Dennis Kucinich, you make me SICK!!!!  What a SELL-OUT!!!!!  

When does this turncoat come back up for re-election?!!

LOL, great.  So the CBC, which is more progressive than the Dem Caucus as a whole, most of whom voted against the 2002 resolution and the most recent supplemental, only has two presidential candidates who respect them enough to participate.

Meanwhile, we in the progressive community sit self satisfied that "our" candidates will refuse to debate on a network w/local affiliates, tha that has plenty of moderate/liberal viewers (who watch for the same reason some listen to Rush, because they can't believe what he'll say next) and who we will have to persuade if we are to be competitive in the red states that will make the difference in winning either the Presidency or keep the Sen, because we'd rather have them misrepresent our views in their coverage rather than make our case on LIVE TV.  Hoorah for us!

My WAG is that Kucinich keeps running for President because it impresses that gorgeous redhead of his that would probably drop him like a hot potato if he were just some nobody.

So, w/regards to Fox (or the Wall Street Journal, Manchester Union Leader, Washington Times, etc) should Gravel, Obama, Edwards, Clinton and Dodd not send press releases for coverage of their events, not appear on their shows, etc?

And why if we acknowledge that they (Fox, other right wing outlets) won't represent our views correctly, would we pass up opportunity to do LIVE TV?  I believe we should meet those guys head on, because in a 50/50 nation, we will need to persuade folks who aren't party line voters that they should be invested in a Dem WH.

Since Gravel's just tilting at windmills anyway, he ought to have Media Matters prep him with a Fox lie about every subject that's likely to come up, then spend the entire debate undermining Fox...

That would be a triumph of Colbertian jujitsu.

I doubt it would have any influence on Fox viewers, but who cares, they're not persuadable anyway.

Nonsense.  We won plenty of red state jurisdictions in 06, like in 98, because the GOP's ideology outstripped their competence in the eyes of voters, specifically on the war in Iraq.  

But in 08 those same voters will make their decisions based on who they think is believable as the next commander in chief, and all of our candidates will have to meet that threshold.

Well, the NYT is beginning to act like Fox News with crapola about certain Democratic candidates who have made some money via Wall Street, with no substance on issues, but spewing RW memes.  I think they have bought into that only the rich should care about the rich, except for 3 columnists who share more of our views: Paul Krugman, Bob Herbert, and Frank Rich.  

That said, Fox News is not legitimate outlet at all, and Dennis should be trying to be in a position of strength, not weakness.

I guess everyone read News Corp is buying Photobucket.  

http://www.9news.com/money/article.aspx? storyid=71035

This is the "un-debate." I hope they go on with it anyway, Kucinich, Bide, and Gravel, a huge humiliation for Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes. And maybe the CBC will reconsider who they partner with in the future.

I guess where I disagree is the labels he will get:

Kucinich: Supports socialize medicine and wants to take your insurance away and let the government run it.

The CBC is very unwise in this partnership.

Kucinich is doing just the kind of strategy I would pull!!! Great work Kuc!!! Just try to imagine how the Fox no-spinners are gonna toss and turn at night trying to figure out what the Big Kuc has up his sleeves!!! The Big Kuc obviously understands Rule Number One: Do Not Be Too Predictable! (Always works like a charm for Putin!)

I think Kucinich honestly doesn't understand the objection. It's not just the need for airtime (although that undoubtedly plays a role), it's that he feels he's standing up to the right wing by going on and that if he honestly tells them what he believes, there's nothing they can do against him.

It's a noble approach, but like most forms of chivalry it's fundamentally misguided. There is no good answer to "When did you stop beating your wife?" so you make sure nobody asks that to you. Failing that you should damn sure attack the framing of the questions, which is probably something else he won't do.

On this page on Gravel's website, he lists the debates being sponsored by the DNC. He does not list the Fox News/CBC debate, which suggests he's not going to join in on that one.

A debate featuring only Biden and Kucinich would spectacularly show how detached from reality Fox News is. But with Richardson and Dodd dropping out, it'll be too much of a farce to keep up, and we'll probably within a week see this cancelled, with Fox making a lot of noise over the democrats being cowards and their usual crap.

I didn't realize that the World Series was determined by post-game perception.

and sad really. Kucinich is a nice guy who really tries to do the right thing, but him going to the debate on Fox is no different from Clark appearing on O'Reilly Factless. They both are very low in the polls and are willing to take any free publicity they can get.

Go Obama!

I always thought the boycott of Fox News was kind of lame. I mean I get the reasoning, but at the end of the day it's really just a big blow up over nothing.  Even if we suppose that all democratic elected officials and candidates somehow decide to boycott Fox permanently--an impossible fantasy--what does that accomplish, exactly?

I will say that it's a nice symbolic victory for the netroots, though. This whole boycott got started because of some netroots petition, which was then picked up by the netroots panderer Edwards, which was then extended to the rest of the major presidential contenders. So good job, netroots.

But there's a big difference between a symbolic victory and an actual, substantive victory. I couldn't care less if Kuchinich, Obama, Clinton, Edwards, Richardson, etc. went on Fox News all the time, as long as they were able to respond effectively. Conversely I wouldn't care if they decided to all boycott instead--and I wouldn't spin it as some kind of great victory either way.  

Well when you can't soar with the eagles ...and that goes both ways.

But what poor Dennis doesn't seem to see is that Fox and Fox viewers aren't interested in the truth.  They spin the truth and laugh at it's expense.

Kind of like taking a worthy location like say, a bookstore, and turning it into a cheap sitcom by stuffing it with a big busted bimbo and calling it "Stacked".

Is that the kind of airtime and notoriety you really need, Dennis?

Yo, Chris, the Times is a classier version of Fox News.  Not only did they cheerlead for the Iraq war, the lead the charge to reduce living standards in industrialized nations with their unbridled support for 'free trade'. Notice how they are covering the secret dem leadership sell out?

There is no excuse for progressive journalists not to stand up to their editors.  getting fired is a badge of honor.  what do you think al gore would say?

You are wrong about the Times, you are wrong about Kucinich.  I thought avoiding the Fox debate was a good idea, but Kucinich will take them on and make them eat their words.

Haven't been on the site in a while.  won't be back for a long time either if the most important thing you can do is attack kucinich for telling the truth.

I'm glad those who have pulled out have done so.

I have been a lurker on mydd since last autumn, but this is the first time I've felt compelled to participate. I should point out I generally find the site interesting and provocative, as well as a font of useful information about progressive Democrats. However, I part company with you on this issue.

Quite honestly, I can't tell Fox apart from NBC/CBS/ABC...then again, I haven't watched a minute of network news in at least a decade. Obviously there is an extreme right wing bias on Fox (I HAVE seen plenty of video clips featuring Bill O'Reilly trying to count his fingers), but the idea that The Big Three are paragons of subjectivity (or exemplars of liberal bias) is pretty silly.

IMO, this is a tempest in a teapot that has served as an unnecessary distraction for online activists.

Disclosure: I supported Kucinich in '04, but am leaning toward Richardson this time--and even though his flat tax proposal is loopy, I definitely have a soft spot for Gravel.

Anyone (like Kucinich) who has consistently voted against funding the war (instead of calculating when it might be politically advantageous to do so) deserves a lot more respect from anti-war bloggers.

As for the debate, I agree with Kucinich.  Take the invitation, take the slanted questions, and tell their audience directly what you think.  You're running for President of the United States, not president of people you mostly agree with.

While I agree with the overall attack on Kucinich, I actually really liked his swipe at the New York Times.  High-profile figures (Kucinich barely fits that bill)on the left need to be taking swipes at the media like this, "working the ref" from the other side.

"Well, I'm one candidate for President who can hit any pitch anyone throws at me."