbatim quote".

[spotbird]

112. Well I may be illiterate,

but at least I'm not stupid. We all have our crosses to bear, you poor thing.

[MonkeyFunk]

101. Shes not on Murdoch's payroll

don't be silly.

Can you show where she draws a salary from murdoch? No, you can't.

[spotbird]

105. Why isn't it surprising that you

are unfamiliar with the metaphor?

The night shift Hillophiles are even less gifted than their day shift counterparts.

[MonkeyFunk]

108. What you call a metaphor

I call a lie. Vive la difference.

[spotbird]

113. It's your girl who is a corporate

prostitute, you can't defend her, so you employ idiotic insults.

The only good is that it proves that there is absolutely no defense. Hillary has no morality, and her supporters know it too.

Don't you think it would be simpler to just give Bush another four years, what's the advantage of replacing him with his female clone.

Pathetic.

[Kahuna]

27. She hailed TR but did she say she would follow his approach?

:eyes:

[denem]

34. Hillary tries not to say anything.

But one things for sure, if she said she was in favor of breaking up media conglomerates, and she won the nomination, the sour reception given to John Kerry by the MSM would seem like honey and treacle.

[cuke]

71. Did you read her response? It was clear

To answer Kahuna's question, "Yes, she said so quite clearly"

[Kahuna]

93. Yeah.. Her response was she'd appoint commissioners. And just

when did commissioners ever get us anywhere? :rofl: at the gullible among us.

[Armstead]

30. That's because her husband helped to eliminate laws against it

Time was that no company could own more than 7 AM and 7 FM radio stations, and no more than one AM or FM in a single market. There were also laws that limited the ability of owners of TV stations to also own radio stations.

But Bill Clinton and the centrist Democrats ignored or supported the continuing and accelerating concentration of the media in the 90, and they presided over one of the largest anti-competative legislation in the history of telecommunications, the Telecommunications reform Act of 1996

Now, as a result a handful of companies own hundreds -- even thousands of radio stations, TV as well as affiliated media.

This doesn't bother you?

[merbex]

37. It bothers me;thanks for pointing out the root of the problem n/t

[Cha]

66. Stupid A$$holes.

Fucking near-$ighted power-monger$.

[Smarmie Doofus]

11. What are the odds of that happening, given....

... her super-duper close (and CONSISTENTLY close, over the years.) relationship with Mr. Media Consolidation himself?

Don't ask; don't tell.

[MonkeyFunk]

13. What are the odds of any OTHER candidate

launching an anti-trust suit against an industry that is not a trust and whose consolidation is entirely legal?

[Smarmie Doofus]

15. Zero, if your legalism is well founded. So, lets recast the question:

>>>“There have been a lot of media consolidations in the last several years, and it is quite troubling,” Mrs. Clinton began her reply. “The fact is, most people still get their news from television, from radio, even from newspapers. If they’re all owned by a very small group of people — and particularly if they all have a very similar point of view – it really stifles free speech.”

Mrs. Clinton pledged that as president, she would appoint commissioners to the Federal Communications Commission who supported “competition in the media,” and she hailed Theodore Roosevelt as a model for his trust-busting approach to monopolistic corporate impulse.>>>>


What are the chances that Sen. Clinton is speaking sincerely in the passages above.... given her consistently long and CLOSE realtionship with Mr. Media Consolidation himself.

What kind of uncharacteristic foolishness and naivete on Murdoch's part would lead him to attach his star to so zealous a media reformer as the one described above?

Is there a record of Sen. Clinton leading the charge on this subject prior to her her formation of a presidential campaign committee?

If there is.... I will be *impressed*. If there isn't I shall remain skeptical.

[creeksneakers2]

29. Hillary is not tight with Rupert Murdoch

Murdoch endorsed Hillary for Senate and threw a small fundraiser. He doesn't endorse Hillary for president. He's turned his entire extensive media network against her. Murdoch's attacks on Hillary are the lowest of the low, probably in part because Hillary is against media empires like Murdoch has.

Suppose Hillary becomes president and she goes after media monopolies, including Murdoch's. The opposition is going to say she's going after her enemies by confiscating their first amendment rights. If Hillary was foolish enough to single out Murdoch now, that would be used against her later. It would be effective too.

[spotbird]

51. She accepted his generosity,

went to his home and took his money. She celebrated the Fox News anniversary at a party hosted by him. This story says more about her than him.

He may be an opportunist. She has no standards either and she is running as a Democrat for President.

[denem]

18. She then referred to TR trustbusting

if you'd bothered to read the article.

[Kahuna]

23. "Referred to." Right. Typical Hillary. 'I will appoint commissioners..'

She hailed TR trust busting. Isn't that nice. But where does she say that she would follow TR's approach?

I can read. Maybe YOU need to sharpen your skills and learn how to read double-speak. That's what Hillary does. It's the same thing bush does and how he still has people believing we found WMDs in Iraq. She knows what she's doing. Just because she mentioned TR in the same topic you ASSume that she's saying she will take his approach. :eyes: And THIS is what people are beginning to see and THIS is why she scores low on the trust issue.

[denem]

41. She didn't rule it out.,

I can read as well as you can. Here's the question - If she said I will break up the media conglomerates, what sort of run would she, or any other candidate get in the general election.

If you are going to take on a mega powerful special interest group. surely it is best to do so from a position of power. I don't remember TR telegraphing his punches either.

[Kahuna]

94. True that. She didn't rule it out. I even agree with you about telegraphing

intentions. The point for me is, Hillary has a long history of being glib I don't know where she really stands on anything. You can trust her intentions if you want. But after Iraq and Iran votes, I really can't do that.

[Evergreen Emerald]

3. Sounds like a great answer:

“There have been a lot of media consolidations in the last several years, and it is quite troubling,” Mrs. Clinton began her reply. “The fact is, most people still get their news from television, from radio, even from newspapers. If they’re all owned by a very small group of people — and particularly if they all have a very similar point of view – it really stifles free speech.”
Mrs. Clinton pledged that as president, she would appoint commissioners to the Federal Communications Commission who supported “competition in the media,” and she hailed Theodore Roosevelt as a model for his trust-busting approach to monopolistic corporate impulse.
“It’s bad for consumers because you limit choice,” Mrs. Clinton said of media consolidations, and “it’s bad for citizens because it limits the diversity we have.”

More negative media spin.

[KittyWampus]

36. Again, all she says is she'll support people who support competition. Big fucking deal.

Yeah, that's a nice basic beginning. It's the very LEAST we'd expect from a POTUS of any party.

Big fucking deal.

She says absolutely nothing about reversing the legislative trend.

NOTHING.

So we know she plans on doing NOTHING.

[Karmadillo]

10. Healy's editorial commnet: incorrect. Hillary's answer: excellent.

She didn't play both sides. She simply responded as an intelligent candidate would. She opposes media consolidation, notes it harms our democracy, and pledged to bring more competition to the market (citing Theodore Roosevelt). Other than pandering, there was no reason to attack one source of concentration in particular since there are multiple sources of concentration she would be taking on should she become President. A smart answer on her part. Playing both sides would have involved her attacking concentration while trying to protect or downplay Murdoch's role in the concentration. She, of course, did nothing like that. Healy's comments remind me of some of the glosses reporters from the Times and the Post added to Al Gore so we would have a better understanding of why we should elect George W Bush.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/25/in-iowa-clinton-is-pressed-on-murdoch/

<edit>

“There have been a lot of media consolidations in the last several years, and it is quite troubling,” Mrs. Clinton began her reply. “The fact is, most people still get their news from television, from radio, even from newspapers. If they’re all owned by a very small group of people — and particularly if they all have a very similar point of view – it really stifles free speech.”

Mrs. Clinton pledged that as president, she would appoint commissioners to the Federal Communications Commission who supported “competition in the media,” and she hailed Theodore Roosevelt as a model for his trust-busting approach to monopolistic corporate impulse.

“It’s bad for consumers because you limit choice,” Mrs. Clinton said of media consolidations, and “it’s bad for citizens because it limits the diversity we have.”
Just as this reporter began to wonder if she would side-step Mr. Murdoch altogether, Mrs. Clinton then added: “I’m not saying anything against any company in particular. I just want to see more competition, especially in the same markets.”

[KittyWampus]

39. she doesn't oppose media consolidation because she doesn't propose actually addressing it

all she said is she'd appoint commissioners who support competition.

One more time- BIG FUCKING DEAL.

She has no plans on how to reverse the trend using legislation.

It's not even on her radar.

Because she is not interested in do anything.

[BlueJac]

16. Hum

:cry:

[Debi]

17. because I'm too lazy to do the research myself...

Is Clinton in support of breaking up media monopolies? If so does she have any type of a plan to do so?

[Joanne98]

20. Well, she did support the 1996 Telecom Act. Which is why we have this

problem in the first place! The Clintons deregulated BANKS ENERGY AND MEDIA!

THANX A FUCKING LOT!

[spotbird]

24. You are supposed to believe what she says,

and ignore what she does. Get with the program.

[maddiejoan]

25. I'm pretty sure that in 1996

Hillary didn't hold any office.

So what the hell are you talking about?

[Debi]

40. But she was in the White House and has stated that her time at the White House

equals her presidential experience (she is the one who has campaigned saying we don't need 'on the job training' at 1600 Pennsylvania).

[maddiejoan]

45. No.

She said that her experience as a First Lady has given her more experience in dealing with Foreign Leaders than her fellow candidates.

To me it's a debatable point, but no where does she claim that it is equal experience to being a President.

[spotbird]

50. So her experience as First Lady

does not help qualify her on the domestic front? Or just not when it's expedient?

I'm so confused, I thought she learned everything she knows as First Lady, now you say she may not have supported her husband's domestic policies? Or just that she didn't have anything to do with them?

[maddiejoan]

52. Yes.

You are confused.

Unless you have an actual quote saying she supported something, I don't see why the assumption of agreement through marriage is valid.

Do married couples always agree on everything?

[spotbird]

54. No, but it is also unusual

for a woman to claim her husband's job as part of her qualification. You say she does in foreign relations, but not on domestic policy. Or does she claim neither, both, or just cherry pick?

In other words her claim of "experience" like all of her positions, is quite fluid.

[maddiejoan]

57. Fluid is good.

I like fluid.



(she actually has a better claim towards domestic experience BTW)

[spotbird]

58. Great,

I prefer candidates with core values as opposed to double talking neocons who sell their positions to the highest bidder.

To each his (or her) own.

[maddiejoan]

59. I think HRC has core values.

You don't.

okay.

[spotbird]

62. Actually, I think

she has core values as well, my comment was hyperbole.

It's the values she won't compromise that are the worst part of this nightmare. It is tragic that no matter what happens next year, we are almost certain to have a corporatist neocon in the WH.

[maddiejoan]

91. oh dear god.

I'm having flashbacks to 2000 when people like you said this very thing about Al Gore.

[spotbird]

95. Hillary is the only Democratic candidate

I have ever felt this way about. Until recently I was the most yellow of yellow dogs. I campaigned, contributed, and rationalized for any candidate with a D after his/her name. That time is over, I only believe my eyes now, they don't lie.

It's typical that the Nader card would be played, it's like patriotism, the last refuge.

[maddiejoan]

97. I wasn't aware --

--of even mentioning Nader.

I find it interesting that you do.

[spotbird]

98. Forgive me,

I assumed your comparison to a Gore detractor in 2000 was a reference to Nader. Parse away, that's all the Clinton people have, hairsplitting semantics, meaningless distraction. It would be so much simpler for you if your candidate stood for something that you could define and demonstrate, instead you are left with endless rhetorical slight of hand.

Pity you, pity all of us if your girl is elected.

[maddiejoan]

99. My candidate DOES stand for something!

My candidate is Dennis Kucinich and I resent you calling him a girl!

[spotbird]

100. Hillary is your girl,

even if Dennis is your candidate.

Only a Hillophile can parse, reframe and distract with your skill, there may be a training camp.

[Debi]

90. Healthcare? n/t

[spotbird]

96. That went well.

She is also corporate health care's girl these days. So here "experience" in this regard taught her that if you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

[Debi]

104. And make yourself a tidy profit....n/t

[maddiejoan]

26. Yeah! FDR didn't take money from Hearst!

Oh wait -- he did.

[Kahuna]

28. What does FDR have to do with it? nt

[maddiejoan]

35. Has everything to do with it.

If the implication is that Hillary wouldn't be a force for progressive social issues simply because she takes money from Murdoch.

FDR's nomination was funded by William Randolph Hearst and backroom deals with Tammany Hall (The DLC of it's day)


In other words -- There is no "there" there.

[cuke]

73. And LBJ took bags of money from the Hunt Brothers

two of the biggest racists in the nation, and he got the Civil Rights Act passed

[maddiejoan]

92. ding ding ding

we have a winner!

[Armstead]

33. ALL the candidates should take on this issue

I like her basic answer -- but I don;t trust that she'll follow through if elected. Sorry, but that's my problem with Clintonism in general.

However, I must give her kudos for at least addressing the querstion.

I believe ALL of the candidates should proactively RAISE this issue, in all of its guises, because it is a core problem. Consolidation of the economy -- and especially the media -- is destroying both our economy and our democracy.

[pacalo]

44. And Murdoch knows that Clinton could either abet or break up his media kingdom.

Good for that Iowan woman for asking the question. Thank goodness voters still have the freedom to ask the right questions, regardless of how uncomfortable they may be. Oh wait, that's not always the case, is it...seems I've read about pre-written questions being handed out to audience members. Geesh.

[Imagevision]

55. Hillary is too corporate, she'll probably allow the healthcare Ind. rewrite healthcare rules?

[Cameron27]

60. I'm satisfied with her answer,

and I'm very pleased to see that she's not going to cut into NASA.

[Cha]

63. Quid Pro Quo..

but, we're suppose to sit here in awe of anything clinton does or says because all the big bucks are behind her so-called flawless campaign..and if ya don't? Why you're branded a fucking "hillary hater" and that can't be bad.

[cuke]

74. What did Murdoch get for his money?

You claim there is a pro quid quo between Murdoch and Clinton. What did Murdoch get for his money?

[Cha]

78. Telecommunications Act..

snip~
"The Telecommunications Act of 1996<1> was the first major overhaul of United States telecommunications law in nearly 62 years, amending the Communications Act of 1934, and leading to media consolidation.<2> It was approved by the 104th Congress on January 3, 1996 and signed into law on February 8, 1996 by President Bill Clinton."
snip~
"The Act was claimed to foster competition. Instead, it continued the historic industry consolidation begun by Reagan, whose actions reduced the number of major media companies from around 50 in 1983 to 10 in 1996 <1>, reducing the 10 in 1996 to 6 in 2005.<6>

An FCC study found that the Act had led to a drastic decline in the number of radio station owners, even as the actual number of commercial stations in the United States had increased<7>."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_1996

Where's that smilin' picture of murdoch and hillary..grinning ear to ear?

[cuke]

82. That sounds insane

Hillary wasn't in any office in 1996 and if Murdoch wanted to reward Hillary for that, then why didn't he support Clinton for Senator in 2000 or for Pres 2008?

You're arguing that Murdoch waited 10 years to reward Clinton for something she never voted on or spoke in support of but that he didn't do anything to reward Bill Clinton who actually did support it.

[Cha]

87. Yeah, I knew you

wouldn't get it.

[cuke]

89. Then explain it

That is, if you can explain why Murdoch would not reward Bill for his actual support while waiting 10 years to reward Hillary, who did nothing to support the TCA of 1996.

[asdjrocky]

68. It makes it hard to know who the good guys are...

and who the bad guys are when the Clinton's seem perfectly happy to sit on the fence and take money from both sides. This is exactly what I mean, as a younger man, during the Clinton administration, I would watch what they said, and what they did, and I always found myself saying, "These are Democrats? This is what I voted for? Twice?" Yeah, I think in this day and age, it's important to know who your candidates friends are. I believe it matters.

Meet the new boss....


http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Burson-Marsteller

....same as the old boss.



Go Edwards!

[snowbear]

109. Off topic for a second, but hot dayum asdRocky...

That is one niiIIcce picture of JE!

[AtomicKitten]

85. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

[IndianaGreen]

110. Now we know what Hillary meant when she said "I'm your girl!"

She is Murdoch's "girl," and she is the "girl" of every boardroom in America.

[snowbear]

111. Rupie's girl....

.
.
.

[AtomicKitten]

114. Hey Larissa.

Nice to see you around these parts.

Don't be a stranger. :hi:

[snowbear]

115. I know Kitten...

I had to do some traveling for work so wasn't able to post for a while..

Wow, I have to tell you --- not a whole lot has changed!!

[Rosa Luxemburg]

103. Rupert controls everything

he controlled Blair