One says F*** Off To Fox and the Others will follow?

One guy says no to Fox in Nevada according to Markos (who actually does some f*cking original reporting--Woot-Off!), while the others are still sensing for the wind to blow:

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

Oh those decisions -- hands rubbing together-- to make!

Smart first mover role by the Edwards team-- MG must now be on a 2 day work week :)

Update [2007-3-8 4:17:1 by Jerome Armstrong]:

How to contact candidates for President of the United States by phone:
Joe Biden
(202) 547-2221

Hillary Clinton
(202) 263-0180

Chris Dodd
(202) 737-3633

John Edwards
www.johnedwards.com
(919) 636-3131

Mike Gravel
703-652-4698

Dennis Kucinich
(216) 252-9000

Barack Obama
(515) 745-0880

Bill Richardson
(505) 982-2291

Tags: Chicago Ace Reporter, Fox News, John Edwards, Markos Moulitsas (all tags)

Comments

54 Comments

Re: One says F*** Off To Fox and the Others will f

As a commenter at dkos wrote, what Edwards actually said was, "Faggotaboutit"

by Bob Brigham 2007-03-07 03:32PM | 0 recs
Re:

So Richardson said yes?  Wow that is surprising to me.  I have a feeling the rest are waiting to see if they can avoid having to put their neck out on this one.  I would bet Obama was waiting for today to see what happened and I am hoping he will follow Edwards.  If He, Edwards and HRC pull, forget about the legitamacy of the debate.  Might as well cancel it at that point... even two of three would make it inconsequential.

by yitbos96bb 2007-03-07 03:51PM | 0 recs
Re:

An interesting dynamic.

I'll be surprised if Clinton and Obama don't both back out tomorrow. Because neither's gonna wanna be the third of the Big Three to back out. Obama backs out tomorrow, how does Clinton look, following the leaders? Feeble. Second out might still seema vaguely legit ... but third? No way.

by BingoL 2007-03-07 03:54PM | 0 recs
Re:

I'd be surprised if HRC pulled out, given Murdoch's support for her in her Senate race.

by Disputo 2007-03-07 04:05PM | 0 recs
Re:

So if Obama and Dodd back out tomorrow, you think Clinton will debate with Gravel, Biden, Kucinich, and Richardson?

I hope so. That'd be a thing of beauty.

by BingoL 2007-03-07 04:10PM | 0 recs
Indeed.

   There would be much wailing and gnashing of teeth  from Clinton in such a debate.  It would be priceless.

by cilerder86 2007-03-07 04:35PM | 0 recs
Re:

Clinton will wait to last to make sure she can explain and Rupert will forgive her for doing it.

by dkmich 2007-03-08 01:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Richardson

My guess is that Richardson figures that NV is his best chance at a good early showing, and if the top tier pulls out from the debate, all the better for him.

by Disputo 2007-03-07 04:07PM | 0 recs
Re:

Western Governor, Western Issues.

by NvDem 2007-03-08 09:39PM | 0 recs
Re: One says F*** Off To Fox and the Others will f

WTF is this?

by HellofaSandwich 2007-03-07 03:53PM | 0 recs
Re: One says F*** Off To Fox and the Others will f

WTF is what?

by yitbos96bb 2007-03-07 03:54PM | 0 recs
WTF is WTF is WTF is This???

Or was that WTF is WTF is WTF is WTF is This???

A meta-beta^2 or beta-meta^2 test of sanity?

by Paul Rosenberg 2007-03-07 04:36PM | 0 recs
Temporary? Insanity.

    I don't get this post, nor do I understand the "1984" video on Breaking Blue.  What kind of tonic are you and Jerome sharing this evening?

by cilerder86 2007-03-07 04:38PM | 0 recs
Who Said Anything About Sharing???

Hic!

by Paul Rosenberg 2007-03-07 04:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Who Said Anything About Sharing???

Sometimes when I read Jerome's posts, I just want to say "You're drunk" to the computer screen and walk out of the room. But maybe that's just me being dramatic. [snark and self-deprecating snark]

by johnalive 2007-03-07 05:15PM | 0 recs
Re:

Not sure if I agree with Jerome that being the first mover is the best position here.  It is a high risk/reward position... It has the potential to pay off well for Edwards, but could also hurt him as well... Something the others are probably trying to avoid.  Since it doesn't appear the organizers are budging, at least one or two will HAVE to make a decision.

by yitbos96bb 2007-03-07 03:53PM | 0 recs
Re:

I'm not sure how this hurts Edwards. Whatever benefit you get from sharing a stage with 8 other candidates in March (if any, which I kinda doubt), that's outweighed by the love you get from the most passionate of Nevada Democratic activists for snubbing Fox. And if he's alone on this, that love only has one outlet.

by BingoL 2007-03-07 03:57PM | 0 recs
Re:

The debate is in August, IIRC, and if everyone else is on national (cable) TV, except him, it could hurt.  But if Barack doesn't show, and perhaps another one or two, the debate won't matter.

by jallen 2007-03-07 04:00PM | 0 recs
Aack!

Yeah. Um. Oops.

I think my point stands, depite my idiocy. Not sure how that hurts, overall: just reminds the most active of D activists who stood up to Fox. So he gets points now, and then get 'em again later.

And honestly, everyone's gonna be so sick of all these candidates, I'm not surea little break in exposure isn't a good idea. But, clearly, I'm drunk tonight.

by BingoL 2007-03-07 04:06PM | 0 recs
Re:

Unlike Hillary who hates the netroots, Edwards is a supporter of ours.  If you recall, he was out campaigning for Lamont when Bill Clinton was pimping Lieberman.  Another reason why I move more and more firmly into the Edwards camp is his willingness to come to the front - or lead as it is sometimes called.  While Obama and Hillary wait for the polls to tell them what they think, Edwards is speaking up and out.  Add in labors support, Edwards support for defunding Iraq, and that makes Edwards the most moderate and middle class supportive candidate out there.  Obama and Hillary are plastics poured into whatever molds industry, politics, and self-interests provide.  

by dkmich 2007-03-08 01:07AM | 0 recs
id

Can we start spray painting the partisans on here with various colors so that we can know up front whose side they are on and are likely to senselessly bash their opponents and so we can simply avoid reading their prop?

by Disputo 2007-03-08 05:34AM | 0 recs
Re: id

OK, you can be red.  I'll be blue.

by dkmich 2007-03-11 02:31PM | 0 recs
grow up

Only one of us is ridiculously bashing the majority of the Dem contenders.  You look alot more red than I.

Seriously, dude, grow TF up.  Don't start the BS ratings wars here that almost destroyed DK.

by Disputo 2007-03-12 10:31AM | 0 recs
Too early to make a decision

Still has her finger in the wind, eh?

by TeddySanFran 2007-03-07 04:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Too early to make a decision

I'm still of the belief that Hillary made the deal with Murdoch, and that is why everyone is silent about it.  But, then again, it could just be my tin foil has slipped a little.

by CarrieCann 2007-03-07 05:58PM | 0 recs
The Longer Others Dawdle, The Better For Edwards

And if no one else follows him, he's got months and months to come up with a super-duper upstaging counter-event.

by Paul Rosenberg 2007-03-07 04:40PM | 0 recs
like appearing on MSNBC

at the same time

by TarHeel 2007-03-08 02:45AM | 0 recs
Re: One says F*** Off To Fox and the Others

I'm glad Edwards said no, and I hope others will follow.

by rikyrah 2007-03-07 05:28PM | 0 recs
What does "MG" refer to?

As used in this line: "Smart first mover role by the Edwards team-- MG must now be on a 2 day work week :)"

by LSdemocrat1 2007-03-07 05:29PM | 0 recs
Re: What does "MG" refer to?
Davinci code? Rosebud? Long-lost love? Mom working nights now?
A free Lamont t-shirt (worn and washed only a few times-I have two) to the MYDDer who figures this out...
by johnalive 2007-03-07 05:45PM | 0 recs
Re: What does "MG" refer to?

Mathew Gross

Please mail my shirt to:

706 Hart Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

by Bob Brigham 2007-03-07 05:59PM | 0 recs
Re: What does "MG" refer to?

I'll send it to the attention of Blogswarm--make sure the mailroom people know your nom de guerre.

by johnalive 2007-03-07 06:29PM | 0 recs
Re: What does "MG" refer to?

No, I was just kidding, please keep your Lamont shirt instead of mailing it to Lieberman's senate office.

by Bob Brigham 2007-03-07 06:43PM | 0 recs
Re: What does "MG" refer to?

Methinks my snark was too subtle...

by johnalive 2007-03-08 02:02AM | 0 recs
I want a free t-shirt!

   It probably has something to do with Jerome Armstrong being the entire liberal blogosphere.

by cilerder86 2007-03-07 05:59PM | 0 recs
Re: One says F*** Off To Fox and the Others will f

I am not happy with Richardson's decision, but he made on. He is taking a stand, albeit a bad one but he doesn't have his finger in the air. Plus he was basicly a co-sponcer of the debate. No way he was backing out.

by pierredude 2007-03-07 05:41PM | 0 recs
Re: One says F*** Off To Fox and the Others will f

Yes, that's a point for Richardson. He did make a decision. Unfortunately, it's as good a decision as Bush's decision to invade Iraq.

by antiHyde 2007-03-08 05:19AM | 0 recs
Re: One says F*** Off To Fox and the Others will f

More like Bill Clinton's decision to get a blow job, and then lie about it.

by pierredude 2007-03-08 08:26AM | 0 recs
naturally suspicious

Since this issue came out in the blogs, I have been wondering if HRC wasn't happy to use the Fox debate venue? Hillary has received support from Murdock in the past. Was this debate set up by Clinton insiders working with Nevada democrats to advantage her campaign? I am suspicious too.

by anothergreenbus 2007-03-07 06:24PM | 0 recs
What happened to Kerry's Iraq plan

They ask for petitions, hired IT?

by jasmine 2007-03-07 06:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Just One says F*** Off To Fox

I say right now it is a game of chicken between Hillary and Obama and both are going to blink and go to the debate. I also think that  if the candidates bow out, they better do more than the usual ineffective Democratic PR. Unless it is communicated effectively that this is not a boycott of Nevada and the voters of Nevada, but against the Fox News Channel and its partisan policies, then all the candidates lose out.  Before the troll ratings start flowing, let me explain. I live in DC, which we can agree is a BLUE city; I never watch the National FNC, but have tuned in to Fox5 for the local news at 10PM, because I didn't want to wait until 11PM when the other networks do the news. There are Democrats who may watch their local Fox channel (American Idol) without tuning into the nonsense that is the FNC. Without an actual demonstration of the news bias to the AVERAGE voter, they won't know what the fuss is about.

by Kingstongirl 2007-03-07 07:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Just One says F*** Off To Fox

I wonder if the debate will be shown on the equivalent of our WTTG (broadcast), Fox cable, or both.

But yeah, their local Fox stations look exactly the same as ours -- Wednesday schedule for LV's Fox 5 (same channel!) local news station:

8:00  American Idol
9:00  Wedding Bells
10:00 Fox 5 News at 10pm
11:00 Everybody Loves Raymond

by dblhelix 2007-03-07 10:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Kucinich

Dennis Kucinich said yes.  

by Evan Moody 2007-03-07 08:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Kucinich

Well, he's a Zellocrat, then.

by HellofaSandwich 2007-03-07 08:57PM | 0 recs
Re: One says F*** Off To Fox

I sincerely hope Hillary agrees to do it.  I hope she announces that she is not intimidated by Fox, or anyone associated with Fox.  She should make it clear that she will attend, on her terms, with no premature post-debate moderation, and no negative commentary.  Finally, she should commend Howard Dean for agreeing that the debate should go on!

by marasaud 2007-03-07 09:23PM | 0 recs
Or she could just tell the truth and say that...

...she's happy to bolster the legitimacy of Rupert Murdoch's Republican propaganda network as long as he's giving her money.

by MeanBoneII 2007-03-07 09:45PM | 0 recs
Re: One says F*** Off To Fox

Hillary will likely do the debate, because she's not fucking afraid of Fox News, even though they trash her at every opportunity.  She will do it and she will maintain control.  Unlike Edwards who cowers everytime a rightwing nutjob attacks him.  

If it's good enough for Howard Dean, and it is, then it's good enough for Hillary.  

Dems lose because they cower to the Republicans. Make a hero out of Edwards.  He's a wuss.

by marasaud 2007-03-07 10:19PM | 0 recs
Re: One says F*** Off To Fox

Apologies to anyone who saw me say nearly the same thing over in Kosland, but it's the same shit, different website.
"Wuss" is just another ad hominen variant of "faggot." Why are you resorting to exactly the tactics and memes of Ann Coulter? I think you are a troll or conservative or something.

From Digby:

The underlying premise of the modern conservative movement is that the entire Democratic party consists of a bunch of fags and dykes who are both too effeminate and too masculine to properly lead the nation. Coulter says it out loud. Dowd hints at it broadly. And the entire press corps giggles and swoons at this shallow, sophomoric concept like a bunch of junior high pom pom girls.

From Glenn Greenwald:

Coulter insisted last night that she did not intend the remark as an anti-gay slur -- that she did not intend to suggest that John Edwards, husband and father, was gay -- but instead only used the word as a "schoolyard taunt," to call him a sissy. And that is true. Her aim was not to suggest that Edwards is actually gay, but simply to feminize him like they do with all male Democratic or liberal political leaders.

The enemy formation of Democrats that you make your own by calling Edwards a wuss and a coward makes me wonder whether you're a winger yourself.
You are not going to convince me--or anyone else--that our candidates are going to avoid Fox News slurs by going on Fox News and subjecting themselves to political character assasination.

by johnalive 2007-03-08 02:26AM | 0 recs
Re: One says F*** Off To Fox

By the way MeanBoneII .... Hillary does not need Murdoch's "money".  She has plenty of money and she has her husband, Bill Clinton, hosting five fundraisers for her in the month of March, alone.  Hillary made over one million dollars in one week from her website!  You Hillary bashers need to get your facts straight.  

Murdoch supported Hillary in her re-election bid to the Senate by giving her one fundraiser that brought in the equivalent of pocket-change.  He does not support her for President.

Hillary uses Murdoch, NOT the other way around.

by marasaud 2007-03-07 10:24PM | 0 recs
Re: One says F*** Off To Fox

I'm sorry to say this Marasaud but the only reason Murdoch is even supporting Hillary Clinton this time around is because he knows damned-well that the GOP Presidential lineup offers slim pickings at best. Rupert Murdoch's game is protecting both the gains that the Conservative movement managed to accumulate during the height of the Corporate Counter Revolution and his own bottom line. Rupert Murdoch realises that DLCer heavyweight Hillary Clinton is the Democratic candidate whose potential presidency is least least likely to affect either of these things. It matters not to Murdoch that Hillary is Liberal on social issues as long as she refrains from any form of economic populism. With both movement Conservatives and GOP lawmakers, a Hillary Administration would be a win-win situation because Hillary does not speak of economic justice when economic justice threatens the kleptocracy. That, and a Hillary Presidency would help give undeserved lagetemacy to the proponents of the fake culture wars in the eyes of millions of right wing evangelicals.

by activecitizen2007 2007-03-07 11:22PM | 0 recs
Re: One says F*** Off To Fox

Murdoch is not supporting Hillary for President and he made it very clear.  He supported her re-election campaign to the Senate last November.  And it was a small fundraiser that was widely publicized - and which Hillary openly talked about.

As for Hillary's economic policies, they are not going to be popular with the conservatives.  Or maybe you haven't been following her recent energy proposal and trade deficit concerns.

All of these suspicions about Hillary are wrong.  If you want to discuss "questionable" affiliations, look to Barack Obama.  The guy is surrounded with Republicans, both friends and supporters and investors.  His campaign manager, Robert Gibbs, is a good example of a "so-called" Democrat.  Michelle Obama, is a lovely woman, and I don't mean to aim invective at her, but check out her ties to corporate America and her rich Republican friends and associates.

Figure it out before it's too late.  

by marasaud 2007-03-08 01:38AM | 0 recs
Others will follow?

I'm surprised at the focus on Hillary.  Barack, too, is seeing which way the wind blows.

by Vox Populi 2007-03-08 04:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Others will follow?

Really? Are you truly surprised?

by Kingstongirl 2007-03-08 02:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Others will follow?

It's another case of Obama indecision.

He couldn't decide whether he wanted to run for president, so he starts of saying he's not qualified, then announces an exploratory committee, then announces he's running.

He votes "present" on significant bills in the Illinois legislature, which make him look indecisive.

Now he can't decide whether to participate in the FOX debate, even after the network maligned him with the Madrassa story.

Trend....

by Vox Populi 2007-03-08 02:47PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads