The FOX Flip-Flop

Clinton agrees to debate on Fox
After joining the Democratic National Committee and the party's other contenders in a boycott of debates sponsored by the Fox network, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign said today that it has accepted an invitation to a Fox forum scheduled for next Monday, The Huffington Post's Sam Stein reports.

But her Democratic rival, Sen. Barack Obama, has not yet done so.

According to Stein, Clinton campaign spokesman Howard Wolfson gave this explanation for the decision: "There is an enormous interest in these debates and clamoring on the party of the Democrat party for them. ... We have not had a large number in which two people have participated."

Wolfson also noted that both candidates have appeared on Fox News Channel's news programs.

Update at 3:30 p.m. ET: Obama spokesman Bill Burton says in an e-mail to us that the campaign will "figure out our schedule, including any debates, soon."
Clinton agrees to debate on Fox - On Politics - USATODAY.com

Well, Clinton has challenged Obama to a debate on FOX. This goes against the Dems boycott but what the hell. Now we'll see how Obama handles it: He can either accept and go against the "Dem elders" or stay with the boycott and look like a slacker.

The "Clinton War Machine" finds a new method of attack. It would be nice to see both of these people having to answer some tough questions for a change.:thumbsup:

Have a good one!:s4:

I can see Hillary now...

"To borrow a quote from a wise and esteemed former democratic presidential nominee...I voted against the boycott, before I voted for it..."

Media manipulation is one of her strong suits, but I really doubt she will find the intestinal fortitude to actually subject herself to a non left-leaning moderator, as it would be quite difficult to control the questioner and his questions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rusty Trichome

I can see Hillary now...

"To borrow a quote from a wise and esteemed former democratic presidential nominee...I voted against the boycott, before I voted for it..."

Media manipulation is one of her strong suits, but I really doubt she will find the intestinal fortitude to actually subject herself to a non left-leaning moderator, as it would be quite difficult to control the questioner and his questions.

---

At this point I don't think that FOX is going to negotiate with the Dems on a moderator. She already layed out the challenge....FOX has the upper hand IF Obama agrees that is. Up to now he's declining the way it sounds. Pretty weak on his part!

Have a good one!:s4:

I don't see it as weak... I wouldn't waste my time debating on Fox News, really... If a channel spends more than 2 hours covering on the outrage that Miley Cyrus uses a body-double on stage, and hosts Bill O'Rielly on the same network, then the idea of a sound debate on Fox News is laughable. Any other news outlet would be more fit to cover the debate in my opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Purple Banana

... If a channel spends more than 2 hours covering on the outrage that Miley Cyrus uses a body-double on stage, and hosts Bill O'Rielly on the same network, then the idea of a sound debate on Fox News is laughable. Any other news outlet would be more fit to cover the debate in my opinion.

---

Couple of questions...
What does coverage of Miley Cyrus have to do with this post?
How's CNN's hourly coverage of Heath Ledger going, by the way?

What does your prejudice for Bill O'Reilly have to do with this post?

How is the prospect of a Fox debate laughable?
As compared to the MSNBC, CNN and UTube debates? Where they get the questions from planted questioners, snowmen, and Tim from Vermont. (the UFO technologies Question)

The Washington Times, America's Newspaper

"Credibility comes into question: oil is approaching $100 a barrel, the dollar is on the slide, we have no acceptable immigration policies, the war in Iraq is not over, Congress has been in gridlock for six years and CNN choses abortion and gay rights in the military issues from "undecided" Youtube questioners who, "surprise"...are decided Edwards and Clinton supporters. The question then becomes whose issues are these. The answer: CNN's issues and by questioners political association, Democrats, and you wonder why no followup questions during Wolf's kissy, kissy session."

But then, Clinton seems to like the planted question strategy.
FOXNews.com - Clinton Campaign Confirms Planting Town Hall Question, Says It Won't Happen Again

Since most here won't click a Fox News link, here's the story:
SIOUX CITY, Iowa â?? Democratic presidential frontrunner Hillary Clintonâ??s campaign admitted Friday that it planted a global warming question in Newton, Iowa, Tuesday during a town hall meeting to discuss clean energy.

Clinton campaign spokesman Mo Elliethee admitted that the campaign had planted the question and said it would not happen again.

"On this occasion a member of our staff did discuss a possible question about Senator Clinton's energy plan at a forum,â?� Elliethee said.

â??However, Senator Clinton did not know which questioners she was calling on during the event. This is not standard policy and will not be repeated again.â?�

In a state where the caucus is held sacred and the impromptu and candid style of the town hall meeting is held dear, Clintonâ??s planted question may come as a great offense to Iowans.

According to a report on the Grinnell University Web site, the Clinton campaign arranged for some of the questions for the candidate to be asked by college students:

"On Tuesday Nov. 6, the Clinton campaign stopped at a biodiesel plant in Newton as part of a weeklong series of events to introduce her new energy plan. The event was clearly intended to be as much about the press as the Iowa voters in attendance, as a large press core helped fill the small venue....

"After her speech, Clinton accepted questions. But according to Grinnell College student Muriel Gallo-Chasanoff â??10, some of the questions from the audience were planned in advance. 'They were canned,' she said. Before the event began, a Clinton staff member approached Gallo-Chasanoff to ask a specific question after Clintonâ??s speech. 'One of the senior staffers told me what [to ask],' she said.

"Clinton called on Gallo-Chasanoff after her speech to ask a question: what Clinton would do to stop the effects of global warming. Clinton began her response by noting that young people often pose this question to her before delving into the benefits of her plan.

"But the source of the question was no coincidence â?? at this event 'they wanted a question from a college student,' Gallo-Chasanoff said."

The tape of the event shows that the question and answer went as follows:

Question: "As a young person, I'm worried about the long-term effects of global warming How does your plan combat climate change?

Clinton: "Well, you should be worried. You know, I find as I travel around Iowa that it's usually young people that ask me about global warming."

The campaign's admission that it planted the question may be another blow to the New York senator's image as a trustworthy politician.

Clinton's critics have accused her of being a double-talker who refuses to answer tough questions specifically. Now her campaign has acknowledged planting at least one question.

Already her rivals have begun to criticize Friday's revelation.

â??In light of a weak debate performance, not to mention a persistent inability to answer the tough questions, it appears the Clinton campaign has adopted a new strategy of planting questions,â?� John Edwardsâ?? Communications Director Chris Kofinis said.

â??Itâ??s what the Clinton campaign calls the politics of planting.â?�

FOX new can kiss my butt. It actually has on several occaisions and it was great! Nice lips FOX! I hope you enjoyed it as much as I did, but next time less tongue, please.

I think FOX news is sort of the pro wrestling of news channels. Just as pro werstling has admitted it is not really a sport and is more of an entertainment, I think FOX news should do the same. It worked great for wrestling, because it no longer had to constrain itself and pretend to be legitimate anymore. It was free to go all-out as an enternmanet. FOX should do the same and then just go all-out wackadoo.

Ahhh...The ole "I think, therefore it is" argument. I used to follow the same philosophy, but I grew out of it just after puberty.

Your extremely mature response is a bit "wackadoo" in itself.

Even if you were to watch CNN and MSNBC combined, they are still only half the story. Granted it's the half you seem to eat right up, like shit on a fox's asshole. (heard that somewhere before, just can't seem to remember where)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rusty Trichome

Ahhh...The ole "I think, therefore it is" argument. I used to follow the same philosophy, but I grew out of it just after puberty.

Your extremely mature response is a bit "wackadoo" in itself.

Even if you were to watch CNN and MSNBC combined, they are still only half the story. Granted it's the half you seem to eat right up, like shit on a fox's asshole. (heard that somewhere before, just can't seem to remember where)

---

Actually, I think all the 24-hour news channels are very lame, just that FOX news is the worst. It's important to get your news from multiple sources, not just the ones you agree with. If you always seek out news sources that reinforce your own bias, you get a bit closed minded. I just think that FOX news does very little to be "Fair and Balanced." They should just come clean about it.

And yes, I was just saying what "I think." When I give my opinion I state it as such. When I state a fact, I leave "I think" off. So I am actually making an extra effort not to say, "I think, therefore it is." If I wanted to state my own opinions as fact I'd just go ahead and do it.

When you say something like, "Granted it's the half you seem to eat right up, like shit on a fox's asshole," that's your opinion, and it is wrong. And let's get it straight, as I mentioned before, it's FOX tasting my behind, not the other way around.

<Yawn>...................huh?

If FOX is sooo horible, then Clinton going on and really answering questions would do nothing but make her look good. There is a big difference between libs and cons. Mainly that cons for the most part although there are always exceptions, seem to enjoy countering their rivals political ideas, they are more available to the liberal leaning media, because they are confident in what they believe and look forward to expressing their ideas.SPECIFIC IDEAS, DETAILED.

Libs, do not like any confrontation on issues or questions. They do not want to counter ideas or directly respond because........
they don't have any ideas. They are politically motivated by emotion, that's why you ALWAYS end up dealing with people thinking and feeling. There are exceptions here as well.VERY NON-SPECIFIC IDEAS, VERY BROAD GENERALIZATIONS..

Here's how it would go,

Moderator: Mrs. Clinton, what would you do in regards to Iraq?
Clinton : I would gather all the brass and other people in charge and tell them to get out as quickly as possible and as safely as possible. We need our babies home! It's time for the coorporations to pay! Tax cuts for the lower 50% of income earners that only pay about 3% of all income taxes. Increase taxes on coorporations so they will pass the cost to the consumer and exaserbate any economic problems!

There I just summed up the whole damn thing and saved you an hour of your life. Now libs don't Have to watch FOX news, and you still get her on point message of change!:)

Really no hard feelings, I respect people that can have fun, reasonable discussions, dragon. There are alot of people here that get very offended when you suggest that anything they think is wrong.:mad: Too bad, I just don't see how someone can get so caught up that they can't have a good discusion. Dragon you at least participate enough so that their can be a "back and forth" which is more than I can say for some.:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rusty Trichome

Couple of questions...
What does coverage of Miley Cyrus have to do with this post?
How's CNN's hourly coverage of Heath Ledger going, by the way?

What does your prejudice for Bill O'Reilly have to do with this post?

How is the prospect of a Fox debate laughable?
As compared to the MSNBC, CNN and UTube debates? Where they get the questions from planted questioners, snowmen, and Tim from Vermont. (the UFO technologies Question)

---

THANK YOU! Someone here has some sort of common sense. CNN and MSNBC are very, very biased themselves. They are very left leaning. And their ratings are in the shitter, wonder why...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 8182KSKUSH

Really no hard feelings, I respect people that can have fun, reasonable discussions, dragon. There are alot of people here that get very offended when you suggest that anything they think is wrong.:mad: Too bad, I just don't see how someone can get so caught up that they can't have a good discusion. Dragon you at least participate enough so that their can be a "back and forth" which is more than I can say for some.:D

---

I like the back and forth as long as it doesn't get personally nasty between the participants. No need to make personal insults or put words in people's mouths just to shoot down the mischaracterized idea ("Oh, so you think blah. Then you're an idiot!") That's the one that bugs me the most --- I'm the one who gets to say what I think. But personal insults against politicians (Mittwit!) or news channels (Wakadoos!) do not bother me at all! Some people get so wrapped up that they ruin it, and I think a lot of members who might participate don't bother because they don't like the tone.

Anyway, Kush, you keep it lively. And that shit-eating grin on the face of your avatar just makes everything you say twice as sarcastic! Ha ha! Who the hell is that guy?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dragonrider

I like the back and forth as long as it doesn't get personally nasty between the participants. No need to make personal insults or put words in people's mouths just to shoot down the mischaracterized idea ("Oh, so you think blah. Then you're an idiot!") That's the one that bugs me the most --- I'm the one who gets to say what I think. But personal insults against politicians (Mittwit!) or news channels (Wakadoos!) do not bother me at all! Some people get so wrapped up that they ruin it, and I think a lot of members who might participate don't bother because they don't like the tone.

Anyway, Kush, you keep it lively. And that shit-eating grin on the face of your avatar just makes everything you say twice as sarcastic! Ha ha! Who the hell is that guy?

---

Well said!
You are right! It is so annoying when peopel take personal offense when public figures or News channels are criticized!
That guy as my avatar, he was the most prolific mob hit man ever. Kuklinski! The Ice Man, and that's exactly why I picked him for my avatar, the shit eating grin translates what my tone usually is 99.9% of the time! He is not by any means a hero or anything, but he is extremly fascinating! Watch some of the interviews that he did from prison!
Interviewer: "So what was in the needle?"
Kuklinski: "A heart attack.":D