Edwards won't be attending Fox News Debate:

[Catchawave]

Kos just put up this diary tonight:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/3/6/22951/88088

Edwards to skip Fox News debate
by kos
Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 10:15:30 PM EST
As I mentioned earlier today, I've been asking campaigns whether they plan on attending the Fox News debate.

Several of the campaigns I contacted are still trying to make a final determination, but the first to definitely say "no" is John Edwards. Deputy Campaign Manager Jonathan Prince emailed me the great news:

"We will not be participating in the Fox debate. We're going to make lots of appearances in Nevada, including debates. By the end of March, we will have attended three presidential forums in Nevada - and there are already at least three proposed Nevada debates. We're definitely going to debate in Nevada, but we don't see why this needs to be one of them."

Great job by the Edwards campaign on this, showing real leadership on this issue. Hopefully others will soon follow.

[robinlynne]

1. Edwards has been rocking! And I'm a Gore/Feingold woman saying that.

[AlCzervik]

2. good on him, may they all do the same, especially Obama.

Fox needs to be marginalized at ever opportunity. the weekly world news and their correspondent Bat boy are far more credible.

[Seabiscuit]

3. "We're debating in Nevada. We're debating in Nevada. We're debating in Nevada."

How many times did he have to say it???

[Catchawave]

11. Was only mentioned once, and probably

important to get the message out this isn't a snub on Nevada, just Faux News.

[babylonsister]

4. I have to agree, and hope all Dems follow suit. nt

[onehandle]

5. Good. nt

[Gloria]

6. VERY COOL!!!

[napi21]

7. I support his decision, but I have a question.

Wont it appear like the Dems arechickenshitsif they run away from FOX? Irealize FOX is a biased enemy of a FREE MEDIA, but doesn't it show courage and determination to confront your enemy?

FOX isn't going away for the person whois elected President, so why run away from them now?

[TankLV]

8. No.

Next question.

[Jim Sagle]

22. That was an easy one, wasn't it?

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[Kixel]

32. Good Answer!

Thanks for making me laugh.

[Seabiscuit]

9. Why should they waste their time fielding empty-headed B.S. loaded questions?

A forum is only as good as its sponsors.

[napi21]

15. Maybe, but I think good candidates could effectively smack down

the best FOX has to offer. Look at how Bil Clinton dealt with thehad interviewer on FOX. No I don't remember his name because I never even turn that chanel on, but I saw BC on a video rerun, and hesmacked that smarmey little worm right back into his hole.

That's what I meanby attending their debate and burring them in their own ....!

[rocktivity]

68. That interviewer was Chris "Stimpy" Wallace

:headbang:
rocknation

[BayCityProgressive]

12. Nope shows to rank and file Dems

that they should not watch or support it. This is a great move by Edwards.

[Cha]

52. It's a Brilliant move!

Not one of our Dems should give any credence to faux whatsoever by showing up at their so-called "debate" for Dems. What a freakin' disingenuous joke.

[benny05]

13. It is leadership

And distinguishing himself as candidate among the others. If Hillary and Obama accept, they are caving in to big MSM.

Edwards is being true to the Netrooters and to himself, as well as being logical about the use of his campaign time. And why would he want to appear on a debate in which one of their darlings, Ann Coulter, tried to smear him and gays over the weekend? That would not make sense either.

[wetcanvas]

64. They are not caving...

...they don't have to do it, but it would look odd if they did not go and sends a bad message to swing voters. It makes them look like they have something to hide, or have fear.

There is nothing worse than having a presidential candidate look fearful.

If they can't handle the heat from FOX, how will they handle real heat and real issues?

Edwards isn't going to go far, he has his supporters, but reality is, he has given the enemy more ammo than they need in the past couple weeks alone. He won't get the VP pick either, as he didn't help Kerry in the south. My bet is Edwards is nowhere. Too smart by half.

[ddeclue]

78. Nonsense... put Fox out in the cold and let them try to explain

why they can't get any Democrats on their shows anymore...

I say the swing voters will tune somewhere else for their news and that we shouldn't be so afraid of the big bad Fox...

Way to go Edwards!

Doug D.
Orlando, FL

[IsItJustMe]

92. I honestly don't see how a person could be a 'swing voter' and have FAUX as their primary news.

Most of the people I know, who are avid FAUX fans, are straight up right wing nuts, or just plain stupid (in which case they will be voting republican anyway).

I don't see any good that could come from appearing on FAUX.

[CarolNYC]

99. My Mom's a regular Fox viewer...

...why, I have no idea...but she's a "super Dem", votes in every Dem primary, national and local, wouldn't even dream of voting Republican even if she was threatened..."The worst Democrat is better than the best Republican" is what we grew up with.

Apparently you don't know all of the Fox viewers...

[madfloridian]

17. There is a post at MyDD about it.

A lot of us have complaints about it for several reasons. One is that no one seems to know who did it. It was not the Democratic Party itself. Some of the comments are telling.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/3/6/21051/38243

My concern is honoring them with one of our forums for our candidates. They don't deserve the honor. Day in and day out they bash us.

[benny05]

18. There are 2 posts there

Thanks for pointing out the first one!!:headbang:

[madfloridian]

20. Read some of the comments.

I have seen some of them before.

[tkmorris]

23. When telemarketers call.......

Do you tell them no and hang up or do you engage them for 30 minutes so you don't seem "afraid"?

When the Jehovah's Witnesses come a knocking do you invite them in for tea so you don't look like a wuss?

Do you watch FauxNews so you can tell your friends you're brave enough to listen to their pov?

I don't waste time with idiots. John Edwards shouldn't either.

[napi21]

26. Of course I don't pay attention to any of the things you mentioned.

I guess my thoughts on this Fox issue is different because we all know most Pubs watch FOX. Wouldn't that be good exposure for our candidates? For all I know, many of these people don't watch anything BUT Fox! That's all I mean.

Maybe I was wrong is saying it was an indication of fear. I guess I equate it more with the message Howard Dean had about the Dems not campaigning in Red States. That wasn't fear but consession that they believed it was a waste of time. Doesn't this fall into the same catagory?

[tkmorris]

30. I hear what you're saying

But I don't think there's much point to reaching out to Fox News viewers. They aren't the majority of Republicans, they are the hardcore dittoheads. Edwards (and all the other Dem candidates) really need to reach the moderates, while maintaining the base. Fox won't help them do that.

On the other hand most people who tune into this debate will be doing it to see the Dems, not because of who hosted it. I am rethinking this one.

[napi21]

31. I don't think all FOX viewers are ditto heads either.

I know they have veryhigh viewership because somehow they gota whole lot of commercial establishments to tune in. The damn thing plays at the dealership I take my car to, it's onat least one TV in the bars, it was on in the hospital waiting room! But there really are millions of people who at least are exposed to FOX. I'm sure they are NOT all ditto heads!

[ProudDad]

59. Have you SEEN that crap lately?

I don't have cable and so don't watch Faux EVER.

But...

While staying in a motel a couple of weeks ago I forced myself to watch it for about 10 minutes. I also would occasionally land on it during a surfing fit.

My only and lasting impression is that it's wall to wall lies. There is NO good reason to watch ANYTHING on that silly excuse for a "news" channel.

If someone isn't a ditto-head before they start watching faux, anyone who watches it for any length of time will become one.

Also, don't allow your children to watch it -- the constant stimulation, the graphics will cause them to go autistic...

Faux "news" is dangerous to your health.

Way to go Edwards -- now the rest of you MUST bow out too.

[IsItJustMe]

94. There's an old bible verse that comes to mind, 'Don't cast your perils before swines'.

I think that says it all to your argument.

[DIKB]

60. Re: your question

"When the Jehovah's Witnesses come a knocking do you invite them in for tea so you don't look like a wuss?"

I offer for them to "join me in having a hard drink and watching some gay porn, and we can see where things go from there."

[MontanaMaven]

41. Gives them too much credit to call them "the enemy"

The enemy are terrorists. The enemy are the corporatists. These are just minor lackeys. We are taking our case directly to the people and skipping the spinmeisters. Look out Washington, you are being hosed.

[IsItJustMe]

95. They are more than lackies. They are the mass communication that comes in peoples homes and

brainwashed them into believing that black is white, and white is black.

It's scary when you think of the power they yield over our country. And to me, if you love freedom, then enemy is the nicest thing you can say about them.

[Lone_Wolf]

43. To show courage?

As others have mentioned, Dems appearing on Fox legitimizes them. Fox is not a credible source of news and Dems should look at it like it is a tabloid in television format. Why should Edwards waste time with them? I doubt he'll waste his campaign's time with the National enquirer either.

[Norquist Nemesis]

46. Do Bush/Cheney appear chickenshit when they only appear

exclusively on Faux?

[Larry in KC]

48. Yes. Yes, they do. Don't we complain about that all the time?

[Norquist Nemesis]

49. WE do. But his base doesn't.

And that's really the point, isn't it? Are the Democratic Presidential candidates appealing to the base of the Republican Party or the Democratic Party?

[Larry in KC]

55. So you want us to behave just like * does?

[IsItJustMe]

90. Don't encourage your enemy and you certainly don't get in bed with them.

FAUX SUCKS

You lay in bed with a dog, don't be suprised if you get flees.

[benny05]

10. Edwards Chooses Not to Go into Foxhole

Excellent news.

Also posted at MyDD:

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/3/6/225218/6813

:kick:

[Dispassionate Lib]

36. Foxhole...nice! n/t

[Catchawave]

38. That's a good diary!

"Foxhole" is so appropriate! I just hope this doesn't get him in trouble with the DNC? I think I heard Dean mention that he does want Dems exposed to "other" viewing audiences.....BUT FOX !?! Home of Billo and Coultergeist !?! I don't want my Dems exposed to an audience that soaks up that vile :banghead:

[ChiciB1]

42. Love Your Avatar & Logo... I Changed Mine Because The Picture Of

Edwards on the DU list is AWFUL! I'm still an Edwards supporter, but now refuse to make ANY personal comments about how I feel. Getting attacked by fellow Democrats has made me shy away from stating my views. I try not to attack other people who support other candidates and simply found so many remarks about Edwards to be "gutter-walling" and have to say I was completely SHOCKED at how nasty many DU'ers have become.

I do check in to see what's going on, but have decided that maybe I'm just one of those Democrats who joined DU because I felt it was a place that we could find common ground and unity for our party. I'm just not sure where I fit in anymore. Even though I'm a Boomer and sometimes nostalgic for the past, I DID want to make an effort to stay informed and up to date with current events.

I'm no longer sure I will be as active as I have been for many many years and doubt I will put my heart and soul into campaigns as I used to. I will be going to D.C. on the 17th and taking my granddaughter, because I felt it was a good thing to pass onto the next generation a certain "activism" as they will be our future leaders. I doubt I will ever stop being a politico, but I do feel that my time has come and gone. I'm sure I'll blog from time to time, but nothing like I did before.

I don't doubt that many feel as I do and we are mortified about what is happening to America, but it's one thing to have to fight against BFEE, but quite another to have to fight with those who I had aligned myself with. Disagreement is fine, difference of opinion is fine, but the nasty barbs and ugly face I've seen of late isn't what I had expected here. You know, we can Disagree WITHOUT being Disagreeable, but then I guess that's just "old school" now. Another phrase we used to use a long time ago was "kill 'em with kindness" and you make better headway.... this isn't possible anymore. I do think that the Red Rovian tactics have made this almost impossible and the fight is on, but between ourselves, I just WISH there was more UNITY.

[Catchawave]

44. I took all my Edwards DU sig/avatar/link stuff down too.....

It just prompted my comments or questions about other candidates to be fugly trashed :(

Yeah, and what's up with that DU Edwards avatar? He looks like if Lindsay Graham and a fish mated...shudder...so I've never even thought of using it. Of course, I'm also tech challenged, so can't figure out how to "make my own".

[ChiciB1]

47. I'm In The Same Boat.... Tech Challenged.... The Donkey Looks

better than the pic of him here!

[Catchawave]

50. Definitely !

:hi:

[bigtree]

14. Fox has a viewership which should get a look at our candidates

I can't get all worked up over this. We need exposure in all media and this is one time where the candidates would have the most control over the message.

But, fuck Fox anyway.

[Catchawave]

39. I'm sure the candidates would handle themselves just fine...

...it's just how would Fox edit and spin it to the sheeple afterwards?

Please visit: http://www.newshounds.us/

They watch Fox so we don't have too :D

[Mich Otter]

16. "Edwards" "showing real leadership" pretty well said it.

I want to see more of Democrats standing on their hind feet and willing to take the stands that are right.
We have enough snivelling dogs to kick to the curb.

[NDP]

19. We'll see. If the rest of them attend, that's going to be a problem for him

[madfloridian]

21. Not really.

Unless making Fox happy is a priority. And it should not be a priority.

www.foxattacks.com

[NDP]

35. Making Fox happy? What kind of ridiculous statment is that? I'm talking about

face time on television, and spin.

[benny05]

24. It's a conflict for them if they accept

Edwards was wise to turn this down. Why would he or others accept smears by Faux News commentators who supported the Coultergeist in her bigot comments? Clinton and Obama have said nothing about it, but perhaps it was because they were focused on their own messages in Selma this past weekend. I'm confused other than they figure it's not their problem, but it will become their problem if they accept this invitation. Harry Reid needs to settle down and find a more objective outlet instead of being so friggin' concerned about his re-election chances.

[Catchawave]

51. I don't think so....John will survive this

Nor would I smackdown the Dems who decide to participate. I'll still "watch", because I've learned the hard way, minds are like umbrellas, they only work when they're open :hi:

[pk_du]

25. Faux News - TV home of Ann Coulter - nuff said n/t

[xkenx]

27. Fox is not a news organization, so should not

have the privilege of sponsoring a Dem. debate. Why allow Fox any credibility? In the 2004 primary season, Fox conspired to make most Dems. look bad,and to give a particularly hard time to the candidates most likely to threaten the Rethugs. Fuck them! Good for Edwards! Let's see who else is brave enough to take on the dragon.

[4bucksagallon]

28. You can add your name to the petition from move on to take on faux.

This has probably been posted already, but just in case.


http://civic.moveon.org/foxdebate/o.pl?id=9949-3952378-P6AoDt&t=3

[rocktivity]

29. Is Obama going?

x(
rocknation

[Catchawave]

40. Depends how attached he is to the DNC/DLC ?

I know this is all meant to reach out to more diverse viewers, but Obama was the first to boycott interviews on Fox, so I remain hopeful he'll decline also.

I just wish our party leaders would consult "us" before they make such decisions :evilgrin: This "free" exposure for our candidates could backfire?

[ieoeja]

105. He kicked the FOX reporter off his plane.

"What are you going to do," Obama's staffer asked the FOX reporter, "make up lies about Obama attending a terrorist training school? Oh, that's right, you ALREADY DID!"

Then kicked his ass off the plane. If FOX wants to report on Obama's activities, they are going to have to pick up the tab themselves, and get all their information second hand.

FOX NEWS: LAST TO REPORT BECAUSE NOBODY WILL TALK TO US

[Robeson]

33. I agree with him. Faux News should not be legitimized by any Dem....

...it is not a news network. It is a party-controlled organ of the Republican Party. Good for Edwards.

[Le Taz Hot]

34. The last debate Faux Nooz hosted

for the Democrats, they let the LaRouchies in who, of course, disrupted the entire debate. No candidate should accept an offer by Faux -- including going on their gawdawful television programs.

[Lone_Wolf]

45. There was also one during the 2004, that they cut short...

It started getting too critical of Bush, so instead of letting the audience see the entire debate Fox prematurely went to their experts to analyze the debate.

[Forkboy]

37. Excellent...good for him!

:thumbsup:

[ChiciB1]

53. I'm Stupid... I Know.... But Who's Idea Was This??

I'm really getting more and more confused about some of the Democratic actions these days.

Sure we need to "all get along" in some way, but this looks kind of like ass kissing to me. But then who am I??

[Catchawave]

54. How is this ass-kissing?

I think Kos started it (link is in my OP's link for Kos's original challenge to Dems v. Fox News Debate...whew).

I think we're all applauding the Edwards camp deciding to spend their time in Nevada more wisely than an appearance on FOX NEWS ! Yay!?

[ChiciB1]

57. Edwards ISN'T Ass-Kissing, If That Is What You Thought I Meant...

Perhaps my reply wasn't clear. I'm GLAD "Johnny" isn't going, I'm GLAD he made this choice. I have to admit that because I got a bit turned off by the "snake biting" here that I haven't checked in at DU like I used to. And anyone with a brain must know that UNLESS you search for extra information, MSM isn't going to report it.

I do watch Washington Journal almost every single morning, and stay up late at night to watch any hearings from C-Span 3, so I must admit I didn't know anything about this "debate" or whatever it's called. I also admit that perhaps I'm not up to speed on precisely what it's supposed to accomplish, but for me I'm wondering WHY Democrats even want to do this thing. I've simply become far too cynical these days and can't understand why Democrats would want to do this type of thing.

How come???

[Catchawave]

65. I did misunderstand ! Sorry Chici, I'm

used to playing defense on DU re: anything Edwards :hi:

I added an updated Kos link below about Fox being upset w/Edwards....lol...when you get a chance, read the comments in that diary...priceless :D

[ChiciB1]

69. I KNOW The Playing Defense Thingie... One Reason I Just Opted Out

of the Fray... I was finding myself more and more irritated about the negativity regarding Edwards and found it almost jaw dropping.

I think it's natural that we don't all agree on any one candidate, but even though I would find it hard to vote for Hillary I don't go out of my way to attack each and every thing she says or does. I think most of our candidates running have something to offer and people like to defend those they support, but this down in the dirt nastiness completely turns me off. And to be honest, it makes it harder for me to see why I would want to support "their" choice. But that's just me.

For now, there is only one that I have a real problem with and I used to be one of her biggest supporters. Again, sorry for the late reply, I will check out Kos to see what they said. Actually I signed up to blog there too, but DU was my first choice. Now, I check them out more than I used to. Edwards doesn't seem to be such a pariah over there, and I sometimes wonder how they could be so different. But as I said, what do I know??
:toast: B-)

[Catchawave]

56. KOS Update Diary:

Fox News debate, campaign responses
by kos
Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 03:24:05 PM PST
I polled several of the campaigns about whether they would attend the Fox News debate. Here are their paraphrased responses:

Edwards: No

Richardson: Yes

Obama: Decision will be made within the week

Clinton: Too early to make a decision

Dodd: They haven't decided yet

Biden: No response



Meanwhile, Air America says it would only join the debate if they were co-hosts of the event.

To state the obvious: Fox is a feisty conservative cable network and Air America is a feisty progressive radio network. Surely a man whose media skills I admire, Roger Ailes, wouldn't disagree with that.

As its new president and one who has appeared periodically on Fox News, I would be interested in co-sponsoring a debate among the Democrats running for President; but not in a way that AAR would be outweighed as tokens in a largely Fox line-up. Only together could a panel of questioners be "fair and balanced."
But no, that's not what Fox and the Nevada Democratic Party leadership really want. Fox wants ITS branding all over the debate, not anyone else's.

::
Tags: Fox News, media, 2008, president, Nevada (all tags)

Permalink | 138 comments

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/3/7/181817/8433

[Colobo]

58. Interesting

What should Obama and Hillary do? Richardson is in... so?

[rocktivity]

67. Obama had better say no unless Fox formally retracts its madrassah story

Here's the latest in an AirAm e-mail I got today: Fox's idea of being fair and balanced is to offering three Fox and one AirAm moderators. Why not two of each? And what more proof do you need that there's nothing neocons hate more than a level playing field?

:headbang:
rocknation

[saltpoint]

61. The Edwards campaign team issued a deft statement suggesting

that a debate sponsored by FOX News might not be the best use of Senator Edwards' time.

I LOVE that phrasing they used.

There's a formal politeness to it but there's a hard steel canon beneath the magnolias, as the phrase goes.

FOX News is a whorehouse of a network, only less purposeful and less honest, and the Edwards team gets this one exactly right.

[Catchawave]

62. "Fox Ain't Happy With Edwards"

Another update from Kos refering to a NYT article:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/3/7/202938/6370

Fox statement:

It’s unfortunate that Senator Edwards has decided to abandon an opportunity to reach the largest mainstream cable news audience in America.

[saltpoint]

63. It will do FOX News some good to have its warped expectations of

events challenged by Edwards' campaign team.

Evidently there's a lot more competence in the Edwards HQ than there is in the FOX News editing room.

Hey there. Thanks for the link.

[NDP]

71. The only way to bring Fox to its knees if for Obama and Clinton not to attend. Clinton will be

there. She isn't cozying up to Rupert Murdoch for nothing.

[NDP]

72. Hillary "Rupert Murdoch" Clinton will most likely be there

[saltpoint]

74. Can't say who'll show up, but I would really like to see our people tell

the FOX people that until the propaganda for BushCo comes to a screeching, final halt, they can whistle for Democratic comment on events and issues.

[Arugula Latte]

66. Right on. Fuck Fox. Other Dem. candidates -- please follow. nt

[BootinUp]

70. You don't think that Edwards is playing

to the netroots just to get support any way he can do you?

[Catchawave]

73. Nope. n/t

[saltpoint]

75. Nope. I think he's suggesting that FOX News is a gaggle of shitmongers

and I think he's right.

[BootinUp]

81. He won't be telling them to their face

It suggests he would be lousy in the General Election if you ask me.

[saltpoint]

82. He won't need to. And the demographics suggest he'd mow Rudy, Mitt,

or John down like a steamroller in the general. Edwards carries both California and New York, loses none of the states Gore carried, maintains New Hampshire which Kerry flipped blue, regains New Mexico and Iowa, rides the newly energized Democratic wave in Ohio, and likely carries 1, 2 or 3 southern states.

That's an electoral landslide.

[BootinUp]

83. Edwards has plenty

of material to be attacked on. Any polls at this point are next to meaningless. He didn't do shit for Kerry's effort to be blunt.

[saltpoint]

84. FOX News is no Democrat's friend.

Edwards said as much.

I agree with him.

[BootinUp]

85. Its a tough world...and will be a tough race.

We need someone who can deal with smarmy Fox personalities with despatch.

[Catchawave]

100. Edwards already has.....and a fine job he did :)

http://www.newshounds.us/2007/01/24/john_edwards_aces_hannity_colmes_appearance.php

[saltpoint]

101. That's right-on. It was a fine job. Some things gleam. His handling

of things of late included.

[Catchawave]

102. Nice diary for his supporters on Daily Kos right now

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/3/9/8323/81341

by an ex-Naderite :)

[saltpoint]

103. I'll go over and have a look. Thanks for the link.

[jcrew2001]

121. I would support Clark as VP if the clarkies

didn't say it was such a bad idea. Kerry hurt himself, and there was nothing Edwards could do to help the ticket. Kerry was a Liberal Yankee and it wouldn't have made a difference if Jesus was the VP. But maybe Clark as VP could have brought off the heat from the Swift Boats - and Kerry should have seen it coming, cuz lots of vietnam vets hate him and his hippy friends.

But it bugs me that Clark doesn't want to be a VP 'Dick Cheney' - but Cheney won the white house and Clark's stuck on Fox News - so Clark needs to wake up and realize he could actually make a difference on the ticket instead of being self righteous.

[Clarkie1]

76. Man, Edwards is really getting desperate for netroots support.

[BootinUp]

77. lol. Its getting ridiculous.

I couldn't help but comment.

[Catchawave]

79. Avoiding Faux News is "desperate" ?

So you think he should participate? :shrug:

[BootinUp]

80. You must not make the

Dems are spineless arguments I see around here all the time. Fox viewers are not all hopeless unless they only hear one side.

[benny05]

86. I see what you say

Clark has been coy about running, but has been a regular commentator on Fox. FN probably has fans from this site and especially from the Kos and MyDD who watch FN on a daily basis for all of their great insights, smears, and most of all, Ann Coulter, who has lost 5 newspapers (all conservative) and ads because of her wack jobs.

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003555963

Moreover, Taylor Marsh reported the Carson City Dems have urged the NDP to say no to Fox.

http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=25250

And she is strong minded on military matters.

[BootinUp]

88. Well, DU is a good predictor

for any general election, lol. You're killin me.

And Kos is a fool for this anti-Fox campaign, it will only hurt the party's image with the general voting public. What happened to standing up and speaking the truth, now its lets runaway...

[benny05]

89. Kos was a Clark Supporter

And since he said he didn't think Clark was in it, now the Clarkies are coming out against him.

[BootinUp]

91. Would it help

if I post in braille?

[benny05]

93. LOL

Not really...:)

[BootinUp]

98. ok

cya.

[IsItJustMe]

87. GOD BLESS ED!!!!!! Good for him and any other respectable Dem candidates.

I feel so strong about FAUX I would go so far as to say, I will not vote for a candidate who appears in their debate. FAUX is a blight on our democracy.

[ultraist]

96. Is Wes Clark still on Fox's payroll?

Just wondering if Wes Clark still works for Fox News?

[Catchawave]

97. .......crickets..........

:)

[Tom Rinaldo]

104. Make the case for how Clark hurts the Democratic Party

with any of his appearances on FOX news. Go for it, this is a useful debate I believe. But be prepared to discuss the results Wes Clark produces when he appears on FOX, not just some abstract argument about it being a bad place. And it doesn't work to say "I never see Wes Clark on FOX because I don't watch it. Plenty of clips of Wes Clark tearing apart the Republicans on FOX have been featured at Crooks and Liars and other leftist Democratic Web sites. Not to mention that virtually every appearance Clark has ever made on FOX is still archived at www.securingamerica.com, or that there have been dozens of DU threads posted in the past immediately after Clark appeared on FOX discussing the points that he made there.

I agree with Democrats should avoid FOX for our Presidential debates by the way. In fact the worst hatchet job that they did was the New Hampshire debate they did in 2004, where questioners savaged Wes Clark during the debate for Clark refusing to distamce himself from Michael Moore's comments about Bush being a deserter, that Moore made at a Clark rally in New Hampshire. FOX even rushed and cut off televising the candidates final comments so they could go to their studio commentators who continued to blast Wes Clark for standing by Micheal Moore.

I support and applaud John Edward's decision to skip that FOX carried Nevada debate. But I am also tired of the little sniping that goes on about Clark getting a paycheck from FOX. Whatever it is it is peanuts, most people do commentary for the spin off exposure, not for the direct bucks, but Clark does it to carry a Democratic message into Red districts where it must be heard if we are ever to become the dominant political Party again. I think he has done a damn fine job doing just that.

Any one want to dispute that? I have tons of links to Clark using his commentary on FOX to argue for closing Gitmo, for arguing that America can not condone the use of torture, for repeatedly pointing out that none of the past Iraqi elections heralded a turning of the corner toward peace and prosperity there even when other Democrats felt a need to simply praise Democracy in Iraq at the time, for continuing to call for full Congressional investigations for how the U.S. was mislead into war in Iraq through falsified intelligence, for arguing that there can be no military solutions in Iraq, for arguing against the troop surge in Iraq, for blowing the whistle on chicken hawk aims to conduct failed diplomacy at best so that there is an excuse to attack Iran militarily, for pointing out to FOX viewers that though Israel is a close ally of America, our reaction to events inside Lebanon must reflect American values, because we are speaking as Americans.

I am not even scratching the surface here. So who wants to argue that Clark is hurting Democrats by saying these things on FOX and not backing down? Be prepared to point to instances of Clark being on FOX that hurt our cause, because I sure as hell am prepared to point to instances where Clark being on FOX not only helped our cause, but gave political cover to many of the Democrats who won their 2006 races against Republican incumbants in REpublican leaning districts, which is how we regained the majority in both houses.

[ieoeja]

106. Make the case for how Jane Fonda hurt America.

What Clark is doing is no different than Fonda sitting at the controls of an anti-aircraft gun in Hanoi during the Vietnam War.

The first individual interviewed to head up FOX News (I forget his name) walked out on the interview. He realized that what they were asking him to do was unethical, and he refused to have anything to do with it. I love the General (his "I am a liberal" speech should be copied by EVERY presidential candidate), but he is WRONG to lend FOX credibility they do not deserve.

[BootinUp]

107. What a ridiculous

comparison.

[Tom Rinaldo]

108. I see you avoid discussing any individual instance of Clark's commentary

That is exactly what I expected.

A time may come when there will be a comprehensive and effective movement inside of the Democratic Party for all Democrats to refuse to appear on FOX. It can be debated whether or not that would be a wise move or not. I can make several points both pro and con myself. It is not a no brainer by any means, and it is a constantly moving target. At one point in time it might be counter productive, at another point the timing may be right to drive a stake through FOX's heart.

As I am sure that you know, I have great respect for General Clark, I am a long time solid supporter of his, but even I am not so deluded as to think that General Clark appearing for four minutes once or twice a week on FOX is propping that Network up, or in any measurable way adding to its marketability or even to it's so called "prestige". Perhaps if the DNC Chair did a weekly FOX show, or if a slew of higher profile Democrats than Wes Clark appeared on FOX on a nightly basis, a case could be made that Democrats were propping up FOX. That's not happening however. I'll say this, if Democrats UNIFY around a tactic of boycotting FOX at all times, not just refusing to let them host our debates, I would revisit this question. If there were a solid boycott in place, if the DNC, and our Congressional leadership also were asking all Democrats to stay off of FOX at all times, then it would be problematic for any Democrat, Wes Clark included, to go onto FOX for any reason. That would be crossing a virtual picket line officially erected by our Party. It's not there though.

Am I willing to consider that Wes Clark could somehow influence a few people to take FOX more seriously by appearing on it? Sure, it's a big country, but I would say very very few people would fall into that category. Real FOX viewers, those who aren't forced to watch it at an airport bar, choose to be FOX viewers because they have a predetermined mind set to see FOX as a good source of information. They would be there anyway, and no one who would otherwise be on the verge of switching their primary cable news source away from FOX to CCN or MSNBC will instead stay loyal to FOX on the oft chance that they might miss being tuned into FOX during the 5 minutes a week Clark is on the air there.

I think any Democrat who can't handle FOX's heat should stay the hell out of their kitchen because FOX will make a fool of them and their beliefs while they are appearing on FOX, but Wes Clark CAN take the heat at FOX and he continually turns the tables on them and makes FOX's right wing Republican talking points appear lame and hollow. Clark does this ALL OF THE TIME. Again, this is not just a personal opinion, check out the Dem blogs where all of the Clark smack downs of FOX keep appearing.

On the one hand DU activists love it every time Bush's approval ratings slip. We started cheering when they dipped into the low 40's and our cheers have gotten louder as Bush fell into the high 30's, the low 30's, and now into the high 20's. So what the hell do you think a falling approval rating means? It means a number of human beings who until recently had approved of the way that Bush was running the nation now disapprove of the way Bush is running the nation. They changed their mind. They used to think Bush made sense for America and now they don't any longer.

That is great news for us, it means that the Democratic message about America is making inroads among former Bush believers. It means that Congressional seats that once were safely Republican now can be won by Democrats because people who voted Republican last time may vote Democratic next time. How the hell do you think that happens? Pure spontaneous combustion? Fine, believe that if if makes you feel purer to not have to soil your hands by ever talking to former Bush voters, but I think it is critical that someone be breaking through the Republican Noise Machine static to reach some former Bush voter ears, effectively, with a strong no nonsense Democratic message that punches holes in all of the Republican lies that Bush and company have been peddling. Wes Clark is one of those Democratic voices capable of breaking through that static.

So how did you feel about Jon Tester winning that Senate seat for Democrats in Montana in 2006? We gained the majority by a single seat of course, had Tester lost Republicans would still control the Senate. Did you know that Jon Tester only invited One, just One, national Democrat into Montana to campaign there for him to help him win that tight election? That's right, of all the Democrats Tester could have chosen, and I have no doubt that all of them would have answered a call from him for help, Tester only wanted one; General Wes Clark, to stand by him in front of Montana crowds. You can convince yourself if you must for your own ideological reasons, that there was no relationship between Jon Tester chosing Wes Clark to stand next to, and the fact that Montana voters often tend to be FOX viewers, but I am not buying it.

[ieoeja]

109. You asked. I answered.

Clark is one of my favorite Democrats right now. Working for FOX isn't going to change that. I think he's wrong to work for FOX because he DOES lend them an air of legitimatcy. Every FOX watcher I know cites him as *proof* that FOX is non-partisan. Either you don't argue FOX's partisanship, or every FOX watcher you have encountered is complete different from every one I have.

[Tom Rinaldo]

110. Fair enough

I will just say that the type FOX viewers you are speaking about will hang their non-partisan argument hat on any hook handy, their belief precedes their justification for that belief, and it would continue with or without Clark's commentary.

[Catchawave]

112. Tom

I've never had a problem with Clark working for Fox and I hear he does the Dems proud by doing so. He always gets high marks from Newshounds (well, they watch Fox so I don't have to ). I'm glad he's on our side!

I think the subject came up because Edwards supporters are getting smashed here by Clark supporters?

Have you seen some of those posts?

[Tom Rinaldo]

113. Catchawave

I voiced my own support for John Edward's decision to boycott the FOX debate in my first post on this thread. And then I defended Wes Clark's contribution to Democrats by speaking our talking points on FOX so no one else has to, to paraphrase the Newshounds line. One thing I never did though is say anything negative about supporters of any other candidate because I found myself needing to defend Clark on this thread. I usually get along well enough with the Clark supporters who made comments that could be considered critical of Edwards here, but they don't speak for me and I don't speak for them. Often we see things in a similar way and sometimes we do not.

You know that it has been consistently my position that there are over 100,000 registered DU members, and that it is foolish to divert discussions about issues and candidates into "so called" discussions about candidate supporters as a group. I say "so called" because when all is said and done, people usually only have a real burr up their butt about 5 or 10 posters AT MOST (but usually it is no more than 3 or 4) who they link in a negative way to supporters of a particualar Democrat, whoever that might be. I have no problem when supporters of John Edwards jump to the defense of him when they feel he is being criticized, in fact I expect it and honor you for doing so when it is done so with integrity (which it almost always is IMO).

Thank you for your supportive words related to Clark in this instance. I think both Edwards and Clark are correct to be doing what they are doing, and I appreciate John Edwards being the first Democrat to say that he will not debate on FOX in Nevada.

[Catchawave]

115. Thank you, but

we know that. Can you do anything with the Clark supporters who hijack threads with vomit smilies? Thanks :hi:

[Tom Rinaldo]

116. I was nice enough to avoid mentioning your post #97 above

when I made my earlier comment to you, and I was nice enough to ignore it when it went up originally. I could have said something about you chiming in to support someone who implied that Clark was at FOX for the money, but I am glad I didn't because a better dialog between us probably resulted by my not reacting that way.

There are threads for other Democrats also that could be called "hijacked" you know. I have never asked a supporter of any Democrat to control the behavior of others who support that same Democrat. To me that conveys the wrong message. That would be like making you responsible for the behavior of an Edwards supporter who I believed to be acting obnoxious on a Clark thread, and I do not and will not hold you so responsible when that happens. I will and do addresse the individual involved, and I make my points relative to the content of what they posted, not to them as some indirect representative of a Democratic politician, or spokesperson for others who support that same politician. I try to be consistent on that Catchawave, probably I fall short sometimes, but I try.

[Catchawave]

117. For crying out loud Tom, crickets?

Someone asked a question, no answer, that's all it meant. Look at the posts that preceded that one....numbing, isn't it?

I.feel.so.bad.for.Clark.

[jcrew2001]

119. I see your point and even though I think its okay

for a Dem to go on Fox news, its okay for Clark to go on Fox and convince conservatives to switch to our side. I think Edwards should use the opportunity in the general election.

But his decision to boycott the debate is about appeasing the liberal base because he has to win the Dem Nom first. So while it may be a moral stand against Fox, its really a political decision by Edwards, its the right thing to do for the primary season. There is only upside, and hopefully he will gain traction against Hillary and Obama.

No offense, but your name looks like Tom Trancredo.

[Tom Rinaldo]

120. Edwards has it right on this issue

And it probably will help him in the primaries but he earned it.

He has the bases covered just about right with his statement, which includes this:

"Enough is enough. It's time to send a clear message to Fox News and their allies that their right-wing talking points and temper tantrums won't go unchallenged anymore - when it comes to what Democrats should do in the Democratic primary, we'll decide - no matter what they report...

...The truth is, Fox News can "report" whatever they want. And when it works for us, we'll deal with them on our terms."


So he's covered, and appropriately so. FOX should have no business handling our internal Democratic primary process, Edwards is right. But when it works for us, we'll deal with FOX.



And my name is shorter and more poetic sounding.

[jcrew2001]

122. Wait so Clarkies do support Fox News but

Kos does not support Fox News. It seems too confusing to me. I just think its easier to try to take over Fox News instead of boycotting it. I like how they have Info-tainment and they are more exciting than CNN or MSNBC even if its just trashy RW gossip, its a product that most dumb Americans watch, so more Dems need to appear on the channel instead of walking away.

Edwards move is a moral political decision. If appearing on Fox will help him during the General Election, he will be the first one there - its a winning strategic move IMO.

[Tom Rinaldo]

123. Clarkies support Clark, you can't draw any larger conclusions

Please don't try to draw a group think position for Clark supporters on anything beyond supporting Clark, everyone differs to an extent.

FOX news sucks, what is there to debate about about that? It is also still by far the largest cable news network, and the only sourse of "news" for millions of people. At first I was amazed when Clark would keep winning his points for Democrats when he appeared on FOX, lately I've come to take it for granted, but it still amazes me. I would love it if Air America could buy a major TV network, but they just barely escaped going bankrupt as it is.

[quinnox]

111. I applaud Edwards for this

Long overdue. Obama has guts too (kicking the Fox "news reporters" off his campaign tour) and I bet he will follow suit and not appear. And if both Obama and Edwards don't then it will put much pressure on Hillary to do the same, which would be wonderful!

[Dr Fate]

114. Eddie is the man-good for him! n/t

n/t

[Catchawave]

118. FOX DEBATE HAS BEEN CANCELLED.

Waiting for details, with hopes in a new thread. Breaking here, but not sure of the source yet:

http://foxattacks.com/

Thanks for all your support, DU rawks :))))

[draft_mario_cuomo]

124. Great news

This is a great victory for the progressive movement. If we keep this up hopefully we can force Fox News to cease being the cable propaganda arm of the RNC.