Fox News/CBC Democratic debate postponed.
By on Aug 23rd, 2007 at 2:15 pm
Fox News/CBC Democratic debate postponed.
Fox News and the CBC Institute have decided to postpone their planned Sept. 23 Democratic presidential debate in Detroit. The CBC Institute explained in a statement that the “overwhelming number of party presidential debates has created a scheduling challenge.” Protesting the involvement of Fox News, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and Barack Obama have stated that they will not be participating.
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Health Care
Hoffman
Immigration
International Relations
Iraq
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Enough debates! It’s time for Candidates Fear Factor. I want to see who can stand eating the most earthworms. I figure it would be as illuminating as the so-called “real” debates have been.
August 23rd, 2007 at 2:23 pmFox whos?
August 23rd, 2007 at 2:23 pm“It’s time for Candidates Fear Factor”
They could simply play Russian Roulette,
August 23rd, 2007 at 2:25 pmif they are so overwhelmed with the schedule.
Isn’t it swell that we live in a society where it is an accepted public relations strategy to just plain lie. We just expect lies like this- yeah, it was because of scheduling challenge!- even when everyone knows it’s a lie.
Why don’t they just say, we’re canceling the debate because most of the folks said they wouldn’t show up? Would that really be so much more damaging?
August 23rd, 2007 at 2:27 pmFox has lots of challenged viewers, this makes perfect sense to cancel.
August 23rd, 2007 at 2:30 pmWhy can’t they just admit that they pander to the loser community?
Why don’t they just say, we’re canceling the debate because most of the folks said they wouldn’t show up? Would that really be so much more damaging?
Comment by clb72 — August 23, 2007 @ 2:27 pm
They can’t help it. Being the propaganda arm of the Republican party brings with it the first reflex of Republicans: lie, whether you need to or not. Lie repeatedly and often, and then cover up the lies. This is why Nixon was ushered out, and why Bush is such a world-class failure.
August 23rd, 2007 at 2:30 pmand so should the democrats boycott anything with fox in the title
fox news
fox hunting
etc etc
August 23rd, 2007 at 2:31 pmCheck out Kucinich’s legitimate complaint by Time:
Dennis Kucinich vs. ABC News
http://time-blog.com/swampland/2007/08/dennis_kucinich_vs_abc.html
August 23rd, 2007 at 2:32 pmTP.ORG LOGIC
Republicans avoiding a YouTube debate: wimpy.
Democrats avoiding a debate on an official, highly-viewed channel: a heroic, worthy protest.
Glad that clears everything up, Thinkhypocrisy.org.
August 23rd, 2007 at 2:33 pmGood for Obama, Clinton and Edwards stiffing those morons. Why in the hell the Congressional Black Caucus insist that they prop up Faux News as a legitimate television news source?
August 23rd, 2007 at 2:34 pmTHe Repuke candidates need time to spin Petreus’ report and get all their talking points straight.
August 23rd, 2007 at 2:35 pmDemocrats avoiding a debate on an official, highly-viewed channel: a heroic, worthy protest.
Comment by Tryon — August 23, 2007 @ 2:33 pm
A lot of people look at their own feces, too, before they flush the toilet. Keep Tryon – you’ll get it sooner or later. (and avoiding a debate where regular people can ask questions IS wimpy.)
August 23rd, 2007 at 2:38 pmFox News:
TERROR!!! TERROR!! TERROR!!!
End of debate.
August 23rd, 2007 at 2:38 pmOn the one hand, I can’t believe the CBC chose Fox News as their venue. That’s just insane. That aside, I have come full circle on why the candidates should appear on Fox News. Although at first I felt they would be taken out of context and smeared and they shouldn’t legitimize Fox, I realized that Fox will do all that ANYWAY, and not appearing on the network I don’t feel is going to make a bit of difference to the general public that isn’t so aware of Fox’s tactics. It might even seem silly to them because they never watch Fox News and just assume it’s identical to CNN and MSNBC. So why not just appear so the rethugs can’t pull out the “extreme left wing” card? Besides, even if 98% of the Fox viewing public won’t come around, the 2%, in my opinion, that might, makes it worth while!
August 23rd, 2007 at 2:38 pm#6
What about Foxy ladies? As a proud Democrat I refuse to boycott them.
August 23rd, 2007 at 2:40 pmComment by robbez_92107 — August 23, 2007 @ 2:38 pm
Your answer doesn’t fit the billet as a logical response, just one stuffed with leftist propaganda.
August 23rd, 2007 at 2:41 pmDemocrats avoiding a debate on an official, highly-viewed channel: a heroic, worthy protest.
Glad that clears everything up, Thinkhypocrisy.org.
Comment by Tryon — August 23, 2007 @ 2:33 pm
Fox News, “official, highly-viewed” yeah sure. But Democrats don’t watch Faux Snooze so why should their candidates debate on there. Fox viewers are the last people who would vote for a Democrat so why pander to them.
August 23rd, 2007 at 2:44 pmThe lesbian, muslim, and ambulance chaser are afraid of little ol Fox?
August 23rd, 2007 at 2:44 pmThe lesbian, muslim, and ambulance chaser are afraid of little ol Fox?
Comment by michael — August 23, 2007 @ 2:44 pm
What makes you tink they are afraid of Fox?
August 23rd, 2007 at 2:47 pm“What makes you tink they are afraid of Fox?
Comment by shane — August 23, 2007″
They won’t appear! They are afraid of tough questions.
August 23rd, 2007 at 2:48 pmDemoncrats are scared to death of FoxNews Channel–the ONLY channel in all of the media landscape that’s fair and balanced, puts on guests of opposing views, and refuses to push stories based on liberal ideology. Demoncrats ought to be ashamed of themselves–and, consequently, be boycotted by the important swing voters and independents–for having the conspiracy-minded gall to blacklist FoxNews! These paranoid and mentally ill ideologues refuse to appear on FoxNews for illegitimate reasons, the primary one among them being they are concerned about being asked the TOUGH questions that the Hannitys and O’Reillys continually ask in their news analysis shows. Clinton, Obama-Osama and Edwards only go to lesbo-queer debates and ones sponsored by CNN for the softball questions that don’t ask them about their policies. If Dems can’t stand up to FoxNews, they obviously will have a hard time fighting terrorists and hostile foreign leaders.
August 23rd, 2007 at 2:49 pmThe lesbian, muslim, and ambulance chaser are afraid of little ol Fox?
Comment by michael — August 23, 2007 @ 2:44 pm
“Little” Rupert Murdoch? Riiiiiiiiiight. Nice characterization of the next president, though.
August 23rd, 2007 at 2:49 pmThe lesbian, muslim, and ambulance chaser are afraid of little ol Fox?
Comment by michael — August 23, 2007 @ 2:44 pm
Do you have proof that Hilliary is a lesbian, not that it would be a problem, provide a link.
Obama is a Christian. If you have proof that he’s a muslim provide a link.
Edwards is a malpractice attorney. Ambulance chasers are personal injury attorneys.
And these three insulting references are terms used on Fox News. Why should people go where they have been repeatedly slandered and insulted. That would be stupid.
August 23rd, 2007 at 2:50 pmI couldn’t bear the thought of losing my 20th Century Fox
August 23rd, 2007 at 2:51 pm(oh yeah…)
They won’t appear! They are afraid of tough questions.
Comment by michael — August 23, 2007 @ 2:48 pm
Would you come to my office after I repeatedly insulted you and made up fake stories about you. And would it be fear that kept you from coming.
August 23rd, 2007 at 2:52 pmFox “News” is not a legitmate news channel. Going on Fox “News” gives them legitimacy, which they have neither earned nor are entitled.
August 23rd, 2007 at 2:52 pmFox “News” is nothing more than entertainment for conservatives.
They won’t appear! They are afraid of tough questions.
Comment by michael — August 23, 2007 @ 2:48 pm
michael, you are an idiot.
August 23rd, 2007 at 2:53 pmhad enough,
August 23rd, 2007 at 2:54 pmKucinich won’t have a valid criticism of Presidential debates so long as he continues to refuse to debate any and all challengers to his House seat. He’s a hypocrite
The lesbian, muslim, and ambulance chaser are afraid of little ol Fox?
Comment by michael — August 23, 2007 @ 2:44 pm
Do you have proof that Hilliary is a lesbian, not that it would be a problem, provide a link.
Obama is a Christian. If you have proof that he’s a muslim provide a link.
Edwards is a malpractice attorney. Ambulance chasers are personal injury attorneys.
Comment by shane — August 23, 2007 @ 2:50 pm
Thanks, shane. I had no idea who Ann Coulter was referring to there.
August 23rd, 2007 at 2:55 pm“Why should people go where they have been repeatedly slandered and insulted. That would be stupid.
Comment by shane — August 23, 2007″
Maybe to confront them? That’s if they had enough nerve.
August 23rd, 2007 at 2:55 pm#14
Comment by Parrotlover77 — August 23, 2007 @ 2:38 pm
If the CBC Institute chose MSNBC instead wouldn’t that be just as insane?
August 23rd, 2007 at 2:56 pmDemocrats avoiding a debate on an official, highly-viewed channel: a heroic, worthy protest.
Comment by Tryon — August 23, 2007 @ 2:33 pm
Official? Have they officially become the media outlet of the Republic party then? I thought it was still informal.
August 23rd, 2007 at 2:56 pm“michael, you are an idiot.
Comment by Egreggious — August 23, 2007″
Really?
August 23rd, 2007 at 2:56 pmMaybe to confront them? That’s if they had enough nerve.
Comment by michael — August 23, 2007 @ 2:55 pm
Still an idiot.
August 23rd, 2007 at 2:57 pmDemoncrats are scared to death of FoxNews Channel–the ONLY channel in all of the media landscape that’s fair and balanced, puts on guests of opposing views, and refuses to push stories based on liberal ideology. Demoncrats ought to be ashamed of themselves–and, consequently, be boycotted by the important swing voters and independents–for having the conspiracy-minded gall to blacklist FoxNews! These paranoid and mentally ill ideologues refuse to appear on FoxNews for illegitimate reasons, the primary one among them being they are concerned about being asked the TOUGH questions that the Hannitys and O’Reillys continually ask in their news skewering shows. Clinton, Obama-Osama and Edwards only go to lesbo-queer debates and ones sponsored by CNN for the softball questions that don’t ask them about their policies. If Dems can’t stand up to FoxNews, they obviously will have a hard time fighting terrorists and hostile foreign leaders.
August 23rd, 2007 at 2:57 pmComment by Progsarehardcoreliarsofscum — August 23, 2007 @ 2:57 pm
Another idiot. Who’d have thought there were as many as two?
August 23rd, 2007 at 2:59 pmMaybe to confront them? That’s if they had enough nerve.
Comment by michael — August 23, 2007 @ 2:55 pm
You can’t confront the moderator at a debate, idiot. You can ignore the moderator and get the desired effect. Cancellation of said debate. Any candidate who wants to confront Fox’s lies should do so through their attorneys. That’s the way adults conduct business.
August 23rd, 2007 at 2:59 pmLets see at best a you tube debate would have a bunch of semi-humorous hand picked questions, or really show the whacko side of the right wing, while a democratic debate on Fox would probably follow along the lines of “Which one of you supports terrorists more” and other such slanderous gems. Gee can’t see why the leading democratic candidates don’t want to bother.
/sarcasm off
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:00 pmmichael, you are an idiot.
Comment by Egreggious — August 23, 2007″
Really?
Comment by michael — August 23, 2007 @ 2:56 pm
michael, do you have proof that you’re not an idiot?
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:01 pm34. No one is scared of you, FOX, Bush or your terrorist soulmates. You are a joke, plain and simple. We are laughing at you. That’s what the Daily Show is all about. Laughing at YOU.
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:01 pmComment by Progsarehardcoreliarsofscum — August 23, 2007 @ 2:57 pm
Did you get a screen capture from the teleprompter, or did they e-mail you this morning?
What a rant!
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:02 pmLOL
Afraid to appear on FoxNews yet we are supposed to trust them to deal with our enemies?
Obama will sit down with mideast dictators but he is afraid of an American cable-news channel?
Heh.
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:02 pmSmell the liberal fear. I guess the dems dont want to get the abortion questions that the liberal moderators fail to toss their way but happily launch at republicans.
What a clownshoe party the DFL has become; filled with clowns, supported by a clown base and bereft of any idea that isnt clownish.
Clowns.
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:05 pmComment by Mogura — August 23, 2007 @ 3:02 pm
Afraid of the chickenhawks like you and Fox. You people are just too delusional. If dems were afraid of Fox they WOULD confront them. They are just IGNORING fox because they are isignifican and have only small minded sycophants as viewers. Dems don’t need or want your type in their party.
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:06 pmFOX is just a puppet of the Bushies. Its been well-documented that FOX commentators are neocons and criminals on par with Manson.
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:07 pmComment by Mogura — August 23, 2007 @ 3:02 pm
Comment by Pretty Pretty Bird — August 23, 2007 @ 3:05 pm
Crikeys! Four idiots now!
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:07 pmComment by Pretty Pretty Bird — August 23, 2007 @ 3:05 pm
Enjoy your next clown president.
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:08 pmObama will sit down with mideast dictators but he is afraid of an American cable-news channel?
Heh.
Comment by Mogura — August 23, 2007 @ 3:02 pm
Yes. Because there’s a big difference. If Barack Obama met with a mideast dictator, it would accomplish something. Going on Fox is a waste of time.
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:08 pmNo one is scared of you, FOX, Bush or your terrorist soulmates. You are a joke, plain and simple. We are laughing at you. That’s what the Daily Show is all about. Laughing at YOU.
Comment by Vice President Bush — August 23, 2007 @ 3:01 pm
Don’t tell them Colbert is a parody of them. They think that Colbert is real.
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:08 pmThere is no fear of Fox “News”
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:08 pmThere simply is no reason to legitimize them as an actual news channel, which they are not.
Your fear analogy would be akin to criticizing candidates for not wanting to appear in a presidental debate hosted by the KKK. While there is no fear of this right wing republican institution either, there is no one who would want to legitimize them.
Dems don’t need or want your type in their party.
Really. As close as elections have become you would think the dems would wish to try and peel away conservatives and republicans, show them how dems can work for their interests as well. What better audience than the massive viewership of Fox?
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:09 pmSpeaking of abortion, which presidential candidates are the ones who have to continually waffle around the issue? One I believe spent more time at Ground Zero than anyone else on earth, and another has five grown sons who refuse to serve in Iraq.
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:10 pmCrikeys! Four idiots now!
So youre number….one? Congrats on being first!
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:10 pmFear is your domain, and your stock in trade, dirty bird.
Promulgating and creating cowering psychophants is your only chance at control.
The Democratic candidates are refusing to stoop to such a low level and give your hideous fear-mongering any more power.
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:10 pmReally. As close as elections have become you would think the dems would wish to try and peel away conservatives and republicans, show them how dems can work for their interests as well. What better audience than the massive viewership of Fox?
Comment by Mogura — August 23, 2007 @ 3:09 pm
Sorry. None of your “interests” are in the national interest, so no pandering to your little bitty demographic.
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:11 pm“Fox News, “official, highly-viewed†yeah sure. “
Faux Noise likes to say that they are the “most watched news show”, but they frequently leave off the “on cable TV”. When you add up all the viewers for the ABC, NBC, CBS and the other cable news stations, not to mention local stations, Faux Noise’s viewing audience is NOT highly viewed.
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:12 pmCrikeys! Four idiots now!
Comment by Egreggious — August 23, 2007 @ 3:07 pm
Exponential progression – just like vermin or bacteria – there will be eight next, crying and whining that Faux Opinion is being victimized!
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:12 pmSpeaking of abortion, which presidential candidates are the ones who have to continually waffle around the issue?
Tough question to answer as the dems have received exactly zero queries about their views on abortion. Compare that to republicans having to answer that as their very first question of the night.
Notice also that Romney and the rest are grilled about their religious views yet those questions never manage to reach the dems.
Heh.
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:13 pmExponential progression – just like vermin or bacteria – there will be eight next, crying and whining that Faux Opinion is being victimized!
Comment by robbez_92107 — August 23, 2007 @ 3:12 pm
Impossible! I refuse to believe there are as many as eight of them!
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:13 pmits the follow up guestion in direct response to their bs 1st answer that frightens the libs away from Fox.
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:14 pmThe Democratic candidates are refusing to stoop to such a low level and give your hideous fear-mongering any more power.
Yeah, that has to be it.
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:15 pmTough question to answer as the dems have received exactly zero queries about their views on abortion.
Comment by Mogura — August 23, 2007 @ 3:13 pm
Why is it so tough? If you are not asked about it, you don’t have to waffle about it.
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:15 pmReally. As close as elections have become you would think the dems would wish to try and peel away conservatives and republicans, show them how dems can work for their interests as well. What better audience than the massive viewership of Fox?
Comment by Mogura — August 23, 2007 @ 3:09 pm
So you’re saying that Fox viewers will only watch Fox and can’t change the channel to watch debates on CNN, ABC or public television. If they can’t change the channel how would they change parties.
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:16 pm“Really. As close as elections have become you would think the dems would wish to try and peel away conservatives and republicans, show them how dems can work for their interests as well. What better audience than the massive viewership of Fox?”
No conservative or Republican that might even consider voting for a Democrat watches Faux Noise. I know five Republicans whom I often talk to as my own “mini polls”. None of them would be caught dead watching Faux Noise. Three of them get their news from the internet and the other two from CBS and NBC respectively. And, all five are voting Democratic in 2008 no matter who the candidate is. They all tell me that they see a total Democratic victory in 2008 as the only thing that can happen to allow the real Republicans to retake their party from the neoCONs who now control it.
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:16 pmWhen you add up all the viewers for the ABC, NBC, CBS and the other cable news stations, not to mention local stations, Faux Noise’s viewing audience is NOT highly viewed.
The operative term being “added up”.
Heh.
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:17 pm4 rightard morons are here? Excellent, they can square up for the Monkey-Liar Dance of the Republicans, called by the Leading Liar himself, Bill O’Lielly! Dance, monkeys, dance! Do the FOX Snooze chacha, where rich white morons spoon-feed the wingnuts their daily dose of false courage, and wipe their smelly butts with pieces of the Constitution! Catapult the propaganda, in the words of your Lying, Deserting Leader! Please your masters, dance to my tune!
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:17 pmNotice also that Romney and the rest are grilled about their religious views yet those questions never manage to reach the dems.
Heh.
Comment by Mogura — August 23, 2007 @ 3:13 pm
Wrong, that question was asked at the very last debate. So since you made up that lie we can assume that you lied about them not being asked about abortion also. Have you seen every debate in total to know what they were asked or not asked about? I didn’t think so.
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:20 pmits the follow up guestion in direct response to their bs 1st answer that frightens the libs away from Fox.
Comment by ct — August 23, 2007 @ 3:14 pm
How many Democrat debates have you watched and which ones were they?
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:21 pm“Smell the liberal fear. I guess the dems dont want to get the abortion questions that the liberal moderators fail to toss their way but happily launch at republicans.”
Why is it so important to you that the Democrats be asked about their views on abortion? Everyone knows that the Democratic Presidential candidates are all pro choice. So, it is not an issue.
It is an issue to Republicans, though since several candidates have flip flopped big time on the issue. If every candidate running for the Republican nomination was well known to be anti-choice, then it would not be an issue for the Republicans either.
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:22 pmNotice also that Romney and the rest are grilled about their religious views yet those questions never manage to reach the dems.
Heh.
Comment by Mogura — August 23, 2007 @ 3:13 pm
Notice how Romney belongs to an insane cult, while none of the Dems are interested in forcing their religions down our throats. Meanwhile, dance your Liar’s Dance, monkey!
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:22 pmImpossible! I refuse to believe there are as many as eight of them!
Comment by Egreggious — August 23, 2007 @ 3:13 pm
There aren’t a few of them like to name change, kind of like a cat when it puffs itself up to look bigger then it actually is.
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:24 pmHeadline:
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:24 pmFox News cuts and runs.
“The operative term being “added upâ€.
Heh.
Comment by Mogura”
Is there a point being made here or are you just the moron you appear to be?
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:24 pmWhile Democrats (who regularly disappoint me) at least have the wisdom to keep state and religion separate, this is not true of the modern Republic party. Thus, the religious views of a Republic candidate are of much more concern to me than those of the Dems.
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:26 pmThe operative term being “added upâ€.
Heh.
Comment by Mogura — August 23, 2007 @ 3:17 pm
Each of the three major networks has more viewers than Fox. You have to stop believing everything they tell you.
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:26 pmYou trolls really must be confusing us in the NetRoots with the old, spineless, DLC-type Blue Dogs. Their days are numbered as we will no longer tolerate their wishy-washy double-crossing and capitulations to the authoritarian neocons. Let me say this again and be PERFECTLY clear:
WE ARE NOT AFRAID OF YOU
But you damn well should be afraid of us (politically). We are a legitimate movement, we dominate and win the battlefield of online politics, and WE HAVE NO MASTER!
YOU ARE AFRAID OF US
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:29 pmWhy can’t Fox News hold the debates with the Democratic candidates it has instead of the candidates it wants. Why is Fox News such a coward. Why are they afraid of the second tier candidates?
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:30 pmBut you damn well should be afraid of us (politically). We are a legitimate movement, we dominate and win the battlefield of online politics, and WE HAVE NO MASTER!
YOU ARE AFRAID OF US
Comment by Vice President Bush — August 23, 2007 @ 3:29 pm
AMEN TO THAT!
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:31 pman official, highly-viewed channel ~
He’s talking about Kids Sprout, isnt’ he?
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:31 pm#47
I think Obama should sit down with Musharraf and explain his genius anti-terrorist policy.
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:33 pmWhy do these neocon nutbags even care about a Democratic debate? Are we to believe they want their viewers to vote for a democrat. Too funny.
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:34 pmWhy are they afraid of the second tier candidates?
Comment by shane —
‘Cause a couple-three of the “second tier candidates” would rip any Fox news personage to tiny, tiny shreds.
They can’t afford to have Richardson, Feingold or Kucinich present any solid platform of solutions they might have to sputteringly respond to…
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:34 pmwilco,
will try to post this again as my post is disappearing….
The TIME article I posted http://time-blog.com/swampland/2007/08/dennis_kucinich_vs_abc.html
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:35 pmpretty much proves the unfair treatment Kucinich received. His pic was cropped out… when it looked as if the polls were going his way as the favorite, they were not made public, lost or what ever.
Many of us have felt MSM is picking the next Dem candidate.. the most corporate friendly… Hilliary ? Certainly not Kucinich as he would completely eliminate health insurance companies altogether.
I think Obama should sit down with Musharraf and explain his genius anti-terrorist policy.
Comment by Tracy — August 23, 2007 @ 3:33 pm
I think if Obama becomes president he should sit down with whomever he chooses. And you can just live with it like we live with your idiot leader.
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:35 pmAnd you can just live with it like we live with your idiot leader.
Comment by shane — August 23, 2007 @ 3:35 pm
You call this living? :-)
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:38 pmMany of us have felt MSM is picking the next Dem candidate.. the most corporate friendly… Hilliary ?
Comment by had enough
That’s my guess, she has all the usual insider connections, and will allow the corporate militarists will manipulate her.
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:39 pmI also believes she knows a lot of nasty secrets, by virtue of her having been the First Lady.
Wheels within wheels within wheels…..
Certainly not Kucinich as he would completely eliminate health insurance companies altogether.
Comment by had enough — August 23, 2007 @ 3:35 pm
And the belief is that the Hillary bashing is being done to garner her more sympathy and boost her approvals. Her campaign manager is quite Rovian so I can believe it. I saw him spin some crap against Obama and Edwards that sent chills down my spine. I might vote for Hillary in the general election if I have to but I would NEVER vote for her in the primaries based on the evil I saw this guy pull. He accused Obama and Edwards of negative campaigning even though they said they wouldn’t. When after 15 minutes of spewing it was pointed out that Hillary’s campaign is quite often negative he said, “Well we NEVER SAID we weren’t going to be negative.”
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:41 pmYou call this living? :-)
Comment by Egreggious — August 23, 2007 @ 3:38 pm
Sorry Egg, should have read “survive”.
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:42 pmWhy can’t Fox News hold the debates with the Democratic candidates it has instead of the candidates it wants. Why is Fox News such a coward. Why are they afraid of the second tier candidates?
Comment by shane — August 23, 2007 @ 3:30 pm
You go to broadcast with the debate you have instead of the debate you’d like to have
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:44 pm#82
So if Clinton (Obama doesn’t have a chance) becomes president I just have to live with your idiot leader for four years?
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:47 pmI think Obama should sit down with Musharraf and explain his genius anti-terrorist policy.
Comment by Tracy — August 23, 2007 @ 3:33 pm
I agree. Perhaps it would give him a chance to dispel the myth about him “invading Pakistan.”
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:48 pmWhy is Fox News such a coward. Why are they afraid of the second tier candidates?
Comment by shane — August 23, 2007 @ 3:30 pm
Well, you’ve obviously never watched FOX (and good for you), or you’d know the answer.
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:50 pmI just have to live with your idiot leader for four years?
Comment by Tracy
You could always emmigrate to Iraq, there’ll be lots of cleanup work over there, plus some really, really cheap depleted uranium contaminated properties you could list.
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:51 pm#89
Comment by toasterhead — August 23, 2007 @ 3:48 pm
Yes I believe it’s a myth about him wanting to invade Pakistan however that’s not what Obama was referring to. He’s talking about sending in special forces into Pakistan whether Musharraf give the green light or not.
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:51 pmSo if Clinton (Obama doesn’t have a chance) becomes president I just have to live with your idiot leader for four years?
Comment by Tracy — August 23, 2007 @ 3:47 pm
More likely eight years.
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:52 pmSo if Clinton (Obama doesn’t have a chance) becomes president I just have to live with your idiot leader for four years?
Comment by Tracy — August 23, 2007 @ 3:47 pm
well, you could move.
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:53 pm#91
That’s OK. I can deal with it for only four years.
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:53 pmHe’s talking about sending in special forces into Pakistan whether Musharraf give the green light or not.
Comment by Tracy — August 23, 2007 @ 3:51 pm
We already have special forces in Pakistan and Musharraf is well aware of it, so that’d be a really short conversation, wouldn’t it?
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:55 pmThat’s OK. I can deal with it for only four years.
Comment by Tracy — August 23, 2007 @ 3:53 pm
You really should prepare for 8.
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:56 pmSo if Clinton (Obama doesn’t have a chance) becomes president I just have to live with your idiot leader for four years?
Comment by Tracy — August 23, 2007 @ 3:47 pm
Well you’ll have 8 years of practice from living with the biggest idiot ever elected president to date. It can only get better and if you don’t see that, well you should probably just shoot yourself now.
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:56 pmComment by shane — August 23, 2007 @ 3:30 pm
Well, you’ve obviously never watched FOX (and good for you), or you’d know the answer.
Comment by ronjazz — August 23, 2007 @ 3:50 pm
Fox News Free and Proud.
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:58 pmI shot sh*t with Musharraf
But I didn’t shoot sh*t with Iyad Allawi.
I’m drunk.
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:59 pmhad enough
I can’t agree. There have to be standards for these debates. And there are. Plenty of people aren’t invited to the debates. A lot more than the handful you see have registered to run.
August 23rd, 2007 at 4:00 pmSo if standards are tightened, and they wind up eliminating Kucinich or Gravel, or anyone else who doesn’t wind up qualifying, so be it.
Frankly, I don’t see how Kucinich has the gumption to criticize this when, again, he refuses to debate any would-be challengers to his House seat.
#98
“It can only get better…”
With a power and control freak in the WH like Clinton I would expect things to get alot like things are in Venezuela. No, it would start to get pretty bad but four years isn’t enough time for the U.S. to implode.
BTW you forgot about that act of God that would have to happen for Hillary to get elected.
August 23rd, 2007 at 4:07 pmComment by michael — August 23, 2007 @ 2:55 pm
August 23rd, 2007 at 4:10 pmAnd Republicans are afraid of the public they won’t go on a debate with youtube questions.
With a power and control freak in the WH like Clinton I would expect things to get alot like things are in Venezuela.
Comment by Tracy — August 23, 2007 @ 4:07 pm
Poor Americans would get access to healthcare?
August 23rd, 2007 at 4:11 pmC’mon folks! If you are TRULY trying to be president, then you can’t duck-and-dodge a debte because you don’t like the venue. This goes for Dems and Repubs! That’s like a football team not wanting to play an away game in a northern city because “it’s cold there!”. And regardless of your afiliation, if you think it’s cool for your side to avoid a debate venue, while attacking the other side for following suit, then you are just being a hypocrite.
August 23rd, 2007 at 4:17 pmBTW you forgot about that act of God that would have to happen for Hillary to get elected.
Comment by Tracy — August 23, 2007 @ 4:07 pm
Is that act of God reality as the last Gallup poll has ANY democratic beating any republican. Personally I prefer Obama however it is pretty much a formality it will be a democrat. Bush even with a war could barely muster out 50% of the vote in 2004 he has ticked people off enough that it will probably be a record turn out to vote just like during Vietnam.
August 23rd, 2007 at 4:18 pmCraig, it’s more like, say, every time you walk by a particular building, every one in it shoots you with paintballs. Then they invite you inside. You are a fool to think they won’t shoot you all the more.
August 23rd, 2007 at 4:21 pmI can see the leading questions on Fox Noise
“So why do you support Al Queda?”
“Why do you want the U.S. to lose?”
“How long have you been a communist?”
Fair and balanced by a***!!!
August 23rd, 2007 at 4:21 pmComment by chad — August 23, 2007 @ 4:21 pm
“This is a simple yes or no question. Have you stopped beating your spouse?”
August 23rd, 2007 at 4:23 pmCraig, it’s more like, say, every time you walk by a particular building, every one in it shoots you with paintballs. Then they invite you inside. You are a fool to think they won’t shoot you all the more.
Comment by Wilco — August 23, 2007 @ 4:21 pm
Good analogy!
It’s far too risky this early in the campaign – for now the Democrats need to stick to legitimate news stations. They don’t NEED Fox.
August 23rd, 2007 at 4:26 pmComment by Egreggious — August 23, 2007 @ 4:23 pm
August 23rd, 2007 at 4:28 pmand give the Rove response “Nice try”
“Do you consider yourself more a cut-and-runner or a surrender monkey?”
August 23rd, 2007 at 4:29 pmSo if Clinton (Obama doesn’t have a chance) becomes president I just have to live with your idiot leader for four years?
Comment by Tracy
Sorry, no. You will have to live with them for 8 years.
August 23rd, 2007 at 4:30 pm“Yes I believe it’s a myth about him wanting to invade Pakistan however that’s not what Obama was referring to. He’s talking about sending in special forces into Pakistan whether Musharraf give the green light or not.
Comment by Tracy”
As usual, the Rethug leaves out the most important part of what he said. He said that if he had “actionable intelligence” that said that Al Quaeda was planning another attack on America and they were still hiding in Pakistan, he would go in and get them.
So, tell me Rethug, what would you have Bush do if he had “actionable intelligence” that Al Quaeda in Pakistan was planning another attack on the United States? Would you have him go to Musharraf and say “pretty please” can I go get Osama?
August 23rd, 2007 at 4:33 pm“That’s OK. I can deal with it for only four years.
Comment by Tracy “
Too bad, so sad. You are in for way more than 4 years of Democratic control of the government. Unless, the Democrats turn out to like the illegal power that Bush has proclaimed for the President. If the new President does the same as Bush has done, then all bets are off. Democrats will not stand for a Democratic president to continue to shred the constitution, unlike the Repugs who seem to think that shredding our constitution is just fine and dandy.
August 23rd, 2007 at 4:36 pmWilco, I’ve been trying to answer you, but my last three respones have been “dropped”.
August 23rd, 2007 at 4:36 pmKeep hitting Fox … they will get the hint eventually
August 23rd, 2007 at 4:50 pmClinton, Obama-Osama and Edwards only go to lesbo-queer debates and ones sponsored by CNN for the softball questions that don’t ask them about their policies. If Dems can’t stand up to FoxNews, they obviously will have a hard time fighting terrorists and hostile foreign leaders.
Comment by Progsarehardcoreliarsofscum — August 23, 2007 @ 2:57 pm
You know, it’s entirely possible that Barack Obama might have too much dignity to go somewhere where people continually make tiresome “Obama-Osama” remarks. Can’t the wingnuts come up with any legitimate criticism about Obama? Or can they only attempt to use his name to tie him to Osama bin Laden or Saddam Hussein — neither of whom Obama has anything to do with?
It’s old. Find something new.
August 23rd, 2007 at 5:07 pm#106
Comment by chad — August 23, 2007 @ 4:18 pm
“Is that act of God reality as the last Gallup poll has ANY democratic beating any republican.”
Is that the same Gallup poll that had Gore beating Bush handly in 2000?
“Personally I prefer Obama however it is pretty much a formality it will be a democrat.”
When Clinton gets the nomination, that won’t be the case.
“Bush even with a war could barely muster out 50% of the vote in 2004…”
Thats alot more than Bill Clinton ever got either time he was elected.
August 23rd, 2007 at 5:17 pm#113
Comment by bilbobaggins — August 23, 2007 @ 4:33 pm
“He said that if he had “actionable intelligence†that said that Al Quaeda was planning another attack on America and they were still hiding in Pakistan, he would go in and get them.”
Even if Musharraf didn’t give his blessing. Thank for confirming what I just said. You just white washed it with alot more jibberish.
“So, tell me Rethug, what would you have Bush do if he had “actionable intelligence†that Al Quaeda in Pakistan was planning another attack on the United States?”
I would expect him to work out an agreement with Musharraf and get his military logistic support before sending any special forces in. If you don’t do that then we will end up with another Somalia. Obama sounded like he would insert our troops regardless if we were guranteed support from the Pakistani military intelligence.
August 23rd, 2007 at 5:27 pm#114
Comment by bilbobaggins — August 23, 2007 @ 4:36 pm
“You are in for way more than 4 years of Democratic control of the government.”
What make you think that the Dems will remain in control of congress in 2009 considering their piss poor performance thus far?
“Democrats will not stand for a Democratic president to continue to shred the constitution”
Well according to many here the Dems in Congress have already done it considering their support to expand Bush’s wire tapping authority. Give me a break they’re no saints! LOL!
August 23rd, 2007 at 5:35 pm#118
Comment by missmolly — August 23, 2007 @ 5:07 pm
Kennedy made the inital remark about the Osama-Obama line! LOL!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APx2YJ-_jos
August 23rd, 2007 at 5:40 pmdems afraid of fox news? how will any american vote for someone afraid of fox news that is supposed to be protecting us from terrorists?
August 23rd, 2007 at 6:18 pmDemocrats will not stand for a Democratic president to continue to shred the constitution, unlike the Repugs who seem to think that shredding our constitution is just fine and dandy
if they did shred the constitution, why dont your leadership impeach- your in the majority on both sides- either their wimps, or it just a political farce
August 23rd, 2007 at 6:20 pmshame on the cut an run from Fox democrats
August 23rd, 2007 at 6:40 pmhow can we expect democrats to keep us safe when their scared of Fox News
August 23rd, 2007 at 6:41 pmYo commenter #124, know one is afraid of FAUX News, but why should Obama, Edwards and Clinton legitimize them by appearing on the so called fair and balanced network? If this were 2000, or if they weren’t such a flagrant arm of the REPUKE party, they’d likely have done it, but we know better now.
August 23rd, 2007 at 8:49 pmhow can we expect democrats to keep us safe when their scared of Fox News
Comment by Chris — August 23, 2007 @ 6:41 pm
Maybe their just afraid of they’re risk of debating in front of uneducated viewers!
August 23rd, 2007 at 9:05 pmYo commenter #124, know one is afraid of FAUX News, but why should Obama, Edwards and Clinton legitimize them by appearing on the so called fair and balanced network? If this were 2000, or if they weren’t such a flagrant arm of the REPUKE party, they’d likely have done it, but we know better now.
Comment by gfm975
hey yo, because they have appeared on Fox Before.
It shows the cut and run democrats are scared
August 23rd, 2007 at 9:16 pmhey yo, because they have appeared on Fox Before.
It shows the cut and run democrats are scared
Comment by Chris — August 23, 2007 @ 9:16 pm
Brilliant! I’ve not heard that “cut and run” phrase before! I thought we knew republican strategy by now, but they keep coming up with something new. Is it any wonder that Fox attracts so many intelligent, interesting viewers?
August 23rd, 2007 at 9:21 pmhow can we expect democrats to keep us safe when their scared of Fox News
Comment by Chris — August 23, 2007 @ 6:41 pm
——————–
We can’t.
August 23rd, 2007 at 9:28 pmWe can’t.
Comment by Makarios — August 23, 2007 @ 9:28 pm
Absolutely right! It’s not like Al Qaida is back to its pre-9/11 strength under the watch of the Bush administration, or anything!
August 23rd, 2007 at 9:35 pmhow can we expect democrats to keep us safe when their scared of Fox News
Comment by Chris — August 23, 2007 @ 6:41 pm
How can we expect Fox’s viewers to turn on they’re televisions to watch a bunch of cut-and-runners when their too busy reading books?
August 23rd, 2007 at 9:46 pmBravo. Dems. don’t need to go on that biased, crooked, rightwing arm of the Republican Party anyway.
August 23rd, 2007 at 10:37 pmI think the Dems are afraid of Detroit and the economic and trade policy problems so evident there. Only Kucinich has put forward a plan that would benefit the blue collars of the country. The rest prefer to ignore all but their corporates buddies and upper class peers.
August 24th, 2007 at 12:11 amand so should the democrats boycott anything with fox in the title…
Comment by Tobey Tall #7
…don’t go overboard TT…
…I’ll always love “foxes”…
…it’s a cultural thing…
August 24th, 2007 at 12:56 amI think the Dems are afraid of Detroit
Comment by DetroitYes.com #132
…yeah, you’re probably right DY…
… Obama was SO afraid of Detroit…
…he went there and told the Big Three they’d have to get their (CAFE standards) act together…
…and Hillary and Bill went there so much during Bill’s presidency…
…they could’ve established residency…
August 24th, 2007 at 1:01 amToo bad Obama offered only uninformed criticism and no solutions. He was also told he made a huge mistake saying what he did. He lost a lot of support in the area because he showed no understanding of the situation. Anybody who thinks CAFE standards work is clueless.
August 24th, 2007 at 8:51 amSurely the large number of debates simply reduces the impact the debates have. In any even, Senators Clinton and Obama and John Edwards are quite right not to show on Fox news. Why should the leading hawks appear in that bigoted henhouse?
August 24th, 2007 at 10:07 amThis seems childish at best.
CBS’ “Public Eye,” perhaps the most well-respected voice for excellence in journalism, makes a good point:
“If you’re a bit wobbly or overly cautious on the campaign trail, what are voters to think you’ll do in the Oval Office without a net?”
I don’t know about you guys, but I want our next president to play to the American people and not to a vocal minority in his/her base.
August 24th, 2007 at 11:25 amThe whole problem here is because fox news attracts more conservatives than any other network, why not go on there and try to prove you democratic ideal and change some republicans minds. Fox isnt going to dictate what the candidates say- here is their chance and they are running away from it. I cant believe they are willing to do youtube debates when one of the questions start out with WHASSSSS UPPPPP? – is this presidential or what
August 24th, 2007 at 2:48 pmKinda wimpy,…dems send their spouses out to attack the opponent……Are afraid to take a question from Brit Hume….I wonder how they’ll deal with the likes of Putin, Kim Jong-il, Hu Jintao…et al…BTW I’d like to see Rove Host a debate like Steponallofus.
August 24th, 2007 at 8:20 pm