Hillary accepts Fox News Debate, wants Obama to join

[book_worm]

Apparently having realized they've lost the netroots and not giving a damn anymore, the Hillary campaign has decided they want to legitimize the right-wing propagandists on Fox News after all.

In a conference call with reporters, Clinton strategist Mark Penn announced that Clinton would like to face off against Obama in one debate every week between now and March 4.

"The campaign believes that it’s critically important that we continue the debate," he said, citing the questions of "who offers universal healthcare and who's best prepared to fix the economy."

Debates have, generally, been stronger turf for Clinton, but it's also a mark of the shifting dynamic: You don't usually see the frontrunner demanding debates.

Penn said Clinton would like to see debates in Ohio, Texas, and Washington, and had already accepted three: One on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopolous, one CNN debate in Ohio February 27, and an MSNBC debate the next day hosted by Chris Matthews.

Wolfson also said Clinton has accepted a debate on Fox News, something Democrats shunned last year. That debate is scheduled for February 11, in Washington D.C., and would also air on the local Fox affiliate.

Obama should say "no way" to the smear mongers on Fox. It's incomprehensible that Clinton would seek to legitimize the Republican party chief propaganda.

http://www.dailykos.com

[ingac70]

1. No self respecting Democrat...

should want to be seen on FAUX.

[jackson_dem]

16. Obama was on Fox last week

[mckeown1128]

24. both were on this morning....nt

[jackson_dem]

30. So why the hypocrisy? If they go on it then debate on it too

If the idea is to deny Fox legitimacy then it should be boycotted. Neither are doing this so they should have no problem with debating on it.

[ingac70]

38. Because the questions by FAUX...

will be "Why do you love the terrorists?" and shit like that. You shouldn't want those bastards controlling a debate.

[debatepro]

84. She needs free press bc they are going to get killed in the $$$$$$ race

The fox news debate is only part of the challenge. Hillary's camp knows they will be way behind in the money race after super tuesday... this is why they want to have a debate every week... bc the debate is the only way she can score points and get free press on good performances...

By saying they will debate on FOX they are using the FOX News Echo chamber machine to pressure OBAMA into more debates... in order to get free press bc they are running out of money.

Predition: Camp Hillary will be complaining that there aren't enough debates... and why is Obama afraid to debate... he won't be able to do that against John McCain.

Obama's response should be the person who is behind always wants more debates, there were only 3 presidential debates in 2k4, and we have already had 17(ish) debates.

If I am obama and I have the Momentum ... I wouldn't do many more debates... at most a couple...

[propol]

21. n/t

[CreekDog]

2. Fox???!!!

no way. :banghead:

[mutant80]

72. Big Deal! Fox Exists! USE IT!

Will it hurt democrats for right wingnuts to hear us in their own turf?

[CreekDog]

85. It exists for a purpose

That purpose doesn't help either candidate in this case.

[BattyDem]

3. Oh please, Dems ...

Do NOT give any legitimacy to Fox news!

[AlinPA]

44. Yep, Fox "News" is a republican propaganda tool.

[RiverStone]

61. I really, really can't fathom this decision....

By either Obama or Clinton.

Faux is nothing but a RW tool. What could possibly be the upside to this? Which wacko would moderate? Gawd, probably that slimeball Hume.

[lapfog_1]

62. Is there anything from the Obama campaign AGREEING to the Fox debate? - n/t

[Debi]

4. Hillary is out of money and needs MSM exposure b/c she can't afford

to run commercials and continue campaigning in the remaining states.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

25. Bingo...

eom

[MonkeyFunk]

26. People keep saying she's out of money

but I haven't seen any such reports in the media. Where's that coming from?

[Debi]

36. Only the comments made by Obama camp and her camp

January 2008 fundraising Obama $32 million/Clinton $13 million - and even though she rased more than Obama in the last quarter she only raised $10 million in December. Her donors are high dollar donors and are maxed out (totally maxed out having given the full $4600 for primary/general) and she's not getting any new donors (or not many) comparted to the 224,000 NEW donors Obama got in January on top of the potential for his previous donors to give more. Look at her advertising for today, only ran ads in 16 of the 22 states where Obama ran in all 22 states - and before Iowa Obama was active in all February 5th states whereas Clinton was only active in 16 of them. No money, no ads, no campaign (no more Hilicopters and not more Hilforce One). That's why she needs the free media and the debates.

[MonkeyFunk]

39. That's just supposition

do you have any reference to her even running low on cash?

She raised a ton of money throughout 2007. There are no media reports of her having any cash problems, none of the pundits have mentioned it. But people here are taking it as gospel.

Terry McAuliffe was on Russert and said the money's holding up good, and they will always have the resources to get their message out.

It's irresponsible to keep claiming she's out of money when there's not one iota of evidence to that effect.

[Debi]

42. Yep, just my opinion

But then why did she refuse to release her January fundraising numbers until Terry could spin a good tale (what does 'money's holding up good' mean anyway)?

And why didn't she run in all Feb. 5th states (or at least run ads in all Feb. 5th states)if she had the $$ to do so?

Why did she end 2007 with $5 million in debts as compared to Obama's $800,000 in debts?

And why is she NOW agreeing to have a debate on FOX when before she refused?

In my opinion (and I'm entitled to one) it's because she's out of money.

[Usrename]

52. Her fundraising is down, way down.

Obama is outperforming her three-to-one and there isn't any relief for her in sight.

Unless a miracle happens, she won't be pulling in a whole bunch of new donors, and most of her corporate donors are maxed out already. Sorry, but it seems to be a rumor that is confirmed by the facts.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/al-giordano/its-clinton-that-is-runn_b_84705.html

[MonkeyFunk]

60. He outraised her for one month

She outraised him throughout all of 2007.

NOBODY with real knowledge says she's out of money. It's foolish to think an "opinion" on a factual matter carries any weight.

[Debi]

70. What is 'real' knowledge?

Clinton FEC report for final 2007 quarter
Cash on Hand: $37,947,874.30
Debt: $4,987,425.29
According to campaign money raised in January 2008 $13 million

Leaving Clinton around $45 million (before January's expenditures)

Obama FEC report for final 2007 quarter
Cash on Hand: $18,626,248.13
Debt: $792,681.34
According to campaign money raised in January 2008 $32 million

Leaving Obama around $49.8 million (before January's expenditures)

+++++

She's accumulating debt at a 5 to 1 ration and is being outraised by a 3 to 1 ration AND is not gaining any NEW donors.

How is that not real knowledge?

[MonkeyFunk]

76. It's YOUR supposition that she's not getting new donors

and what Obama raises or spends is irrelevant to whether or not Clinton is out of money.

Nobody - not her campaign, not her opponent's campaign, not one talking head, not one election reporter - is speculating that she's out of money.

Don't you think that would be a rather big story?

[lapfog_1]

87. To be fair to both sides

No, she isn't out of funds... $40+ M on hand (even after covering debt) is not "out of money"...

However, there is a serious calculation that she and her campaign have to go through. Namely ad buys now in the primary season versus ad buys for the GE. She may be hording some money now so that she will have more after the convention. It's a risk. She may have felt confident enough in withstanding the Obama challenge that she decided to "keep the powder dry" for the election. No doubt, given the shift of the last few weeks and her eroding poll numbers against Obama, she make revisit this decision.

And, for the nonce, she may have decided that debates are her strong suit against Obama... plus they are relatively cheap for the campaign. And they offer a lot of air time in each state coming up. So why not ask for more debates?

I think it was a mistake to offer to debate on Fox. Simply because such a debate, moderated by known propagandists of the right wing, will tend to make both candidates look bad... which is why the candidates all decided against a Fox debate at the outset. Changing that position now... well, it doesn't look good.

I don't think Obama will agree to more debates should he come out on top today. Or at least only a few more. And likely not on Fixed Noise channel.

[Debi]

96. ...

<snip>.....Hillary Clinton in particular has a problem: 70% of her campaign’s donors have already given her the maximum $2300 they can contribute during the primary season. By comparison, fewer than half of Obama’s donors have maxed out, in part reflecting his campaign’s success at building a broad base of online supporters who are giving less individually but more in the aggregate. <snip>
http://www.epolitics.com/2007/09/23/as-big-donors-max-out-small-online-donors-vital-to-presidential-campaigns/

<snip>...The PACs and DC lobbyists have already maxed out. New donors won't come forward without major momentum. And she doesn't have a big enough base of small donors to sustain the high "burn rate" of a campaign top-heavy with highly paid consultants and staff.
<snip>
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/3/133144/1367/585/448939

<snip>
Blaming a vacationing donor base during the summer months of July and August, and suggesting previous donors have "maxed out" their contributions to the New York senator in the first two fundraising quarters, the Clinton campaign predicted Obama's campaign will beat them by over $10 million, perhaps setting the bar high for their rival.
Clinton Camp Says They Have 'Maxed Out' Supporters
"They have an advantage," the Clinton aide said about Obama's campaign. "For us, the summer is slow, because we've maxed out far more of our donors than they have."
<snip>
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/Story?id=3644382&page=1

[GoldieAZ49]

83. she came into the race with $10 million from previous campaigns - stated in the 2007 disclosures

[jackson_dem]

69. She has enough money to get her message out like McCain

If money were everything it would be Romney and Obama vying to replace President Forbes.

[Debi]

74. except she doesn't have a Huckabee or a Thompson to play spoiler for her

It's just the two of them now.

[rinsd]

47. She had a 2 to 1 cash on hand advantage going into Jan

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/index.asp?cycle=2008

[Debi]

57. And now she's $5 million behind and $5 million in debt

and no outlet for more cash b/c her doners were high-dollar and are maxed out. (Oh and www.fec.gov is my choice for info)

Obama raised almost 3x what she did in January AND got it from 225,000 NEW donors along with his repeat donors who can contribute again.

She doesn't have enough to compete through the next month - much less through November (her donors gave her their full $4600 right away so her FR numbers would look good - they can't come back and give her more for the general - she has to find new donors and that isn't looking promising for her).

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

5. I thought there was a Fox boycott.

:shrug:

[ingac70]

10. There is...

I guess Hillary needs her pal Murdoch to help her get more exposure.

[jackson_dem]

19. Murdoch's flagship paper endorsed Obama

[ingac70]

23. But Murdoch held a funraiser for Hillary.

[jackson_dem]

71. When she ran for the senate in the state Murdoch's empire is based

[ingac70]

82. Better check that again...

http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/murdoch-inc-digging-deep-for-hillary/2007/11/30/1196394621263.html

"According to the Centre for Responsive Politics, a non-profit organisation in Washington that researches the donor lists, News Corporation is now Senator Clinton's 20th largest supporter, having contributed more than $US93,000 to her presidential campaign so far.

Rupert Murdoch contributed $US2300 to her primary campaign on June 5, while son James gave $US3450 on June 30."

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

32. Are you talking about the NY Post?

Because that was a hit piece.

[goodgd_yall]

46. They've both appeared on FOX.

[jackson_dem]

20. The candidate whose leadership triggered that is no longer running

Hillary and Obama are now free to return to their normal ways unfettered by pressure from the left.

[Yael]

And why he still has my vote

ESPECIALLY now.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

31. So do you care about the boycott or no?

:shrug:

[jackson_dem]

73. There is no boycott. Obama was on Fox last week

[Iwasthere]

6. I agree

I hope Obama doesn't give in.

[Yael]

7. And now with John out -- we can see she took his request to heart

about continuing with some vestige of his message.

Or not.

Okay -- this just made up my mind as I have been watching to see which embraces it and which one throws it in his face.

[billbuckhead]

8. But I thought Obama wants to reach out to the Republicans?

The reality is that he's scared of them.

[ingac70]

17. Reaching out is one thing.

Climbing into bed with them another.

[NoBorders]

18. How did you reach that conclusion? nt

[Yael]

22. He is reaching out to (R)s who have changed their mind about

supporting their party against their own best interests.

There is a huge difference there between the clods on The Hill and the rank and file who are watching ExxonMobile rake in 40 billion while they are paying $3+ at the pump.

[nels25]

41. Thank you

I have voted GOP before (never again) and I believe that not all things republican are evil (misguided perhaps).

I do not completely understand the rancor I see at times, I can tell you from personal experience that a lot of anger can cause you health problems.

Better to chill and support your positions from a positive manner.

I do not have a problem with a debate of Fox might gain more votes for us no matter who we nominate, and the very least it can not hurt.

Obama gets this and I think it is why he is gaining in popularity.

I have a fiver that says he accepts (except if logistics prevent).

We shall see.:dem:

[oasis]

29. Good point. (eom)

[TexasObserver]

9. Ugh

the smell of desperation in the Clinton camp

[lapfog_1]

11. I wonder if it's OK that Chris Wallace

moderate the Fox debate...

you know, because he was so "fair and balanced" in his interview with her husband.

"say anything, do anything"

[Proud2BAmurkin]

12. He'll say no to Fox and CNN will offer for ratings. He'll have no choice.

[RoadRage]

13. I hope Obama says NO to the one on Fox. Just because Hillary has no principals anymore,

doesn't mean he should follow suit. Agree to the others - just to make a point that he disagrees (as I thought ALL DEMS DID) with Fox, and the way they conduct business.

[jackson_dem]

28. Obama was on Fox about a week ago. Some Obamites that it was great then

[MadBadger]

34. I think it was a bad move, though in some way they've all broken the pledge

And while I havent seen Edwards on Fox, he did love to tout those Luntz FOcus groups that showed him the winner.

[jackson_dem]

75. Does Edwards even know who Luntz is?

[MadBadger]

95. Of course he does.

[leftynyc]

93. He was on FOX this morning

His supporters really need to keep up on the talking points.

[Texas_Kat]

14. If he says "no"

Maybe Fox will give her the whole hour to herself. That would be great!

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

15. I'm torn, knowing people who don't pay the "extra tier" money to get MSNBC.

CNN is so bad now I can't differentiate from FAUX any longer.

Personally,I wish most of the debates were still sponsored by the League of Women Voters and broadcast on PBS, since that's something to which everyone has access.

[DS1]

27. once a week is unreasonable

people would simply stop watching anyway

[writes3000]

33. Gross, they just hired Rove. Maybe Hillary realizes how much she needs this.

I watched Fox Noise last night and this morning. While they give Hillary lots of coverage, all of their polling shows that people "don't like her" but like Obama. While I think the Noise watchers have been been suckered by Hil-bashing for years, she still may need to do something to challenge Obama's appeal with Independents and Moderate Repubs.

[ShortnFiery]

35. HRC needs to get a "reality check" because she's no longer "in charge" of every damn thing American.

:thumbsdown:

[zulchzulu]

37. Why doesn't she debate herself on Fox?

She has two views on every issue, so it should be interesting to watch...

:rofl:

[balantz]

40. Wait a minute! I thought there was a FOX boycot with the dems.

The Bobsy Twins are still Democrats....right?

[K Gardner]

50. Maybe its like the FL/MI pledge... say you won't until you get desperate enough to need it.

[rinsd]

56. Is that why Obama was on Fox last week?

[Araxen]

43. I hope he turns it down

1. Because it's Fox (I still remember that muslim bs they spewed)
2. Just to show that he is in the driver's seat and not her.


Hillary and Gravel...that'll make for a good debate on Fox.

[harun]

78. He will (n/t)

[leftynyc]

94. Obviously because he sucks at debates

(although he's very inspirational when giving a speech) and not because he's boycotting FOX.

[harun]

97. No one is debating anything of any substance anyways, why should

they even bother. It just helps Fox noise.

[TheDeathadder]

45. If you wan t to win the General Election

sooner or later you'll have to face Fox and not avoid Fox like Kerry did. Not to mention with so many Repubs claiming they are switching to Obama, having a Fox debate would be good for Obama right?

[AlinPA]

48. Do you think Fox "News" is a propaganda tool for Rpigs?

[TheDeathadder]

53. Yes they are

but many Americans watch Fox, some only watch Fox. The Repubs go on all the networks. We can ignore Fox all we want, but that really only helps their mission of propaganda. We need to show them we will face them in their backyard and that we will win.

[AlinPA]

64. I view Fox "News" like barking dogs: ignore them. Also if all they have is their

echo chamber with their same people Hannity, and O'Reilly and the other idiots like Duzzy and those jerks in the morning or whoever,screaming, people will see them for what they are.

[TheDeathadder]

66. Well I guess this is where we disagree

and I can understand why you want to ignore Fox, I just don't see how it will help. We need to see what they are up to, we need to face them to win the General, and we need to show we truly are trying to unify and not divide.

Though again I understand your feeling about Fox and their gang of thugs.

[goodgd_yall]

49. Agree n/t

[TheDeathadder]

54. Avoiding and Ignoring is not the answer

We must face Fox to win.

[cd3dem]

51. if you watch CNN or MSNBC these days... FOX looks pretty "fair and balanced!"

[TheDeathadder]

58. MSM is totally out of control.

You are right it's not just Fox anymore. All of the arms of MSM must be faced and stood up to, and that includes Fox. Avoiding and Ignoring only allows MSM propaganda to guide the minds of America.

[cd3dem]

67. Hillary was up by 7 % in MN so they put it Obama

WTF!

[AlinPA]

68. You nailed that. It is garbage. But what you are suggesting to me is that 'murcans are like

sheep who allow their minds to be guided by media. I do not disagree with that.

[TheDeathadder]

79. It just tough

as many Americans trust MSM because it's difficult for them to believe that MSM might have an agenda. They just want to come home from work and watch the news without questioning if the TV is up to something.

[nolabels]

80. MSM is angry because a lot people are not following their leads

A lot of them are even going the other way. That must be even kind of scaring them a little :evilgrin:

[TheDeathadder]

86. I wish someone would scare MSM to death.

[Tatiana]

55. Appearances on "news" (and I use the term loosely) programs are one thing.

But allowing them to host/moderate a debate is another.

The boycott should continue.

[Alexander]

59. I'm sure Obama wants to be asked "Why do you hate America?"

:eyes:

[jackson_dem]

77. Is that what they asked him when he was on Fox last week?

[butterfly77]

63. They need to go on there..

and then finally Obama will begin to answer the hard questions that the repugs will be throwing at him if he wins the nomination.

[my3boyz]

65. I hope Obama does not agree to it

I can't stand Fox News!!!!!

I don't think he should agree to a weekly debate either. I wouldn't mind a debate before each of the primaries (like they have been doing) but every week is a bit much. Obama needs to spend time in the upcoming states!

[Deja Q]

81. Never mind Rupeert Murdoch gives her lots of money,

to have them on a FOX cable show would really pique the interest of many.

[Samantha]

88. I have boycotted Fox News for the last 7 years

and why does not Hillary do the same? I would not turn on Fox News to watch the second coming of Christ.

[onenote]

92. well, Obama appeared on Fox News just a couple of weeks ago

I'm leaning towards obama (but will support HRC if she's the nominee) and as much as I dislike Fox News, i think its a good move for HRC and one that Obama should follow. If he is serious about reaching out, why not? He's not going to lose the votes of anyone who watches and he might pick up some. Letting people see the real deal rather than only know you through the cartoon-y caricatures from oreilly, hannity gibson et al is a smart move for both of them.

[asdjrocky]

89. What a load of crap!

Now that John isn't there, they can feel free to pander to fox. Sick, sad, stupid world.

[grantcart]

90. I wonder why?

[GoldieAZ49]

91. Glad to hear it! Reach as many ppl as possible!!

bring in as many as possible to the Obama camp, once they hear him they will want to check out who he is.

[Plucketeer]

98. Why would they discriminate? The same money that infects

their coffers infects the Right's coffers as well. Yeah - good deal! Reach out to the other side. No reason to fear their germs when you already carry them yourself!