The following paragraph comes from an article in today’s NYT, discussing the on-again, off-again relationship b/w Clinton and Murdoch:

“Many longtime Murdoch observers have noted that he is above all a pragmatist, who has a history of supporting candidates who could potentially help his financial bottom line, regardless of party affiliation. ‘He has a very well-informed sense of the influence of politics on his business interests,’ said Reed Hundt, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission in the first Clinton administration, who during negotiations had an up-close view of how the media mogul seeks to influence government.”

It doesn’t get any more direct than this: clearly, Murdoch believes he is “buying” something by supporting Obama; that an Obama presidency would “serve his interests” better.  This is almost certainly a response to the fact that Clinton has been much harder on the FCC than Obama, and over a longer time.  So what does this say about Obama?  After all, Murdoch is no fool.

The remainder of the article is here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/02/us/politics/02murdoc h.html?_r=1&sq=luo&st=nyt&oref=slogin&scp=1 &pagewanted=print

Peace.

Good for Penn. Beautiful state but can seem like a roller Coaster Ride in th eBack seat of a Car.
Hillary’s ridiculous claims, her Insulting and Irrational moments may actually lead people to look at her REAL record and Review Who helped get US to this Disasterous Time in Our countries History. Hillary HAS NOT done a stellar Job! Votes, Armed Service.. Now her Rovian Campaign. She doesn’t even deserve to remain in Public Service- she’s either Done Nothing or has helped Pave the way for this Admins Corrupt Doctrine. I’ve been a Dem for 26 yrs- and SHE’s NO DEM- at least not one I want leading this country- nor voting on any more Public Policy issues. She could Although be Mac’s second hand- He could use one, his minds going (just as Planned- Hillary is Dick in Drag)

Nancy Pelosi’s Not-So-Secret Support for Obama -

Whatever her official posture, Nancy Pelosi is not neutral in the Democratic primary.

On this level, Obama, who spoke out against the war in the fall of ’02, is the natural choice for Pelosi, especially compared to Clinton, one of the many congressional Democrats who sided with the White House. When it comes to ending the war, and to avoiding similar entanglements in the future, Pelosi can reasonably conclude that she’d have a far more reliable partner in a President Obama than in a President Clinton.... http://www.observer.com/2008/nancy-pelosis-not-so-secr et-support-obama

You’ve got a point here Patrick Henry. It’s good to be ‘skeptical’.

Ask Ron Paul.