Kudos to the blogosphere (4.00 / 1)

This was a job well-done.

---

by: PsiFighter37 @ Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 23:00:43 PM UTC

"Huzzah"?! (4.00 / 1)

"The top three Democrats seeking the nomination -- Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards ..."

I don't know who wrote this description - but I don't consider Clinton, Obama or Edwards the "top". They have collected the most money and consequently the most media attention, however I am much more interested in what Kucinich has to say.

I also don't understand why it is less acceptable to be on Fox than it is on CNN or ABC. They are as slippery and biased as FOX. You can't get much more arrogant or elitist than Stephanopoulos or Blitzer. You can't be much more steeped in administration talking points than those networks.

If candidates can express solidarity with Obama why can't they express solidarity with Kucinich and Gravel and Dodd who get treated like poor relations to whom a few crumbs are grudgingly given?

---

by: lentinel @ Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 23:03:17 PM UTC

you'e wrong (on Fox) (0.00 / 0)

There is a wealth of evidence that Fox is biased in general and was in the 2003 Democratic Presidential primary debate it hsted.  See http://www.thepetiti...

for example

Fox News then summarized the debate with a story titled, "Democratic Candidates Offer Grim View of America," continuing with such jabs as, "The depiction of the president as the root of all evil began at the top of Tuesday night's debate...."  Controversial questions included the accusation that Howard Dean had a racist gun policy by Fox News analyst Juan Williams.

 

New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

---

by: Hopeful in NJ @ Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 23:45:22 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well that about ruins my summer (4.00 / 1)

I was dying to see this debate for months.  It would have been the best thing Fox aired since Celebrity Boxing.

It really sucks for the Fox Three though.  The most dominant name in cable news all to themselves?  We obviously would have had a new top tier.

---

by: Jarett @ Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 05:54:40 AM UTC

I Disagree (0.00 / 0)

The Democratic Party candidates should have had the courage to  appear on FOX. This "victory" makes them look like scared little children that ran away from the Big Bad Murdoch.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

---

by: SpitBall @ Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 13:33:45 PM UTC

Fox News - Not Legitimate (0.00 / 0)

In case you missed it, Fox News has all but declared war on Democrats. Legitimizing that network by having our Presidential Candidates appear in a debate sponsored by Fox would have been self-defeating for Democrats. By refusing to appear the message went out that we aren't going to play their game anymore. Fox Newsm, and it's shills, of course are trying to put out the alternative spin that it shows fear, but most people aren't going to buy that BS.

Now if you want to talk about fear, let's talk about the fear of the little people shown by the Republicans when they decided they couldn't find time in their schedules for a YouTube debate. Boo!

It's war between Fox News and Democrats. Asking Democrats to make money for Fox is like asking them to appear on the equally fair and balanced Al Jazeera. Neither is in the best interests of the Democratic Party.

---

by: Curt Matlock @ Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 16:24:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

We disagree (0.00 / 0)

But you already knew that.  FOX is only slightly less "legitimate" than CNN, or any other news-source. In fact, I have more respect for FOX because they don't try to hide their  bias - I wish more news organizations would be as clear.

I think the Democratic Candidates should ALL go on that debate and TAKE CONTROL of it.  The odds are in their favor - 8, or 10 candidates to 1 moderator!  Hell, let Rush "percoPop" Limbaugh host the damned thing - or Brit Hume.  If that group of Democrats can't completely redirect the debate to their agenda then none of them have the rhetorical skills to be an effective President.

I'm most surprised at Barack Obama on this issue - I'd have thought he understood more about the propaganda game after his eloquent defense of his acceptance of talks with the leaders of Iran and North Korea.

All they have done is underscored the perceived power of FOX to set the political agenda, when they had a prime opportunity to punch holes in it.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

---

by: SpitBall @ Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 17:39:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Just to nit-pick (0.00 / 0)

Of course, given that Obama has already sworn off accepting any new debate invitations, and since neither Edwards nor Clinton will debate on Fox if Obama won't for fear of progressive activist backlash

Given that IIRC Edwards was the first to swear off Fox debates, it seems kinda unfair to lump him in with Hillary and suggest that he'd only refuse future ones because he's worried about being upstaged by Barack.

---

by: McSnatherson @ Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 22:49:39 PM UTC