Hitlery accepts Faux Snooze debate

[Crazy Horse]

HAHAHAHA 

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4409158

book_worm  (1000+ posts)      Tue Feb-05-08 02:47 PM
Original message
Hillary accepts Fox News Debate, wants Obama to join
 Advertisements [?]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

 
The flames are spreading quickly 

ingac70  (1000+ posts)       Tue Feb-05-08 02:48 PM
Response to Original message
1. No self respecting Democrat...
 should want to be seen on FAUX.

jackson_dem (1000+ posts)      Tue Feb-05-08 02:54 PM
Response to Reply #24
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.

BattyDem  (1000+ posts)      Tue Feb-05-08 02:48 PM
Response to Original message
3. Oh please, Dems ...
 Do NOT give any legitimacy to Fox news!

 

Debi  (1000+ posts)       Tue Feb-05-08 02:48 PM
Response to Original message
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  (1000+ posts)      Tue Feb-05-08 02:53 PM
Response to Reply #4
25. Bingo...
 eom

Bornaginhooligan  (1000+ posts)      Tue Feb-05-08 02:49 PM
Response to Original message
5. I thought there was a Fox boycott.

 

ingac70  (1000+ posts)       Tue Feb-05-08 02:50 PM
Response to Reply #5
10. There is...
 I guess Hillary needs her pal Murdoch to help her get more exposure.

jackson_dem (1000+ posts)      Tue Feb-05-08 02:52 PM
Response to Reply #5
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.

billbuckhead  (1000+ posts)      Tue Feb-05-08 02:49 PM
Response to Original message
8. But I thought Obama wants to reach out to the Republicans?
 The reality is that he's scared of them.

TexasObserver (561 posts)      Tue Feb-05-08 02:50 PM
Response to Original message
9. Ugh
 the smell of desperation in the Clinton camp

lapfog_1  (1000+ posts)       Tue Feb-05-08 02:51 PM
Response to Original message
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"

 

[Atomic Lib Smasher]

So if Obama were to still be a sissy and "boycott" the Fox debate, it'd just be Hillary debating herself. Right? Or is that loon Gravel still in it?