Dangerous liaison
By Robert Kuttner | May 14, 2006
SHAME ON Hillary Rodham Clinton. Rupert Murdoch, the right-wing publishing mogul, is hosting a fund-raiser in July for her Senate reelection campaign. Her explanation is that Murdoch, based in New York, is an important constituent: ''I'm very gratified that he thinks I'm doing a good job."
Article Tools
Printer friendly
E-mail to a friend
Op-ed RSS feed
Reprints & Licensing
More:
Globe Editorials / Op-Ed
Murdoch runs Fox television, home of Bill O'Reilly and company. No far-right media enterprise has been more relentlessly dishonest in its efforts to destroy American liberalism in general and the Clintons in particular. Fox was prime cheerleader for the bogus Whitewater investigation and the impeachment campaign against Bill Clinton. Fox exists to oppose every liberal principle that Senator Clinton is accused, perhaps falsely, of standing for.
Murdoch also publishes the tawdry, viciously anti-Clinton New York Post and the more sober ideological print organ the Weekly Standard. You can't imagine the opposite kind of deal happening in American politics, because a left-wing Murdoch doesn't exist. That's why the man is so powerful, and such a nemesis to principled liberals.
Politics may make strange bedfellows, but for sheer cynicism and mutual expediency it's hard to beat this alliance. Maybe the Hitler-Stalin pact.
What's in it for Hillary? First, obviously, the money. By raising mountains of campaign cash, she hopes to make herself the inevitable 2008 nominee.
But if she hopes this latest financial alliance will also induce Murdoch's attack dogs to lighten up, she's deluding herself. Murdoch often invests in ideological opposites to serve his business interests, but holds fast to his role as right-wing propagandist. When Britain's Tony Blair was a rising star, Murdoch shifted his allegiance from the Tories to Blair's New Labor. His own politics didn't change.
Here in the United States, the Reagan administration helped Murdoch navigate the citizenship laws -- he was then an Australian -- so that he could become a US citizen and acquire Metromedia. So raising money for Hillary, whose Senate reelection is assured, is a neat hat trick: Now she owes Murdoch one, just in case he needs regulatory help. And her acceptance of his lucre reinforces the conclusion that the lady is, well, an opportunist, nicely undercutting her credibility with left, right, and center.
With the Republicans in free-fall, national problems continuing to mount, and a rising national chorus begging the Democrats to stand for something, Senator Clinton has come to epitomize why the Democrats may yet fail to rise to the occasion and lead.
What, ultimately, does Hillary Clinton stand for? Increasingly, it looks as if she stands for Hillary Clinton. And where have we heard that story before? It seems to run in the family.
What is tragic about the Clintons is to see so much promise yoked to such opportunism. Nobody in American politics can deliver a well-informed speech without notes better than Hillary Clinton, with the possible exception of Bill Clinton. Nobody can be more charming in person, with the possible exception of her faithless husband.
I watched Senator Clinton at the recent funeral of Eli Segal, a longtime Clinton supporter, friend, and appointee who died a tragically early death. She was the picture of grace, staying long after the service ended, talking warmly and unpretentiously, representing the humanity that everyone seeks in a politician.
In running for the Senate, Hillary Clinton overcame the image of a carpetbagger, impressed many conservative voters in upstate New York and the suburbs, as well as in liberal Manhattan. When she got to the Senate, she overcame the caricatures and became an engaged and valued colleague of both Republicans and Democrats.
But these days, everything she does seems calculating, poll-tested, and money-driven. That, too, recalls another Clinton. Do sequels always bomb?
If she keeps transparently cozying up to the right, Senator Clinton could easily lose what faltering affection she retains from Democratic voters, but without impressing the center. Democratic operative Donna Brazile contends, too charitably, that Murdoch's support shows that Hillary has ''crossover appeal" (sure, as in crossing over to grab whatever isn't nailed down).
Hillary's march to the White House will not be a cakewalk under the best of circumstances. On the right, she will be scorned both as a crazy feminist and as a wronged woman. On the left she will be attacked for discarding her principles. It's one thing to move to the center, but Hillary may find there's not much of a center that admires her.
It's bad enough that Hillary Clinton trims on domestic positions and cuts Bush so much slack on the Iraq war. Courting Rupert Murdoch's money just doesn't pass the smell test.
Robert Kuttner is co-editor of The American Prospect. His column appears regularly in the Globe. |
