I posted this elsewhere, but it applies here better.

Now that the Clinton campaign's has validated the American Spectator as a reputable news source and Hillary has sat down for a chat with Richard Mellon Scaife, does this mean their stories from the 1990's are fair game?

Who is going to support Hillary after learning she killed poor Vince Foster? A national debate on this is long over due. Remember, his murder is “the Rosetta Stone to the whole Clinton administration.” And doesn’t this legitimize Bill Clinton’s impeachment? After all, the American Spectator’s tireless work on Whitewater and Troopergate lead to the creation of the independent counsel.

Becoming BFF with Rupert Murdoch was one thing. But sitting down with Richard Mellon Scaife and pushing a piece from The American Spectator is a brazen act of political opportunism. These people were disgusting when they dragged Anita Hill through the mud, blamed the Clinton’s for Vince Foster’s suicide, and spent millions trying to destroy Bill Clinton’s presidency. They were the main players in Hillary’s vast right-wing conspiracy.

But apparently all sins are forgiven if you repent by attacking Obama.

You want to know how screwed Democrats are if the nomination campaign keeps going? Imagine every looney conspiracy-theory pushing right-wing nut-job publication being legitimized by the Clinton campaign as they release anything and everything negative mentioned about Obama to the national press. Come fall, Obama can’t dismiss Scaife, the Spectator, as other nonsense as paranoid right-wing blather because Clinton used them. And, if Clinton is the nominee (or v.p. candidate), she can’t dismiss them because she freaking quoted them.

I can’t take this win-at-all-costs strategy she is employing anymore. If this keeps up, her attacks on Obama are going to inflict severe collateral damage on all Democrats.

I don't get the Scaife/Pittsburgh newspaper argument -- did Democrats refuse to talk to the Chicago Tribune when it was published by Colonel McCormick, who was easily the match of Scaife in isolationist conservative badness?  Is this paper's editorial board any worse than the Wall Street Journal, who called welfare recipients "lucky duckies"?  Do liberals have a similar boycott against the Washington Times?  With Drudge I suspect it was because he's popular and so many people check him out that it creates an instant buzz, not to shout-out to dittoheads (the move itself is condemnable).  Hillary Clinton has done some offensive things in this campaign but let's not create an ideological media litmus test.  

Adam, they already have inflicted damage -- 20% of either candidate's supporters say they plan to vote McCain if they don't get their way.  These two really should do an JFK/LBJ thing but without the party and electorate insisting on it, it won't happen.  

Yes, she may be as bad as George W. Bush. But dammit, she's our George W. Bush.

That right there has summed up Hillary's candidacy all along. No surprise now that we have a few more data points that match all the others that have already proven the hypothesis. "Hillary is a cynical hack who will do or say anything to gain even the tiniest tactical advantage no matter the cost" is one of those statements that we don't actually need to collect data to prove. It's the "Study Shows Text-Messaging Distracts Drivers" of the 2008 race.

The better question is: Does Hillary realize that the right-wingers are helping her ONLY because she would be a weaker general election opponent than Obama and because her nomination is a right-wing conspirator's wet dream?  Does she realize they will instantly turn on her in a tumult of frenzied and frothing Clinton-bashing that will make the 1990s look tame?

Either she doesn't, in which case she's delusional; or she does realize it and doesn't care because destroying Obama is the primary objective.

OK, let's test the hypothesis. Does anyone have some hard data as to, for starters, the gender of all those registered Republicans who crossed over recently to vote for Hillary in the Dem primaries? How does the gender split for these crossover GOPers compare with that for Obama's GOP crossover voters?  

If women comprise a *much* higher % of HRC"s cross-GOPers than Obama's, then it's doubtful that these women are/were inspired by Limbaugh. More likely voting for a sister.

Plenty of theories here. Anyone got facts and analysis?

this apparent alliance of convenience is simple, guys:  "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

And, having read the Spectator piece now, is it not fair to ask, what if the allegations are true.  What if the general is anti-Israel and maybe even anti-semitic?  This guy is a close advisor to Obma.  Is it not fair game to inquire?  Y

ou write about this as if it's none of anybody's business (a la Chelsea.)

My father, whose liberal political instincts I have inherited, once worked for Colonel MacCormack.

Trust me, it's not the same thing as running to Richard Mellon Scaife, and the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review is no Chicago Tribune.

roid, VAcentrist-- do you guys have data on the gender breakout for the GOP crossover voters?

teplukhin2you, if you look at exit polling for a state like Mississippi, you can't help but come away from the conclusion that many Republicans who voted for Hillary were being duplicitous in their voting. The exit poll doesn't break down the results in terms of gender, but it's hard to imagine that a majority of the 76% of the Republicans who voted for Clinton were women, especially when you look at what Clinton voters thought of her personal virtues (e.g., honesty).

election.cbsnews.com/.../exitPoll.shtml

McPeak may not be an anti-semite but he adds to the concern that Obama is really anti-Israel as evedenced by his pastor and his advisors, if not his words. From today's Jerusalem Post:

"The freshest controversy, however, may be tougher to douse. The American Spectator, a conservative magazine, uncovered a 2003 interview with U.S. Army Gen. Merrill "Tony" McPeak, currently a co-chairman of the Obama campaign and -- like Obama -- an early and consistent critic of the Iraq war.

In the interview with The Oregonian, McPeak faulted the Bush administration's Iraq policy in part for not being part of a broader Middle East strategy. Asked who is at fault - the White House or the State Department - he answered: "New York City. Miami. We have a large vote - vote, here in favor of Israel. And no politician wants to run against it."

The reporters pressed McPeak to assign responsibility to a faction within the Bush administration, but he insisted on returning to Israel and its US supporters.

"I think that everybody understands that a settlement of the Arab-Israeli problem would require the Israelis to stop settling the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, and maybe even withdraw some of the settlements that've already been put there," he said.

"And nobody wants to take on that problem. It's just too tough politically. So that means we can't... you can't develop a Middle East strategy. It's impossible."

The Republican Jewish Coalition called on Obama to sack McPeak, who has proven an important asset to the campaign in terms of furnishing military credibility."

After these remarks, Israel did withdraw from the Gaza Strip, only to be rewarded by constant rocket fire. It does not need a President who will pressure it to make additional one-sided concessions.

Chan is right- McPeak is fair game (at least to investigate).  But lymon, this isn't an ideological litmus test- this is the Clinton's cuddling up with the same people who tried to destroy them in the 1990s, in order to destroy Obama with the same slime.   It is just disgusting opportunism.  And I know politics is dirty, and Obama isn't a saint, but this is just disgusting.

ok, thanks billy, that's a start.

Tep.....

No data here, but antecdotally, it would seem that the "sisterhood" appeal is almost exclusively a funtion of being a middle aged Democratic white woman.  It doesn't (nearest I can tell from talking to them) apply to Independent or Republican women of any age, color, ethniciy or creed.   The fact of being Hilary Clinton kills all the pride and joy.  So, good luck finding your stats, but I suspect that gender won't be a signifigant factor, and, in fact, will most likely skew to white men.  (Rush Limbaugh's audience.)

With Channy on this one. When voters are presented with a candidate with scant national legislative or executive experience (e.g., Obama), the importance of discerning the attitudes of his or her counselors is heightened. Who is shaping Obama's opinions? Who is likely to have a place of prominence in his Administration--maybe even in his Cabinet? If I'm in HRC's shoes, (1) I'd do the same thing, and (2) my toes are killing me.

cnalls, I bet she knows exactly what the right-wingers are doing, and she doesn't care a whit. That's because she believes herself to be the political version of Anton Chigurh, the inexorable killer in "No Country for Old Men." Siding with her gives exactly nobody an advantage. She will use them to take out her current opponent, then take them out.

What we are witnessing, for better or worse, is an expression, unrivaled in my memory of U.S. politics, of political will at its most impressive.

Tep,

I couldn't find a gender breakdown, but the fact that the same Republicans that said they voted for Clinton in primary, but would not in the general, should be suffcient evidence that it as mischief, not the sisterhood of traveling pants.

The fact that the Clintons are using the Scaife smear machine and courting El Rushbo's listeners is simply unbelievable. This is clearly the lowest point of the campaign. Clearly, the Republicans realize Obama is going to be the winner of the Democratic Primary and are using the Clinton's to do their dirty work. The Super Delegates should convene now so we can try and contain the damage these scoundrels are doing to our nominee.

Hell, forget the media. McCain made the joke that Chelsea was so ugly that she must be the love child of Janet Reno and Hillary.

And yet, the Clintons are right there, talking about their deep and abiding respect for him, what a wonderful man he is and what a great contest they'd have if not for the interloper Obama.

That's a level of scuzziness commensurate with McCain's own gripping of his ankles for George "Illegitimate Black Daughter" Bush.

One more for the list: Rupert Murdoch hosting a fundraiser for her.

www.iht.com/.../clinton.php

IIUC women don't listen to Limbaugh. His demographic is s.t. like 95% male.

pccostello's suspiciously silent on this.

In the absence of good data, I'd agree with you guys. Occam would support the conspiracy thesis.

As Yard says, Triumph of the Will. I wouldn't want to go up against these two.

McPeak was a former Air force chief of staff who helped run Gulf War I, he was appointed by GWHB and stayed in under Clinton. Suffice it to say this, and probably only this, is the reason he enjoys any status with Obama because he has such sterling military credentials. Presumably that is also the only thing that Obama will ever consult him on as well. All he has to do is shut up about anything other than bashing Bush on the war and he will be fine.

Personally, I don't care one whit what Petraus ideas are about health care, or Zimbabwe (unless we invade) or the price of gas. The only question to ask about military people is how well can they fight. The rest runs the risk of suicide. I would think Channy, of all people, would know this.

If anyone required incontrovertible proof of what an unprincipled and pathetic campaign Hillary's has morphed into, this is it. Watching the Clintons snuggle up (and give legitimacy) to the Scaife/Limbaugh/Spectator crowd in order to advance their own agenda is incredibly craven, even for them. If this is the kind of campaign that democrats can proudly rally to, give up any hope of attracting independents and disaffected Republicans this November.

What is impressive about the Clinton will to power? It didn't help them when they lost the nomination back in Jan and Feb, and it won't help the democratic party if they use it to shred the party before November. In fact, it's not a will to power; it's a will to be in the spotlight no matter the cost to the country. Not impressive. Infuriating.

boneill -- I see the distinction, I just think people are reading too much into this.  Wouldn't you think Hillary gets asked about Wright a lot and could have made the comment elsewhere to the same effect?  And even if she is intentionally making alliances with the far right, it's impossible to compare her comment on Wright to the "slime" that the GOP threw at her (murder conspiracies!), or for that matter got thrown at John McCain (coldhearted to his sister's cancer!).  Another double standard I see here: we've got Andrew Sullivan talking about how the Wright matter has forced him to reevaluate the likes of Pat Robertson to look at the "total picture/good with the bad" and he's still standing with Ron Paul despite his associations with the neo-confederacy.  If it helps Obama everything is forgiveable, if it helps Clinton nothing is.  I realize there are some fairly made distinctions here -- I just find this one more sinkhole subject that has replaced substance.

Seriously, if you can demonstrate, with a high level of statistical confidence, that Limbaugh's little stunt has made a material difference to the Dems' election results, then the superdelegates probably need to get off the fence and tell Billary to drop out.

If the _process_ has been compromised, then the compromiser has to be punished. Otherwise our party's no different from the party that tolerated the vile "illegitimate black baby" smear.

Agreed that Clintonian attempt to co-opt the vast right-wing conspiracy into their service shows a repulsive willingness to get ahead by whatever means necessary. But I've come to expect nothing less.

And, as per another post, McPeak is fair game for investigation and probably should be let go. But this hardly amounts to a Jewish problem for Obama. I say this as a Jew who is relatively sympathetic to claims that people who bitch and moan about the "Israel Lobby" are at least partly motivated by anti-Semitism. McPeak's comments strike me as of that stripe. However, I don't see a reason to assume that Obama cannot disagree with his advisers on certain matters. And I see no reason not to take him at his word regarding his position on Israel.

Tep, regarding the breakdown of cross-over Repubs to Hillary in the last two primaries, and whether there was a significant switch based on gender, I would surmise that with the histrionics that the Right has displayed towards Hillary over the years I wouldn't count on too much sincerity on women cross-overs.

I think most of the cross-over that Obama has garnered are genuinely voting for Obama with a small percentage voting for Obama just to vote against Hillary. That being said, how many Libaughnauts would vote in open primaries for Hillary to help her 1) beat Obama because they mistrust him for all the loaded reasons why, and 2) because when she gets smacked down by McCain, they can sit like pigs n' slop happy as can be to see the end of Hillary as a political machine?

My gut feeling is that the Lady Republicans are far more staunch in their positions of cattiness hatred for Hillary to even stomach the thought of pulling a lever in her name just to see her go down in November, whereas their hubbies would because of they enjoy that kind of club house pranksterism.

Nothing would surprise me in light of all that has happened so far in the primary season. I can't imagine what the general will have  in store for us.

Tep- we haven't heard from PC, because the most recent rasmussen poll came out and it has Hillary and Obama tied (yesterday she was 3 points up). Given how heartily she was flogging the rasmussen advantage for Hillary, this has likely shaken her to the core.

That, or she waits in her crysalis for the next poll to come out that shows Clinton with a 1 point lead somewhere or other, at which point, she'll emerge, reborn and forgetful of her previous life where other polls were what demonstrated the truth of Clinton inevitability.

Politico has a blog item about registration in PA, and much of the new registration or switching to Dems is in the predominantly black and upscale white urban areas. not the typical Rush demographic.

That said, the Mississippi thing looks stranger than anything else to date. If there was a rush limbaugh effect anywhere, it is likely to have been there. I suspect such is regional, where there aren't a lot of interest in either candidate. In places like PA, any GOP shenanigans are likely to be swamped by people who are legitimately tired of the GOP.

It's curious but I get the impression that these proddings and pokings into and around Obama's advisers are rooted in a subconscious recognition that Obama, of the three current runners, is the one most likely to be president.

Anything can happen between now and November, of course, but . . .

Actually, Neil, I don't think McPeak said anything outrageous.  Impolitic, perhaps.  But, neither untrue, nor outrageous.  

Bill Clinton was edging very close to neo-McCarthyism.  And Hillary was embarrassing for crying over how "hard" it is campaigning.  Well, YEAH, it is.  That's part of the point, to see what the candidates are made of.

That said, I actually think Hillary is tough as nails.  But she lost it in an unseemly or perhaps phony way with her crying spree.  And got a pass because she's a woman.  Double standard for sure.  Imagine if Obama or McCain cried about how hard it is running for the presidency.

Neil, ignore my last.  I'm off-thread.  This crying thing and Bill Clinton's oblique questioning of Obama's love of the country etc came up elsewhere.

r-ennis, you posted two quotes from McPeak. The first one, implying that our Middle East policy was a result of the strong pro-Israel vote in cities with a large Jewish population, was in bad taste but has a kernel of truth (the larger untruth is that we only support Israel because of this vote, when we have other good reasons to support Israel). On second thought, bad taste is not harsh enough. I agree with you in criticizing this statement.

The second quote, about Israel's settlements in the West Bank and Gaza, is completely true in my opinion. I am on Israel's side and fully support its right to defend itself from attack, but its settlement policy deserves nothing but criticism. Israel could have taken either of two legitimate end-member policies: annex territory and make all residents citizens of Israel (add settlements as you like, but the Palestinians living there get the vote), or keep its people out of the occupied territories and hand them over as soon as there is some legitimate authority to hand them over to. Neither of these was without significant negatives. But Israel tried to split the difference and settle the West Bank with its own citizens -- have their cake and eat it too. Didn't work.

It's a very serious charge. It deserves a properly through and scientific analysis. I'd like to see the results of same, the sooner the better.

Jeff Frey writes, "...The first one, implying that our Middle East policy was a result of the strong pro-Israel vote in cities with a large Jewish population, was in bad taste..."

Jeff, I support a strong Pro-Israel policy.  But, if what r-ennis quotes is true, why is that in "bad taste".

It would be pretty naive and disingenuous to say that the Jewish vote and Jewish influence does not have an important bearing on our policy towards Israel.  

And, we also have plenty of other reasons to support Israel, starting with the fact that they are a Western style Democracy of heavily European derivation in the middle of the bad guys.

Given that they have the best military in the region outside of the U.S. in Iraq, it represents a bulwark against people who would kill us if they could.

So, too bad folks, Israel is in our interest.  Great nations support their interests.

Jeff Frey, it's amazing how people can forget an entire war.  Israel was attacked by several Arab nations in 1967.

The won the frigging war against all odds, and in doing so, occupied wide swaths of the enemies' territory.  Much of it they have already given back.    Some they have kept, and have chosen to settle and occupy for reasons both military and economic.

If you start a war and lose it, you also lose territory.  When we give CA, AZ, NM, and TX back to the Mexicans, we can ask Israel to remove themselves from the Golan Heights, the West Bank, and Gaza.

"If you start a war and lose it, you also lose territory"

When do I get my chalet in Bavaria? How about my flat in Tokyo?

mpat - my titled Prussian brother-in-law and his family lost their (small) estate after 1945. It's Polish territory now, and no bitching or tears will get it back.

channy, I agree with you in theory reagrding post-67 borders, for sure.  But territory is not kept just as a prize, at least not by smart nations.  There needs to be a reason to keep it.  I think it would be absurd for Israel to give up Golan- they are, after all, the heights (I once stood on the Syrian side of the Heights and could see Israeli soldiers in the high distance- even to a non-military numbnuts such as myself, the strategic force of that position was obvious and overwhelming).  I don't think Israel has any moral or strategic reason to scale back.

West Bank/Gaza are different.  The moral issues are squishy, but I think it is in Israel's interests to draw back, even remove themselves (and it is against int'l law to settle on occupied territory).  Withdrawal won't make them immediately safe, as Gaza proves, but I think it will be a decent start, and will make them safer than settlement building ever will.   The problem is that the settlements have a momentum of their own, and it is very difficult to reverse.  

Neil, I understand the calculations in the West Bank/Gaza situation, and don't disagree with you.

But, it ought always to be stated in that way.  Not that the Israelis have any moral requirement to return any or all of those territories.   But, that it might be in their best interest to trade them for a good deal.

However, land for peace has been tried to a certain extrent, and not borne fruit.  

P.S., one of the things Israel gave back was the entire Sinai Peninsula.  Maybe not something that they wanted to keep, or was holdable in the long term, but a nice chunk of territory.  

In any event, the Egyptians apparently being level-headed Arabs, have reached a profitable accomadation with Israel.  If only others would learn from the example.

Chan, the bad taste part was the implication that we support Israel because of the Jewish vote. But in reality the concentration of Jewish voters in certain places is only one of many reasons for our support of Israel. Thus I see that part of the quote being impolitic and tasteless, because it elevates that one above the others. Nothing to fire someone over, though.

I have not forgotten the 1967 war, or who attacked whom (and who kicked ass on whom). If Israel wanted to annex some or all of the occupied territories after the war, they certainly had a justification to do that. That was one of the justified end-members in my original post. But if you annex a territory and make it yours, and are a democratic state, you have to accept that the residents of the territory are citizens of your country. With the settlements, Israel in effect tried to take the territory but not the people living there, and that is something I think should be criticized.

"I seem to recall seeing credible cases to the contrary that could probably be googled up pretty easily"

Could be googled up pretty easily, but why bother.  Rather, just post links to anecdotal evidence that backs up my thesis and leave it there.

Jeff Frey writes, "...But if you annex a territory and make it yours, and are a democratic state, you have to accept that the residents of the territory are citizens of your country. With the settlements, Israel in effect tried to take the territory but not the people living there, and that is something I think should be criticized."

Well, maybe.  If you think you can assimilate the population of the conquered lands.  If not, you might understandably prefer to turn them over to the people who are closer to that population ethnically, and who started the disatrous war which they lost.

Andrew Jackson, lionized by that iconic liberal, Arthur Schlesinger as one of the Great Democrats, drove thens of thousands of Indians out of what is now Alabama to make room for American settlers.  I believe he did something similar in Florida where the Seminoles had allied sometimes with the Spanish to keep us out of there.  

War metes out rough justice at the best.  And often much less than that.

It's my understanding that Israel struck Egypt, first in 67. There's also extensive evidence that the settler outposts below the Golan Heights, were not being shot at.

There's lots more anti, pro filth out there for anyone curious enough.

Iggy- there is a lot of debate about who actually struck first.  I've heard it both ways.  But what isn't a matter of dispute is that Egypt, Syria et all had been trumpeting for weeks their war of extermination.   The state media was ringing with the coming war, and giddy anticipation of destroying Israel.  So it isn't a matter of "did Israel react to the first shot, or did the Arab states"?  The war was coming.  If Israel struck first, it was to gain an advantage when being attacked.

We, with our teleological view of history, see an Israeli rout as inevitble.  But it didn't seem that way in 1967.  

IggyPop writes, "...It's my understanding that Israel struck Egypt, first in 67..."

While you may know something most people don't, Ignorant, most of us understand that in 1967, forces of three Arab countries mobilized around Israel's borders and then struck.

That is the way it was reported in 1967, as I can remember personally.  And that is chronicles written in the West report it.

No doubt the Arabs have a different story.

But, the winners write the history, and all that.

Israel struck first in '67, after Nasser foolishly asked for the UN peacekeepers to be removed from the border.  Michael Oren writes  in his book about the war that Nasser probably didn't want to fight, but let his belligerence get the better of him by making the Israelis paranoid as hell.  As a small nation,  first-strike capability is  everything to Israel, and was  even more so back then when surrounded by unfriendly states.  I frankly can't blame them for obliterating the Egyptian Air Force under those circumstances.

Anyway, if someone  wants to interview McPeak and call him out on being an anti-semite, they should.  Otherwise, let the matter drop.  He probably owes it to the Obama campaign to clarify the new york/miami remarks, but they are not in themselves a fireable offense.  We've gotten so into firing surrogates in this primary that we forget we'll need some of them in the general election.  You don't  see the McCain camp making the  same mistake.

Even Wikipedia has Israel striking first Chan.

Point taken Bone, the rhetoric was savage on the run up, and you make a solid point about the surprise Israei victory.  (teleogical - I like that)

However, and this is a big however, there is substantial evidence suggesting Israel (who, lets not forget had nukes at the time) was very aware of her postion and stood to gain from the conflict.

I could type all night on evidence and so forth, but the quickest way would be to point you in the direction of this German documentary - www.youtube.com/watch

...and Iggy Pop...closing the Straits of Tiran was an act of war.

Amazing how this thread started with  the Clintons cozying up to garbage like Scaife and Limbaugh and seems to be  wandered into a thread about  Israel...

I meant anti-semitic Dutch doc, not anti-semitic German doc.

Interesting interview in section 2 with the reporter who interviewed Moshe Dayan, where he admitted/claimed that Israel was trying to kick it off for three years in the run up to 67. He says that he couldn't believe what he was hearing as Israeli's are trained to believe that they are always the victims of Arab aggression.

Have a butchers.

Bed time. Slan.

(I take it, they didn't let you onto the island Bone? Probably, just as well. We had real problems with foot and mouth here recently.)

And though Israel struck Egypt first, Israel came into possession of the West Bank because Jordan struck  at it first.  King Hussein was being pressured into action by Nasser to follwo the terms of thier mutual defense treaty and attack, though he was trying to drag his feet about it.  If he had dragged his feet for a few more days, history might be very different.

I think pccostello is a he, not a she, based on seeing a comment by someone named "peter c costello" on either the ambinder or yglesias blog, and the style/content matched up. In the interest of people having more accurate pix of their imaginary friends and all.

So are we going to go on talking about Israel and the 1967 war or get back to Clinton and her cosing up to the Right Wing Conspiracy and actually joining it?

Some  Jews are afraid that Obama is the Palestinians Manchurian candidate; I've concluded he is the best hope that American Jews and Israel have and that HRC is in fact the Republican's Manchurian candidate.  She is just gonna destroy the Democratic Party to show Daddikins that she is too his little girl if she can't be President.

I thought the whole story about Bosnia was nada, niente, nothing until I watched the videos of her telling the story side by side with reality.  How about the voice, the smile... the shrugging "S I misspoke."  "Occasionally I am human like everyone else."

And has anyone else seen that Mother Jones 2007 article about that Power cult she belongs too?  Hey, guys this is not just sleaze.  It isn't just politics as usual.  Something very serious and very sick is going on there.

LISAH, my dear, of course it went to Israel.  This is The New Republic, after all.   Motto? "Come To Read Which Advisor Is Saying What Wholly Irrelevant Thing, Stay To Hear Iggy Pop Being Called an Anti-Semite."  A CanWest Publication.  

Drudge, Limbaugh, Richard Mellon Scaife, The American Spectator ... Which element of the VRWC will the

When Clinton surrogate Ed Rendell went out of his way to praise Fox News's campaign coverage last