Maybe They Should Have Tried Fox After All

Though I did not pay any attention to it, apparently the Clinton camp managed to stack the CNN Las Vegas debate doubly or triply in their favor, including having most all the talking head on CNN analyzing the debate be folks who are currently or have in the past been on the Clinton payroll.

Whatever.  I don't think it is any news that the Clintons play the politics game hard and well, though its amazing to me that she is embraced by those who complain about Bush being secretive and power-hungry.

Anyway, this did make me wonder.  The Democratic candidates were up-in-arms earlier this year that a debate (I think this one) was to be hosted by Fox, presumably because Fox is seen as part of the vast right-wing conspiracy.  But given that there were no Republicans at the debate, I wonder if Obama and company now regret this decision.  Because it is almost certain that whatever problems Fox might have, Fox would certainly not have stacked a debate in Hillary's favor.


  1. mith:

    They might not have stacked the debate in Clinton's favor, but while lots of sources have talked up the idea of Clinton stacking the debate audience, it takes a little more looking to discover that News Coorporation (i.e. Fox News, among others) are clients of Giuliani's lobbying firm, Bracewell & Giuliani, along with the Saudi Royal Family and Venezuelan oil company Citgo.

    There's an interesting list of clients, agencies, and issues here:

  2. Tom Gellhaus:

    Not to sound paranoid, but Fox just MIGHT have stacked the deck in her favor in such a case. I've seen plenty of evidence that the Republicans are hoping she is chosen to be the Democratic candidate, and in addition, have seen some evidence online that her ideas and policies aren't as different from Bush's as those of the other Democrats.
    (Shocking, I know)

  3. mith:

    Doesn't look like Murdoch has a problem with donating to Clinton.