Murdoch and Hillary: Strange bedfellows?

Here's David Carr on favorable coverage of Hillary Clinton by the New York Post:

Both sides could benefit from the thaw. The News Corporation is in the midst of a counteroffensive against a change in the Nielsen ratings that it says undercounts minorities, and that, oh, by the way, could cripple its local stations...

Mr. Murdoch has a history of backing and engaging political winners, most notably Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain... Because he has no romanticism for lost causes, The Post apparently will not try to maim Mrs. Clinton in a Senate race with Ms. Pirro that is beginning to seem over before it has begun. They still whack Ms. Clinton occasionally, but it is more on general principle - they do it to stay in shape - and not with the same glee as in the past.

Over the long haul, the Murdoch-Clinton detente cannot last. In its phenomenal success, Fox News has used institutional enmity of the Clintons as one of its guiding principals [sic]. But in the meantime, the fight between Ms. Pirro and Mrs. Clinton will help ratings and circulation numbers, and the prospect of a Clinton presidential candidacy will agitate and engage the News Corporation's core audiences.

"Fox News and The Post need Hillary to run for Senate and president," said James Carville, a political consultant who worked in the Clinton White House. "There is only one politician in America that gets people to watch television for or buy a newspaper, and that's her. No one else comes close."

I don't buy Carr's argument that Rupert Murdoch needs Hillary Clinton's help in Washington -- she's a powerless Democrat like everyone else in her caucus -- but the other two possibilities are intriguing:
(1) Murdoch privately believes Clinton might actually win the presidency in 2008 and wants to hedge his bets;
(2) The profit incentives of a Hillary presidential candidacy are so great that News Corp. will hold its fire until after she wins the nomination. Then, of course, Fox will put Arkansas Whitewater Obsessives for Truth on the air for six months straight.

#2 might also be important in explaining the positive coverage she's (shockingly) received thus far from the political press as a whole. Yet another explanation is that Republicans are being nice to her (maybe because they privately want her to win the Democratic nomination?), which cues reporters to treat her better.

More ideas welcome in comments...

Comments

[Alan]

> (1) Murdoch privately believes Clinton
> might actually win the presidency in
> 2008 and wants to hedge his bets

Hedge his bets how? He certainly didn't have any stake in the first Clinton presidency and did pretty well then, why would he need any stake in a hypothetical second Clinton presidency?

[rone]

I think your ideas are good. What do you think of Bob Woodward predicting Cheney will be the GOP's candidate in `08?

[Dave M]

The profit motive fits in with your previous analysis of Hillary, B-dog. She makes such a great media candidate for the same reason (you say) she makes a lousy political candidate - because she elicits such polarized opinions, with very few who don't know or don't care about her. Both Hillary bashing and Hillary praising have a long pedigree, and they both sell -and maybe they even reinforce each other.