I don't get it.  Why can't politicians(whether Obama or others) make such easy decisions as this.  Start hammering closed the coffin that is Faux Noise Channel.  What is easier then that.  It's a no lose situation.  They aren't gonna lose any voters by freezing Faux out.

Well I hope Obama and the CBC pound Fox hard. On the other hand I think Obama has come rather close to surrendering the high ground by implying that John Edwards is gay and also running an attack ad against Hillary Clinton based on Apple Computer's "1984" commercial. Why isn't he using these hardball tactics on Fox rather than against other Democrats??

He likely will not do it, but after others pressure the CBC not to do FoxNews, he will tell donors that he "probably would have told them not to do it anyway."

The time to act on the Nevada debate came and went with Obama doing nothing.  John Edwards went out on a limb and said he would not go.  Clinton and Obama did nothing.  Now we find out he "probably would have not gone."  

Wish he would have said it when it mattered.

It's not just politicians and it isn't just cable news, but there's a pervasive mindset in this country that if something's popular, it should automatically be catered to, merits be damned.  If people want Anna Nicole stories, then just give it to them. If people watch Fox News, just give them Fox News. If people want to Supersize, just Supersize it.

On the one hand, it's laziness. But on the other hand, it's a fundamental misinterpretation in that just because something is popular doesn't mean that something better couldn't be as popular or more so given the opportunity.

I think it's telling that politicians are lagging behind the public on so many issues, whether progressive issues or not.  There was a time when politicians were trying to change things rather than trying to maintain things. You get the impression from almost everyone in Washington that they're generally trying to change just enough and just quickly enough to keep their jobs and it's sad.

after his parroting of Coulter and Limbaugh with the "cute" comments regarding John Edwards, despite all the good things Edwards has said about him.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/3/18/ 204346/586

and of course CNN takes the handoff and runs with it:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/3/15/ 05835/6777

Its incredibly disappointing. Expecting him to pull the plug on the CBC debate especially after his Nevada inaction is unfortunately probably expecting too much.

I think the "cute" comment is not meant to demean Edwards as gay, but rather to taunt him as being lightweight and not to be taken seriously.  It's a good dig in that it is bound to get under Edwards skin.  Babies are cute, little boys and girls are cute, Presidents of the United States aren't suppose to be cute.  Edwards needs to return a not so subtle shot back at Obama by mentioning his Hawaiian spread in the Enquirer a few months ago.  I could be wrong about the actual gossip rag he appeared in, but I know he was on the cover.

On another note, I was listening to the Bill Press show this morning on Air America, and he had a fill in host, Rich? Masters discussing the whole Fox thing.  Masters was of the opinion that there was this apolitical group of people who watched Fox, and Democrats should go on Fox to present their viewpoints.  He seem to agree that Fox was biased, but that Dems should still go on to present their case.  The calls were 60/40 in favor of freezing out Fox.  I'm not really surprise that a fill in host for Press would have this view. Press is one of those people who in my view argue for the sake of argument and never really presents a convincing or passionate argument to counter the Repubs he goes up against.

Oh and Obama is going to stay out of this CBC and Fox debate issue.  The last thing he wants is for Fox to start talking about how Barack Hussein Obama was responsible for killing their debate. The netroots would love it, but he is too cautious for this kind of move.

I emailed Senator Obama. I hope others call or email.

I've done my part, contacting the CBC Institute too and spreading the word.

As a Black woman, I continue to be infuriated at Faux News Network remotely even being in the running to host anything related to the CBC.

Matt,

Can't we get a petition together or organize a day of Mass Call-Ins to Barack Obamas office telling him to make the CBC cut all ties with Fox? Why can't we organize together with the other Progressives like we did to the Nevada Democratic Party?

Please, I know you guys are brilliant at coming up with things.

Please

Matt said upstream that Obama was "the most important member" of the CBC.  As a black guy I find that paradoxical.  

Obama has gone out of his way to be seen by whites as "not black", at least, in the same distasteful (to many whites) way that the rest of us are.  The paradox is that at the same time he breaks his back NOT to be seen as one of US, whites impute to him some kind of status as a BLACK leader.  Apparently black people are not to be trusted in the selection of their own leaders.  But I digress, slightly.

Not one to endanger his "special" status, Obama will not be getting on the phone for any specifically "black" mission --- not getting the CBC debate off Fox News, nor moving it elsewhere.

Following is a quote from a Black Agenda Report article dated November 8, 2006, itself quoting a revealing passage from somewhere else.

" In the December 27, 2004, issue of Newsweek, the writer begins his profile of Senator Obama by describing 'A Tiger Woods category'  ¦A David Letterman and "Will and Grace" category." He goes on to add that the only African-American in the United States Senate is not a man who wants to be seen as the leader of Black America and that before a reception with members of the Congressional Black Caucus, Senator Obama said, 'I'm looking forward to working with you on behalf of all Americans.'"

In other words, Obama wears his "special" status as "not one of us" and representing somebody else even into closed-door meetings with other black pols.  He is the embodiment of politics as usual, descended to a new level.

I also have to take issue with the contention expressed by Stoller and others that the reason Fox was able to make this inroad was because of some innate or old-boy clubbiness that conservatives have with black pols.  It ain't that.  The fact is that black folks have issues we wish to gawd we could get white folks to acknowledge in a constructive way, but they will not.  For example, blacks are one eighth the nation's population but half its jails --- a situation that has come about in only a generation, as the drug war has expanded US prison systems sevenfold since 1970, without a commensurate increase in crime.  But we simply cannot get a public conversation about racially selective policing, prosecution and imprisonment going.

That is why we HAVE a black caucus, and that is why there IS a need for a presidential debate hosted by the CBC.  Otherwise there are many questions which others, including other Democrats, will never ask Democratic candidates, even though the Democratic party absolutely counts on our votes.  

But MSNBC didn't step up.  Nor did CBS or CNN or ABC or NBC.  That's what has to happen, and that is who you are letting off the hook.  It is racist to suppose that black folks don't have worthy issues that need to be dealt with.  It is an expression of racism that none of the other corporate media players stepped up before this, and a further passive expression of the same that few or none in the netroots community even think they ought to.

The Repug boyz at Fox have just seized the opening which white liberal dismissiveness of black issues made.  Hence if (white) liberal netroots really want to combat the right, stick it to Faux News and benefit your allies --- and black folks and the CBC are your allies, right??  ...you need to be putting the pressure on another network to step up and host it, rather than just deep-sixing and walking away from a CBC debate just cause it appears at Fox.

And Obama won't help you do that either.