The Clinton-Drudge Connection

I'm not really sure what to make of the Clinton campaign's apparent relationship with Matt Drudge. His site isn't merely an appendage of the conservative message machine, but it's mostly an appendage of the conservative message machine. I'd like to see a nominee who's approach to the right's domination of American political discourse is to challenge it, rather than try to cozy up to it.

You see much the same thing in Clinton's relationship with Rupert Murdoch. Sure, as long as she's seemingly ascendant and willing to court these people, they're happy to play nice. But when the chips are down -- when the right is, say, trying to get her removed from office on a flimsy pretext -- does she think Murdoch and Drudge are going to have her back? Where are they going to be when she has a tough legislative battle? When she's looking to elect friendly members of congress in the midterms? It all seems bafflingly self-centered and short-sighted to me.

Comments

Most people reasonably believe that all the relevant action in the Presidential race is on the Dem side, and Clinton (or her coalition) is the consensus choice of Republicans (or a significant subset of the same) as the most agreeable of the Democrats. It's not just her cozying up to them; they're cozying up to her. Politics, bedfellows, yada yada.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | October 2, 2007 11:34 AM

Amen. Amen. Amen.

Posted by Michael's Mom | October 2, 2007 11:35 AM

Amen. Amen. Amen.

Posted by Michael's Mom | October 2, 2007 11:36 AM

"It's not just her cozying up to them; they're cozying up to her."

Yup. It's the Tony Blair model in Britain. Give Murdoch enough favors, and he'll stay off your back.

Of course, that always involves selling out your base, but this is Hillary Clinton we're talking about, after all...

-----

"It all seems bafflingly self-centered and short-sighted to me."

Once again, this is Hillary Clinton we're talking about, after all...

Posted by Petey | October 2, 2007 11:40 AM

Ironic that a right wing self-starting outsider (Who became very successful) is being lambasted by a left wing writer funded by an MSM magazine because that right winger 'dominates' the political discourse in the country. Christ-you're sponsored and funded by the Atlantic: how much more help do you think you need?

Sk

Posted by Sk | October 2, 2007 11:41 AM

the Clinton campaign's apparent relationship with Matt Drudge.

I don't think this is right. Drudge knows his readers - there are a TON of conservatives who are Hillary-phobics. And so Drudge knows his readers will be much more excited about a Hillary story than anything else.

This is no different than a local news station putting a 10-car pileup as the lead news story... the station knows what its viewers care most about, and then puts it on the air.

Hillary's "relationship" with Drudge ain't got nothing to do with it.

Posted by Al | October 2, 2007 11:42 AM

Al:

I'm curious who you'd pick as President if restricted to Dems currently running for the nomination.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | October 2, 2007 11:44 AM

Unlike major wars, surrender is not unconditional in politics. Drudge and Rupert see the writing on the wall and are negotiating terms with Clinton.

While we may like the aesthetic of challenging the right-wing narrative-writers head on, the more realistic strategy is simply to come up with an uneasy truce with them. Clinton is simply working within the parameters of the landscape as it exists today.

Cozying up to Drudge == fewer curmudgeonly uncles screaming about some half-invented kurfluffle they saw on the Drudgereport about Clinton this Thanksgiving.

Posted by Tyro | October 2, 2007 11:48 AM

Hillary. Why do you ask?

FYI, I voted for her for Senate. And, right now, I'd prefer her over Thompson and McCain...

Posted by Al | October 2, 2007 11:48 AM

How does it hurt her? You need to give specific examples of things harmful things she is doing to create this relationship, or it is just an example of an unusual advantage she has.

Posted by Anonymous | October 2, 2007 11:49 AM

I think Tim is right. But I also suspect that Clinton's unwillingness to disavow Drudge and Murdoch has something to do with a corollary to Josh Marshall's "bitch-slap theory" of politics. For some reason, many Democrats, no matter how many times they get slapped -- and it's hard to imagine anyone who's been slapped more times by Murdoch's mininons and Drudge himself -- think that if they're nice enough and reasonable enough to their opponents, they'll be able to reach some sort of accommodation, they won't, in other words, get slapped again.

It's not entirely crazy behavior, at least not the first few times. But by now, I'd have hoped that someone as smart as HRC, someone who really has been slapped around quite a bit by the right's noise machine, would have learned her lesson. As Tim notes, right now HRC is good business for Drudge and Murdoch. The former probably would like to see her in office, as Andrew Sullivan suggested earlier today, as that would mean lots of hits on his site while he tears her apart piece by piece. And the latter, for the moment at least, wants access. Soon enough, though, the assault will begin. And then HRC will be getting slapped around one more time.

Or maybe this is all part of a grand strategy: HRC wants the right enemies -- it worked for her husband, after all -- and wants to keep them closer than her friends. And so she gets cozy with Drudge and Murdoch. But I doubt it's that sophisticated a play.

Posted by ANMIK | October 2, 2007 11:50 AM

The leaks to Drudge aren't targetted to the right, they're intended for the eyes of the beltway press. If Republicans say Hillary's nomination is inevitable and some Democrats say the same, then a certain class of pundit has no choice but to conclude that her nomination is, in fact, inevitable.

We'll see whether it actually works, but in my opinion it's nice to see a Democrat play the conservative press rather than the other way around.

Posted by Devin Coughlin | October 2, 2007 11:59 AM

Hillary. Why do you ask?

Just that you're a specific type of Republican, and I was just curious as to which Dem candidate would appeal to you.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | October 2, 2007 12:01 PM

"it's nice to see a Democrat play the conservative press rather than the other way around."

As SCMT correctly notes upthread, both sides are playing each other. Which, from a Democratic POV, isn't quite so nice.

Posted by Petey | October 2, 2007 12:10 PM

"As SCMT correctly notes upthread, both sides are playing each other. Which, from a Democratic POV, isn't quite so nice.

I think you're approaching this from the "Democrats are losers" viewpoint, which isn't necessarily true going forward.

This is going to be extremely important in the general election because the Republican party will be disaffected and fractured and the Democrats will be united. This means a savvy Democratic campaign will be able to unleash a can of Daou Triangle whoopass on the Republicans and they won't know what hit them. Drudge could be a very crucial part of that.

In this case, we have Democrats exchanging more hits on Drudge (bad) for control of government (good). Advantage: Democrats.

With the possibility of a third-party conservative run, this will be even more important. A sophisticated Democratic campaign will have to talk to the conservative press to take advantage of this. You can't pretend Drudge and Murdoch don't exist.

Posted by Devin Coughlin | October 2, 2007 12:32 PM

A couple of unrelated thoughts...

Media types like Drudge and Murdoch, regardless of their politics, have a bias toward stars. They want them and need them for their own business purposes. Stars drive interest. Hillary is a star, the best known of all the Dems.

Just as the media want a NY team in the World Series, they would love to see a NY vs. NY campaign, and the Hillary vs. Rudy election is already scripted and well into preproduction.

Nobody has taken more crap from the right wing than the two Clintons. It's odd that they don't fight back more strongly and more often. Bill can be very persuasive when he does. But he tends to accommodate more than confront them, and politically he may have benefitted from that approach, though at some cost to the progressive cause, imo. Hillary is not the politician that Bill is, and she tends to piss off people in ways that the smoother Bill did not (though he had his moments, for sure). She could use some more support from the left, and she'd probably help herself more by strongly rebuking the Republican slime machine. Bill had his Sister Souljah moment in the '92 campaign. Hillary needs just the opposite.

Posted by JJF | October 2, 2007 12:33 PM

SK:

"Ironic that a right wing self-starting outsider (Who became very successful) is being lambasted by a left wing writer funded by an MSM magazine because that right winger 'dominates' the political discourse in the country."

Great point.

SomeCallMeTim,

Hillary would be my preferred Dem candidate too, out of this field. With Hillary, there's at least a decent chance she'll govern as a centrist, as her husband did from about 1994 until the impeachment circus began -- keeping capital gains taxes low, resisting large-bore redistribution schemes, etc. She'll raise the top income tax rates, of course, but we can live with that. We can always campaign on lowering them later. The important think is to elect someone who won't let liberal passions inspire economically disasterous policies. My hope is that Hillary is mature enough to avoid this. My fear is that Obama and Edwards aren't.

Posted by Fred | October 2, 2007 12:43 PM

"I think you're approaching this from the "Democrats are losers" viewpoint"

No. I'm approaching this from the "Hillary will sell out the Democrats" viewpoint.

As stated upthread, I think Hillary is following the Tony Blair model where a politician from the left party cozies up with the right-wing media, and as a result sells out the left.

Posted by Petey | October 2, 2007 12:52 PM

You see much the same thing in Clinton's relationship with Rupert Murdoch. Sure, as long as she's seemingly ascendant and willing to court these people, they're happy to play nice. But when the chips are down -- when the right is, say, trying to get her removed from office on a flimsy pretext -- does she think Murdoch and Drudge are going to have her back?

Murdoch is right-wing but, as others on this thread have said, he stayed in Tony Blair's camp for his full ten years as Prime Minister. He's realistic about how well he can do and cares as much about backing a winner as he does about a particular agenda. Fox News in the States has perhaps skewed people's opinion of the political position Murdoch requires his outlets to take: the rise of Fox was as much filling a clear gap in the market as it was an attempt by Murdoch to push his specific ideology.

(None of the above is to say he isn't clearly on the right. But given the choice between an ineffective centre-rightist and an effective centre-leftist, he's shown himself happy to back the centre-leftist. It'd be amusing to see how this affected Fox if Hillary were to get in).

Posted by william | October 2, 2007 1:11 PM

Put me down for the minority viewpoint that it's just fine and dandy if Hillary is able to neutralize the rightwing press. Attacking media outlets isn't a sign of bravery. It's stupid.

Posted by Adam | October 2, 2007 1:33 PM

This isn't that difficult to figure out-- successful people like Murdoch need to feel that they're not merely successful, they're powerful and "changing the world", and Hillary's overtures to him help him feel powerful and HIllary hopes that he will use is outlet for that need to feel powerful on her opponents.

Drudge, like many single-middle aged people with eccentric sartorial affectations, has a need for love and attention, particularly from mainstream politicians, confirming his importance, and Hillary's overtures to him make him feel good and important.

Too often, we focus way too much on the ideological axes that right-wing stars are supposedly grinding, when their needs are actually much more base -- money, power, attention.

Posted by Tyro | October 2, 2007 1:34 PM

Petey writes:
"As stated upthread, I think Hillary is following the Tony Blair model where a politician from the left party cozies up with the right-wing media, and as a result sells out the left."

I don't buy this. Hillary has been engaged in an epic fifteen year battle with the right-wing media and (unlike some other candidates) she doesn't seem to crave their approval. That she would abandon her political agenda simply to gain the admiration of the right-wing press seems absurd.

You might argue the reverse causality: that Hillary wants to sell out the left and as a result she cozies up with the right-wing media (this is what happened with Tony Blair, to my understanding). But here you're reduced to arguing that she's some kind of crypto-conservative, pretending to be a Democrat all these years until, when elected, she reveals her fiendish true colors.

Maybe she was brainwashed during her days as a Goldwater Girl?

Posted by Devin Coughlin | October 2, 2007 1:41 PM

Hillary is totally riding the Clinton nostalgia wave. It was the first time since the 1920's that the US had both a booming economy and no threat of war hanging over our heads. It was the last time too, and even Republicans are susceptible to a pitch to get peace and prosperity back.

Of course, there's no evidence that Hillary is the best or even third best candidate to get us there but damn if she doesn't have a fortune in good will (as finance guys call the economic value of a entity's reputation or name-- "Clinton" in this case).

Besides, it was the Monica Lewinsky scoop that put Drudge on the map. The Clintons made Drudge a millionaire, that's worth something.

Posted by beowulf | October 2, 2007 1:45 PM

I'm just glad Hillary's en route to the White House, so we can go back to a strong, unified Republican Party.

Posted by RepublicanBase | October 2, 2007 1:48 PM

I have not been the greatest fan of Hillary, but she's right on this one and Matt is wrong. These calls of liberals and the netroots to boycott conservative media outlets are quite dangerous. The fact is, millions of people read the Drudge Report and millions of people watch Fox. Even if the readership/viewership skews conservative, there are still plenty of people who read Drudge or watch Fox who are open to voting for Democrats.

This is a classic example of the base demanding ideological purity-- on a purely symbolic issue, no less-- at the expense of electoral viability.

Posted by Dilan Esper | October 2, 2007 2:42 PM

I don't know about you but I like seeing women in charge.

Posted by That Drudge Fellow | October 2, 2007 3:56 PM

"I have not been the greatest fan of Hillary, but she's right on this one and Matt is wrong. These calls of liberals and the netroots to boycott conservative media outlets are quite dangerous. The fact is, millions of people read the Drudge Report and millions of people watch Fox."

And five of them are under 90! FoxNews is the channel that had to explain to their viewers what a wedgie is. Maybe's she's just snuggling up to the guy who blew the whistle on her husband's affair with Lewinsky?

Posted by Reality Man | October 2, 2007 3:58 PM