Murdoch Paper Endorses Obama

By Big Tent Democrat

Here's an endorsement you won't see written about in the Left blogs. Rupert Murdoch's NYPost goes for Obama:

Democrats in 22 states across America go to the polls next Tuesday to pick between two presidential prospects: Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

We urge them to choose Obama . . .

Now I do not hold this against Obama. But I bet a lot of folks would have held it against Hillary if she got this endorsement.

< Republican Debate Thread | Hillary Says Obama Distorted Her Record Today in Denver >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    He'$ a $ellout to the Corporati$t$. On no. (5.00 / 0) (#4)
    by Teresa on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 09:34:49 PM EST
    I just heard Obama's slam on Hillary being like McCain. I can't imagine how PO'd she is. I expect her to fight back hard on that tomorrow night.

    Maybe she should bring up playing chicken with our troops.

    He also mentioned she voted to give Bush freedom to go to war with Iran. If he truly thought that bill was that big of deal, shame on him for not being there to vote against it. Especially now that we know that all Senators were told about the vote the previous night and he went to NH anyway.

    He started this in South Carolina (none / 0) (#6)
    by magster on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 09:38:52 PM EST
    when he said beating McCain was to not be McCain like.  He honed that attack into a pretty sharp one today.

    I hate to quote Pat Buchanan but like he (5.00 / 0) (#8)
    by Teresa on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 09:44:20 PM EST
    said, Obama has thrown some of the most negative comments ever against an opponent in a primary but he does it with a velvet glove and people ignore it. (Ignore it being negative campaigning.)

    Pat Buchanan is an astute political observer (none / 0) (#11)
    by andgarden on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 09:54:52 PM EST
    But his values and beliefs date from the 1920s. He would make a tremendous Robert A. Taft functionary.

    right (none / 0) (#12)
    by Jgarza on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 09:54:57 PM EST
    he also thinks that Barack Obama is too black to win.  BTW saying that Barack Obama is loosing for being too black, implicitly claims that Hillary's supporters have racist motivations.

    Disgusting if he said that. I was just (none / 0) (#15)
    by Teresa on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:00:04 PM EST
    pointing one argument he made to Joe Scarborough.

    I also think saying Hillary can't win because blacks won't vote for her with a black man running against her is just as racist.

    Pride not Prejudice...let's try to think of it like that as Bill Schneider said.


    Wow... (none / 0) (#45)
    by mindfulmission on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 03:36:10 PM EST
    ... so a racist political has been is criticizing Barack Obama.

    And how is this credible?


    Even as a Clinton supporter ... (none / 0) (#7)
    by robrecht on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 09:42:10 PM EST
    ... I can't say I'm sad to see her challenged on her Iraq record (even by Obama).  Shame on me!

    Did you read Sen. Chafee's (none / 0) (#10)
    by magster on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 09:53:52 PM EST
    book excerpts posted on Kos earlier tonight?  It really puts into perspective the Clinton's , Dodd's, Edwards, Kerry's and all the Dem enablers shameful voting record on Iraq.

    Obama should quote this passage in the debate: "The top Democrats were at their weakest when trying to show how tough they were," writes Chafee.


    Obama will not attack (none / 0) (#40)
    by Kathy on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:07:32 AM EST
    the dems for their voting record (except Hillary) because he needs them to prop him up.

    I don't understand why his calling on Ted Kennedy a while back to grow a pair is not being bandied about.  He is embracing the same "old" guard he was attacking.


    No Murdoch paper. . . (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:00:00 PM EST
    endorses in a national election without his approval at least or more likely his personal involvement.

    My favorite part (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by oldpro on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:01:55 PM EST

    of the endorsement for Obama was the warning that Hillary Clinton is far to the left of her husband and much more disciplined in achieving her goals!

    They do NOT want to see a liberal with skills and discipline in the White House.

    Just think where that might lead us!

    Works for me.

    Heh, heh, heh.

    You missed (none / 0) (#1)
    by andgarden on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 09:20:52 PM EST
    this and this.

    Of course, that's the right column. . .

    Did anyone hold it against Hillary when the Post (none / 0) (#2)
    by robrecht on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 09:27:05 PM EST
    endorsed her for the Senate?

    Yes, I've read it used against her in this (none / 0) (#3)
    by RalphB on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 09:32:50 PM EST
    election.  Silly but true  :-)

    Maybe in this one, but not when she was ... (none / 0) (#5)
    by robrecht on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 09:37:26 PM EST
    ... running for the Senate.  The Post's "endorsement" is not a real endorsement of Obama.  Read it, it's insipid.

    Re: (none / 0) (#22)
    by Steve M on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:21:40 PM EST
    How could it have been used against her when she was running for the Senate?  For all intents and purposes, she was unopposed.

    It couldn't, of course ... (none / 0) (#28)
    by robrecht on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:58:46 PM EST
    ... nor should this one be used against Obama (as someone else did in an earlier thread tonight).

    False equivalence (none / 0) (#31)
    by Steve M on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:12:20 PM EST
    The two cases have nothing to do with one another.

    It could only be a false equivalence ... (none / 0) (#32)
    by robrecht on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:19:39 PM EST
    ... if I had claimed they were equivalent.

    The endorsement is a pretext for an attack (none / 0) (#25)
    by byteb on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:42:25 PM EST
    against Hillary. They brought up every old scandal, they went after Bill, they basically said vote for Obama b/c if not, we're going to have to relive Hillary and Bill again.

    Exactly, it's just an insipid attack, hardly ... (none / 0) (#27)
    by robrecht on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:55:34 PM EST
    ... much of an "endorsement" of Obama.

    Indeed. (none / 0) (#9)
    by Klio on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 09:46:55 PM EST
    In fact, they're holding it against HRC that the Post didn't endorse her.  

    So what are they up to with the endorsement? (none / 0) (#13)
    by lily15 on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 09:58:20 PM EST
    Is Rupert a smart operator?  If you believe he is, then this endorsement has a strategic component...either he believes Obama is the weakest candidate (Buchanan analyzes that aspect with intelligence) or the most easily manipulated candidate.  Either bodes ill for Democrats. Greenwald's column says it all... and one can infer Obama is the embodiment of that type of bi partisanship...But if all the liberal blogs and many of the Washington Democratic establishment are behind this type of candidate...then maybe they are not much different, after all, than the members of Congress they castigate.

    This anti Hillary, anti logic narrative is just turning me off to progressives.  The hypocrisy is smelling up the room.

    Both. (none / 0) (#18)
    by oldpro on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:07:07 PM EST
    The weakest.  They think they can beat him and I actually fear they are right.

    Most easily manipulated...yup.  Candidate of the establishment will do the bidding of the establishment.  I fear that too.


    Most of the endorsement was a screed against (none / 0) (#26)
    by byteb on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:46:01 PM EST
    Hillary and against Bill and against Bill and Hillary. Eighty percent of the space was an anti-Hillary rant. I'm voting for Obama but readng what they wrote about Senator Clinton made me want to smack the Post editorial board.

    {{{{yawn}}}} (none / 0) (#17)
    by white n az on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:04:17 PM EST
    sort of like the NYT endorsing McCain

    it's meaningless - perhaps intended to harm rather than favor

    Faint praise...lesser of two evils. (none / 0) (#19)
    by oldpro on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:08:22 PM EST
    Intended to do both.

    Forgive me if this seems quaint, but (none / 0) (#20)
    by miriam on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:15:37 PM EST
    I read comment after comment on the blogs, listen to inanity piled upon triviality on cable, and read one broad-brush editorial after another about the candidates.  Who is lying, who is arrogant, who is this and who is that.  But, I can count on the fingers of one hand the rare comments that say: This candidate would be good for America because...

    BTD says what is going on now is politics.  I say what is going on now is what politics has become: personal combat, lying without limits, crudeness for the sake of crudeness, character assassination, accusations with no basis in fact, media manipulation instead of information, and on and on.  Please do not tell me this is the way it's always been.  I've been around too long for anyone to tell me what has always been, because I've lived through what has been.  There have been moments like this, short episodes like this, but not 24-hour-a-day months without end like this.  It's not good.  It's not even passable.  It's wholesale destruction of a country I happen to love, and I resent it like hell.  

    Which candidate is good for America?

    Nice post..... (none / 0) (#36)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 08:08:29 AM EST
    Politics has always been repugnant, but I agree it's getting worse every day.

    As for my answer to your question "which candidate is good for America?", of the D's and R's still in the race, I'd have to say Ron Paul.

    Only Ron Paul would leave this country in better shape then when he started....if nothing else than to get our finances and foreign policy in order.  Every other candidate would continue to borrow and occupy foreign lands, to our peril.


    Big Difference this time (none / 0) (#43)
    by PlayInPeoria on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 03:21:09 PM EST
    is the Internet... news, blogs, information. More people have access than even just 4 years ago. (I'm a network admin so I have been watching stats for the past 10 years)

    So the ability to voice an opinion is much easier now. I really beleive people have always had opinions about candidates. I can remember my dad ranting when I was a kid. It is just that now everyone can read it.


    Murdoch doesn't like the Clintons (none / 0) (#21)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:15:43 PM EST
    The editorial was about how much he/they/The Post don't like the Clintons. I guess if Edwards had held on for another day he might have gotten the endorsement.

    Sometimes the enemy of my enemy is just someone else that doesn't like my enemy.

    You probably won't see too many people writing about this endorsement because it doesn't mean anything more than Murdoch doesn't like the Clintons.

    I'm not a Clinton fan, but since my candidate dropped out today maybe someone can give me a reason other than Murdoch doesn't like Clinton to vote for her (and Obama was mean doesn't work).

    I'm no advocate but for starters (5.00 / 0) (#24)
    by RalphB on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:34:37 PM EST
    how about.

    1. Making college more affordable for everyone
    2. UHC, with a mandate and a public option, remarkably like Edward's plan :-)
    3. An economic plan which looks like it could address the sub-prime mortgage mess and provide some stimulus from the bottom up, instead of trickle down
    4. Re-evaluate and "fix" our international trade agreements so they are more fair for everyone

    The attitude and ability to really fight for those policy positions.  I think she'll stand up and not back down when push comes to shove.

    Like I said, I'm no advocate but FWIW.


    That's a start (none / 0) (#38)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 08:21:05 AM EST
    as long as we don't have to hear about who did or didn't shake hands on it and what the campaign interpretation of it was.

    ooh, such an invitation! (none / 0) (#23)
    by Klio on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:31:22 PM EST
    You're amenable to persuasion? Who knew?

    I'm off to work on my HRC pitch now :-)


    Murdoch probably would have gone with Edwards (none / 0) (#30)
    by byteb on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:05:44 PM EST
    I urge you to consider Obama when it comes time to cast your vote. Go to his campaign web page and learn about his positions on the issues. Although I admire the accomplishments of Senator Clinton, I feel after so many years of two political families dominating the White House, it's time to move forward towards the future rather than recapturing the past.  

    What? (none / 0) (#34)
    by mexboy on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 01:13:27 AM EST
    Not to vote for the most qualified candidate; Clinton, because her husband was president makes no sense to me!

    Correct (none / 0) (#46)
    by Wile ECoyote on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 04:15:01 PM EST
    me if I am wrong, but didn't Murdoch host a fund raiser for Mrs. Bill Clinton back in '06?  

    perhaps Murdoch thinks Obama will generate (none / 0) (#29)
    by Compound F on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:01:29 PM EST
    greater circulation.

    Wow (none / 0) (#33)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 12:21:58 AM EST
    I will repeat, what did Obama ever risk to be against the war? Nothing. When he had the opportunity to take a stance, he played right along with the everyone else. To use that now for gain, indicates to me a personality of opportunism and cowardice.

    Vote For The War - Dog Analogy (none / 0) (#35)
    by Jade Jordan on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 06:52:53 AM EST
    Risking the wrath of the Hillary Cult on Talk Left: voting to initiate the war is really different from funding the war.

    If you had a family vote to determine whether or not to buy a dog that is a pivotal decision.  

    Turns out the dog is a disaster.  If the family members who did not vote to buy the dog elect to give the dog food and water, that is a humane act that does not make them a party to the initial decision.

    I've come to the realization that we will have a Republican President.  Too much hate on both sides of the dem candidates.

    I do not believe Obama's people will vote for Hillary and Hillary's people will not vote for Obama.

    I won't vote for Hillary under any circumstances.  I am one of the 51% of Americans who disliked her and her dishonest husband from the beginning.

    Now that my candidate has tragically dropped out I'll vote for Obama or one of the minor candidates from a third party.

    Hillary cult? (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Lena on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 08:17:28 AM EST
    I don't know whether calling the community here a cult is the best way to introduce oneself to a political discussion.

    At any rate, I think your analogy works... if you add that the dog ends up going on a rampage, maiming and killing people every day. That family member who didn't vote to buy the dog? Well, he just continues giving it food and water every day, saying nothing to the neighbors, the community at large, doing nothing to rein the dog in. After all, it's not HIS fault.

    I wonder if, as president, Obama would just shrug at crises, explaining his inability to take stands on issues by saying that it was someone else who got us into our predicament, so how can we blame him? (FWIW: I don't think so, but it shows the faulty reasoning of the dog analogy).

    By the way, I don't see thay the Hillary cult even begins to approach the delusion of the Obama cult. For one thing, the supporters I see here are willing to criticize her, something that's likely to get four-letter words hurled at you if you do the same to Obama on places like dailykos. I don't think she walks on water, and I don't think that she will usher in a new age of hope and change. I'm much more pragmatic about politics.


    No said it was (none / 0) (#41)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 09:32:04 AM EST
    what is said is that SENATOR Barack Obama and SENATOR Hillary Clinton have the exact same record on record since 2005.

    But the Cult of Obama will apply the Obama rules always.


    Very puzzling (none / 0) (#42)
    by Camorrista on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 11:08:51 AM EST
    "I won't vote for Hillary under any circumstances."

    This is a perfectly legitimate position to announce, but what mystifies me is why you expend the time and energy to announce it here.

    Did you think such a posture was persuasive?  Did you think anyone who didn't already agree with you would take it seriously?

    On what basis?  Your passion?  Lots of people around here are passionate.  Your intellect?  Lots of people around here are smart.  As I said, I'm mystified.  You've proudly told us us your mind is frozen.  Great.  Now what?


    A lot of Dems (none / 0) (#44)
    by PlayInPeoria on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 03:23:15 PM EST
    voted for the war..HELLO... they were lied to just like the American public was LIED to.

    Wait a minute.... (none / 0) (#39)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 08:24:20 AM EST
    Didn't Murdoch give a nice chunk of change to Hillary's campaign?  Is he just hedging his bets?

    The big donor class (none / 0) (#47)
    by jondee on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 04:29:34 PM EST
    hedgeing their bets has been the name of the game for quite awhile now.

    No one's supposed to talk about it though.


    Best Democracy..... (none / 0) (#48)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 08:51:43 AM EST
    money can buy.

    But we are supposed to be "proud" of the Democratic party becuase the two crooked pikers still standing are a female and a man of color.  

    A wise man once said he longed for the day when people are judged not on the color of thier skin (or gender), but on the content of their character.  I guess we ain't there yet...