Honest and (I think) legitimate question to Obama supporters...

[Clintonista2]

Every time Hillary appears on Fox News, Obama supporters criticise her. How then, do you explain Obama giving an interview on Fox a few weeks ago? How about Michelle appearing on Fox a little while back? I would be interested to know.

Michelle on fox: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_IgnFhTvA08
Barack on fox: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uT-z9q6E_3k

[leftofcool]

1. When Hillary appears on FOX, she is a Republican and

a traitor. When Obama appears on FOX, he is giving a worthwhile interview to some equally worthwhile journalists.....and thus speaketh O supporters. Hope this helps.

[bluerum]

2. Clinton is not a republican OR a traitor regardless of how loud or long the bamites drone the line.

[rodeodance]

6. First poster forgot the sarcasm button

[leftofcool]

8. I did indeed.

Pre-coffee post

[crankychatter]

124. is that like "redrum?"

I get it

*poof*

[bluerum]

149. actually,,, yes - I think that you are the first person to call that out

I was quite angry before the 06 elections,,, still am.

[DemVet]

36. Yeah, unfortunately...

...you've hit it right on the head.

[11 Bravo]

123. By George, I think you've got it!

[Cali_Democrat]

3. OH man, your gonna get it for the Michelle video

Just warning you. The video was edited to make her turn reptilian.

[Clintonista2]

4. Regardless, I was only posting as proof that she DID in fact appear on Fox

[Kahuna]

5. Thanks for the headsup. nt

[rodeodance]

7. It is a very legitimate question

[Clintonista2]

9. Thanks. Too bad none of them want to answer it.

:(

[rodeodance]

22. Just excuses--

[Orsino]

46. Really? It's easy.

You're confusing a few Obama supporters with all Obama supporters. As far as hypocrisy goes, you can find that in both campaigns.

Personally, I'll criticize anyone who gives any play to Fox News. They are your real enemy; Obama's supporters are simply rivals.

[Tesha]

121. All you Hillary supporters appear to already be answering this *FOR* the Obama suporters.

If the question were asked in good faith, you all would
have waited for an answer or two before going to the
attack.

Tesha
(Not an Obama supporter, BTW)

[against all enemies]

10. Fox shows Hillary to support their own agenda. Understand?

[rodeodance]

23. You understand wrong.

[Clintonista2]

26. So what does that have to do with Obama appearing on Fox?

[Texas Hill Country]

137. All the Republicans I know would rather run vs Obama

[damonm]

147. And all the ones I know want Hillary. Your point...?

[Vinca]

11. Fox has spent the better part of its time in business trashing

both Clintons. I don't care if she appears on it or not, but it makes me wonder why on earth she would. Even worse is her new BFF Scaife. One more reason to question her judgement.

[DemVet]

38. Why wouldn't she?

Like them or not, Fox is watched by a lot of independents and moderates. If Obama gets the Nomination, he would be insane NOT to appear on Fox.

[Hepburn]

68. Independents and moderates watch Fux Snooze???

:rofl:

[leftynyc]

128. Have you seen the ratings for

prime time on cable news? Fox has the top 4 rated shows - 3 times the audience of its next competitor. They'd both be crazy to ignore that. And yes, that audience includes both moderates and independents.

[FredScuttle]

129. "that audience includes both moderates and independents"

do you have any research or data to support that assumption?

[leftynyc]

135. I have friends who are pubs,

moderates and indies plus people at work who are all of the above and the ones that are politically aware watch all of the cable news channels. They feel it's the only real way to get balance. I have one very good friend who is a liberal and he watches Keith and then changes over to Hannity and Colmes right after. That dems don't watch Fox is a myth.

[FredScuttle]

150. Seems a pretty big extrapolation from your "friends and coworkers" to the whole audience, no?

n/t

[leftynyc]

151. Actually, you were the one who

claimed indies and moderates don't watch fox - I was pointing out you were wrong. I never claimed anything about the size of the audience.

[FredScuttle]

153. I never claimed "indies and moderates don't watch Fox"

I merely challenged you to support your assertion that the Fox News audience (the biggest in cable news, according to you) "includes both moderates and independents". While I don't doubt that there are some moderates and independents (and even Democrats) who watch Fox News, I do doubt that they are a statistically significant segment of the overall Fox News audience. If you have data that proves the contrary, I'd love to see it.

[leftynyc]

154. I'm sorry, it wasn't you

it was another poster. You jumped in the middle and I got confused. Sorry about that.

[FredScuttle]

155. No problem

n/t

[DemGa]

12. Seems they are of "two minds" on the matter --- NT

[DerekJ]

13. Oh for the love of God.. There is a big difference between appearing on Fox to defend himself

against their swiftboating attempt, and her pandering to the RW media while ignoring requests from MSNBC and CNN to appear on their shows!!!

[Clintonista2]

17. Then why didnt Obama go on MSNBC or CNN to defend himself? Why Fox?

[DerekJ]

27. He did!!!!

:wtf: Where have you been?!!
He was on all major news channels!!!

[scheming daemons]

134. He did! He went on all three the same night....

....

[dchill]

139. Whoops! There goes your whole "legitimate" post!

He went on all the cable news networks that same night. If you were better informed, hell, you might be an Obama supporter.

[Clintonista2]

20. Oh and look...an illusion!

Hillary Clinton on MSNBC and CNN:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tHPwWSjjDo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGszl2_4Cts
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDT7QfFsVdk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iw9zWE7huTg

[DerekJ]

31. What illusion?!!

I didn't say she has never been there.

I said w while news channels like MSNBC and CNN have extended an open invitation to her to appear on their shows (Larry King have an open invitation for her, Obama appeared she didn't), she rejected them to go and appear on Fox News, and meet with the one who accused her of murder.

[Clintonista2]

35. You mean kind of like how Obama snubbed the philadelphia city gay newspaper, while Clinton didnt?

Kind of like that?

[DerekJ]

43. How da hell is that related to Fox news appearance?!!

Or are you just looking for a "sound bite" stupid attack.

Handy Guide to the Clintons supporting the homophobic Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA):

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5410896


I am not sure which one is worse.

And BTW, take a guess who sent a $1000.00 to Hillary before the interview. They are not a neutral impartial newspaper.

[Clintonista2]

45. Or... Obama and his spiritual advisor Donnie "The gays are killing our children" Mcclurkin?

[DerekJ]

48. Did that amount to passing a policy against them?!!

Hillary defended DOMA!! What's worse; defending a policy against the GLBT community, or this inexcusable mistake of his?

And can you stay on topic.. this is about his appearance on fox. Trying to equate his appearance to hers is disingenuous at best.

[Clintonista2]

49. Why did Hillary defend DOMA? Because she hates gay people? Nope.

Because DOMA prevented a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. It ensures the states retain jurisdiction over marriage, and as a Canadian, I'm sure you would agree that legalizing same sex marriage goes much quicker if you start small (states) rather than if you start big (federal govt).

[DerekJ]

50. SPIN SPIN ., TWIST TWIST...

Are you defending DOMA?!! Yep, what should I expect from the ones calling Fox news "fair and balanced". And defending her pandering to Scaife as a heroic act!!

Try to tell any neutral member of the GLBT community that DOMA was such a great advancement for the GLBT rights, and let me know what his/her answer is.

Ridiculous!!!

[Clintonista2]

57. Wow. Why even bother talking about stuff you don't understand?

#1) A Republican-controlled U.S. Congress, hell-bent on appeasing the fundies
#2) An American public that overwhelmingly supported a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage

Clinton did what he could under the circumstances. Is it adequate? Absolutley not. Is it better than what we would have ended up with under the circumstances? Absolutley. Do you realize how fundamentally important it is that DOMA prevented a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage? Its the reason that Mass. and N.J has full marriage equality. It starts with small steps.

[DerekJ]

60. "DOMA prevented a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage"

I'm the one who doesn’t know what I'm talking about?!!

You know it's easier to get donkey to fly a space shuttle than to pass an amendment to the constitution, right?!!

You have no fucking clue, what you are talking about. Zero !! Nada!!!

And while we are at it, do you know why the republican controlled the house and the senate then?!! Remember” HillaryCare”?!!

[Clintonista2]

63. Hillarycare? Using right wing terms now?

Universal health care was defeated thanks to a giant smear campaign. That was a battle fought by Dems, to give everybody health care. Arent you a dem?

[DerekJ]

69. Did you see the bloody quotes around the term?!!

You did right?!! You did see the quotes?!! May be I should make them in bold letters next?!! You do understand the use of quotes in this case, correct?!!

LORD!!!

Notice the Quotes in the article below:

-------SNIP------------
The plan was quickly derided as "Hillarycare" by its opponents; some protesters against it became vitriolic, and during a July 1994 bus tour to rally support for the plan, she was forced to wear a bulletproof vest at times.<134><135> The plan did not receive enough support for a floor vote in either the House or the Senate, although both chambers were controlled by Democrats, and proposal was abandoned in September of 1994.<134> Clinton later acknowledged in her book, Living History, that her political inexperience partly contributed to the defeat, but mentioned that many other factors were also responsible. The First Lady's approval ratings, which had generally been in the high-50s percent range during her first year, fell to 44 percent in April 1994 and 35 percent by September 1994.<136> Republicans made the Clinton health care plan a major campaign issue of the 1994 midterm elections,<137> which saw a net Republican gain of fifty-three seats in the House election and seven in the Senate election, winning control of both; many analysts and pollsters found the plan to be a major factor in the Democrats' defeat, especially among independent voters.<138> Opponents of universal health care would continue to use "Hillarycare" as a pejorative label for similar plans by others.<139>

---------SNIP-----------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Rodham_Clinton


She couldn't pass a much tamer Health Care bill in the house and senate when they were controlled by the Democratic Party, and her husband was president!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Not only did she fail in that, she single handedly handed them to the republicans!!!
She is a walking disaster!!

PFfffffffffttttttt11

[dsc]

133. It would have passed easily if it got the 2/3 votes in both houses

and remember they were GOP controlled at the time. I can think of only a handful of states, surely not 13, that would have stood up to this. My guess is the 6 New England states, New York, California, Illinois, Wisconsin and Minnesota, and that is assuming that there wasn't GOP control of those midwestern states at that point.

[Bluenorthwest]

115. Doma was exactly as the other poster says

I was there buddy. It was an endrun against altering the Constitution against gay people. No one has ever said it was an advancment of rights. Your false characterizations make your arguments seem desperate. The other poster did not say what you claim he did, and that is not fair play.
What you say is false, what the other poster says is dead on accurate. I'm gay and undecided, and old and accomplished enought to have spoken directly with the Clinton administration about the issue as it progressed. The other poster was not defening DOMA. They were stating historically accurate context.
Without that McClurkin/Cladwell/Evangelical crap I'd say the two are about equal on GLBT issues, but that crap happened and it spoke volumes.
I have no candidate I really am excited about. This weekend I will hear speeches from both campaigns live and ask some questions if I can. I have a coin to flip if I have to. But spinning history I lived through just will not do the trick.

[Hugabear]

53. "DOMA prevented a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage"

You really believe that?

Are you aware of just how difficult it is to actually pass an amendment to the Constitution? Just because a bunch of whacko religious nutjobs wanted a constitutional amendment, doesn't mean that it was very likely.

[Hepburn]

70. Have you ever taken AND passed a HS level US Civics class?

If you had, you would have never posted anything this ignorant. Your argument is bullshit because of the process involved in amending the US Const. Since you are a Canadian and not a US citizen, this one time you get a pass on your ignorance. Please try and not do it again. If you are going make a point about how the US govt functions, at least make an informed one, OK?

What you posted is what some RW moron would post. :eyes:

[DerekJ]

74. Lirwin2 is a Canadian?!!

How did you know that?!!

[Hepburn]

82. I know....and I commented on it.

That is why he/she got a pass on this one time. If he/she is gonna comment on who the US Govt works, he/she should be informed. Like passing a Const Amend is a breeze...and DOMA was done to prevent that?

LMAO....:rofl:

[Clintonista2]

75. What am I wrong on?

Didnt think so.

[DerekJ]

78. LoooL

:rofl:
You are nothing but wrong.

I hate to chastise a fellow Canadian, but man!!! you are an embarrassment.

[Clintonista2]

79. Again I ask, what am I wrong on?

[DerekJ]

84. See post 60, and 53.

[Clintonista2]

86. I took a look at both. Both attacked me without specifically pointing out what I was wrong on

[Hepburn]

85. The dittohead position that DOMA was to prevent a Const Amendment.

Do you even have Clue One on how stupid that statement is?

So, if you are NOT a Canadian, then answer this question: Have you ever taken AND passed a HS level US Civics class?

BTW: If you had...you would not be asking the question in regard to where you went wrong.

[Clintonista2]

91. *Sigh* more Obama supporter personal attacks. You guys really set a great tone.

I'll respond to you anyways.

#1) Do you deny that DOMA leaves the issue of same sex marriage entirely up to the state?
#2) Do you deny that DOMA quenched the thirst of the 1996 *Republican* congress for further action on marriage INequality?
#3) Do you actually believe that a veto can override nearly unanimous support in congress?


Now if you're going to respond to me, try acting like an adult and save the personal attacks, or else I'll treat you like a child.

[Hepburn]

94. Dittohead is a reference to Rush Limbaugh...

...<sigh>

And...knock of the personal attacks, OK? I will match my education and experience against yours to answer those questions any day. But...those simplistic questions do not frame the true issue. Let's discuss your averment, OK?

Your stance, as I understand it, is that DOMA was done to prevent an Amend to the Const. That is not true due to the difficulty of doing this. It is a ludicrous position to take.

The problem with DOMA in reference to your first question is the comity clause of the US Const. Care to discuss that issue?

[Clintonista2]

95. Answer my questions first

Thanks.

[DerekJ]

97. HE JUST DID!!!

Oh boy!! We all did, yet you keep coming saying we didn't!!

[Clintonista2]

102. I listed 3 questions in my post, I didnt get an answer to any of them

[DerekJ]

109. Here:

#1) Do you deny that DOMA leaves the issue of same sex marriage entirely up to the state?

-----------SNIP------------

• No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) need recognize a marriage between persons of the same sex, even if the marriage was concluded or recognized in another state.
• The Federal Government may not recognize same-sex or polygamous marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states.
----------------SNIP------------------

That's called preventing other states, and the federal government from recognizing those rights, not vice versa!!

#2) Do you deny that DOMA quenched the thirst of the 1996 *Republican* congress for further action on marriage INequality?

We answered that in posts number 60 and 53.


#3) Do you actually believe that a veto can override nearly unanimous support in congress?

No, but a veto would have at least sent a signal they are against it, on the contrary there were some defending arguments from them .


Is that satisfactory enough.

Don't defend DOMA, it will only show you as an Idiot.

[Clintonista2]

108. Alright I can see my questions scared you off. Sorry for the tough questions.

I need to leave now, but when I come back hopefully you will have an answer.

[DerekJ]

110. Your question didn't scare anybody, they were dumb enough to make many just shake their heads and

skip them.

[Hepburn]

114. LOL....

...what a spin. Your questions are not relevant to the issue of Amending the US Const.

I used to teach HS Government before I went to law school. You remind me of a student who has not done his/her homework and thus wishes to avoid the real questions.

Try again...no cigar.

[Clintonista2]

130. Oh gee, you're so successful

Since we're now measuring who's right and who's wrong by how successful you are in life, then you should probably know that Clinton went to Yale and then later became PRESIDENT... and he disagrees with you.


Check Mate.

[BornBlue]

76. Honest Question that is bugging me.

As a Canadian, why do you have such an interest in an American Democratic Primary? Really, this is not an attack, I am just struggling to understand where your rage comes from.

[Clintonista2]

81. Who said I was Canadian?

Other than a few Obamabots that dont know me? That rumor started with Wolsh over a year ago.

[DerekJ]

88. Don't start that!! Lirwin and me are both Canadians, and there are many many reasons why we would be

interested in your elections.

I can list 6 or 7 reasons all important ones.
Here is one: Our troops in Afghanistan.

[BornBlue]

99. It is not an insult, in fact

After Bush stole his second term, I told everyone I am moving to Canada. I was so embarrassed by my country. I respect that you have an interest in US affairs. Thank you for honestly answering my question!

[DerekJ]

101. :) Thanks

:hi:

[NeedleCast]

44. So what, they're all expected to talk to all the same media?

You make the most ridiculous arguments...

[DerekJ]

51. The only one ridiculous here, is you and the OP asinine argument.

Sitting with Scaife was such a heroic act too, right?!!

[Florida22ndDistrict]

33. re: while ignoring requests from MSNBC and CNN to appear on their shows

I'm curious, do you think that CNN is left wing media? Hmm, let see. Looking over the past few years regarding their network I remember embedded journalists with the military during the invasion of Iraq smiling and hyping up the situation. CNN reporters putting the war on the big screens with great excitement. Then you had the constant fear mongering over terrorists and the color coded alert system. Then you had CNN confusing the issue of climate change for long stretches of time so as to keep it a debate. Then you had a large increase in coverage of religious stories and religious undertones in normal reporting since the arrival of Kiran Chetry & John Roberts on American Morning (attempt to attract the religious right). To top it off, their number one rated show has made illegal immigration their top story for about 2 years. Ah, so that's the opposition to right wing media hmm... Ok, I understand now.

[DerekJ]

52. So now CNN/MSNBC is in the same basket as FOX!!

Yep, Fox is "Fair and Balanced" ... Have you all gone bonkers?!!!

[Evergreen Emerald]

65. yes...they are in the same basket as Fox. There is no balance or fairness

on any of the networks.

[Clintonista2]

66. Agreed

[Florida22ndDistrict]

73. re: So now CNN/MSNBC is in the same basket as FOX!!

None of the three networks you mentioned are fair or balanced. None of them have even been remotely close for quite a long time. Those three networks favor big business. They promote wars. The bury stories on civil and human rights. The bury stories on civil dissent. Many times they have undertones of bigotry in their reporting. They are rightward leaning to hard right on most issues. If you want some since of balance you have to be picky these days.

For example C-SPAN's Washington Journal is relatively balanced for political news being that they have guests on from both sides to get their points across and they allow the public to ask many of the questions. It is slightly unbalanced due to the fact that republicans get slightly more calls then democrats and independents hardly get any voice. Given that it is still pretty balanced. The anchors try not to impose their bias on their audience.

Democracy Now, a show broadcast on too many networks to list here is semi-moderate left media (as in, not hard left media).

LinkTV is also semi-moderate left media with in depth documentaries on many issues in the spot light today. They have shows that address civil rights issues. They also run some foreign news reports (German and several middle eastern news networks) to give you a view of how others view us.

Free Speech TV is left wing media.

NPR is somewhat balanced radio. Not completely balanced, but more so then things like Rush or Air America.

Pacifica Radio is left wing radio.

[DerekJ]

90. I've never claimed CNN/MSNBC are fair and balanced.

I said don't try to compare them to Fox news.
And hell NO, I am NOT going to have to explain, on a democratic progressive forum why you shouldn't give credibility to a channel like Fox!!

Riiiiidiiicuuullouuuuss!!

[Florida22ndDistrict]

93. I see you have your eyes wide shut...

[DemVet]

39. Uh....

...there is NO difference.

[DerekJ]

47. Bullshit!!! Fox news was the one hammering him on Wright, and literally the one who first started

airing the sound bites. And not going to defend himself would subtle admission of guilt. You know damn well there is a big difference.

[tekisui]

14. It's the history of it. Hillary has a Drudge liason, Bill does RW radio

Hillary panders on Fox. They are cozy with the RW media. Obama went on to defend himself, not to promote his campaign.

[Clintonista2]

16. Ahh I see. "Reaching out" is restricted to Obama

When Hillary does it, its "pandering"

[tekisui]

18. When you add up the layers, that's the appearance.

And, in the end, appearance is what matters.

[Maine-ah]

15. personally, I don't think either of them should be on FOX.

but, I'm not holding it against them either. They do have alot of viewers who vote. I do not like it though when supporters of either candidate use right wing sources to attack the candidates.

[Lerkfish]

19. you could have a valid point, EXCEPT for the fact that Rupert Murdoch, who owns FOX

is a huge Clinton donor and supports her candidacy. They've organized fundraisers together, and there is a obvious quid pro quo relationship.

Is this also true of Michelle Obama?

[Clintonista2]

21. Murdochs daughter has organized fundraisers for Obama

So yes.

[Lerkfish]

30. link?

[Clintonista2]

34. Here:

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/01/murdochs-daughter-hosts-obama-fund-raiser/

[DerekJ]

55. Since when did we start punish the kids with the sins of their fathers?!!!!!

[Clintonista2]

58. Ever since campaign finance reform forced rich people to donate money through them

[DerekJ]

62. ASSumptions, Speculations, that's all what you have.

Explain this to me?!! Do you really think Obama is waiting for the 2,300 hundred dollars form Murdoch's daughter?!!

Murdoch’s daughter is not Murdoch. Period. Most of my family is conservatives, I am a liberal. Am I a mole of some sort now?!!

[Clintonista2]

64. Wait... assumptions and speculations?

Kind of like the ASSumption that there is quid pro quo between Hillary and Murdoch?

[DerekJ]

72. Assumptions about Murdoch?!! Really?!!

What?! Are we giving Murdoch the benefit of the doubt now?!!

[Clintonista2]

77. So you would agree that its not below Murdoch to funnel money through his daughter?

[DerekJ]

80. No it's not below him. But you first have to prove that his daughter is of the same caliper.

Meanwhile, you have no argument.

[Clintonista2]

92. No, actually you have to prove that Murdoch and Hillary have some sort of quid pro quo set up

Since that claim was made first.

[DerekJ]

96. RW media pandering, Exclusive interviews to FOX news. Scaife!!

How about those for a reason to start questioning their relationship?!

[Clintonista2]

100. Alright, and just before his daughters fundraiser, Obama appears on Fox

Quid pro quo.

[DerekJ]

104. I'm not going to repeat myself.. see post #13.

[Clintonista2]

106. And Im not going to either. Obama and Murdoch= Quid Pro Quo

[DerekJ]

111. Whatever helps you sleep at night.

[Clintonista2]

131. Buddy, I dont lose any sleep over Obama appearing on Fox News

Although I'm starting to get the impression that you do.

[11 Bravo]

127. "Am I a mole of some sort now?"

If it quacks like a duck ...

[DerekJ]

152. Then it's up your a$$

[Lerkfish]

56. thanks for the link

[PoliticalAmazon]

120. Yep. Murdock has hosted several big-bucks fund-raisers for HRC. n/t

[MethuenProgressive]

24. IOKIBODI

I think he called it the "ol' okey-doke".

[Forkboy]

136. Does Clinton going on Fox bother you?

[rodeodance]

25. REC for the truth

[Mezzo]

28. iokiybo nt

[stevenleser]

29. *plonk*

[MethuenProgressive]

41. Is "plonk" French for "Nobody loves me, everybody hates me, I'm gonna eat some worms"?

It seems as though it must be.

[TahitiNut]

59. PLONK = "Person with Little Or No Knowledge"

Seems apt. :shrug:

[SaveOurDemocracy]

140. heh...

:hi:

[cooolandrew]

32. Never attacked either for being on Fox myself but however you cut it they aren't Democrats friends..

[harun]

37. It would be better if no Democrats went on Fox, ever (n/t)

[cooolandrew]

40. The thing that does unsettle me is some HRC supporters are watching fox ALL the time and the ...

manipulation the channel uses has produced McCain Democrats. McCain as amiable as he can be, is not our friend an will remove womens rights in a heart beat or restrict any freedoms the gay community has.That is what his base wants, no two ways about it. So I plead and beg don't be pulled in. Yes, sometimes watching is enevitiable but most times they are working against us, even when it seem sthey are not.

[MethuenProgressive]

42. It's obvious after a decade of HillHate of FOX, the HillHaters became DUbamas.

Propaganda works on weak minds.

[Rosemary2205]

54. No slams to either from me - but I'd like them both to tell Faux to get bent.

Anything to do with that bunch of liars just legitimizes them. No point in that.

[Political Heretic]

61. Answer:

I don't. I haven't criticized either candidate for appearing on FOXNews. I think its strange and disconcerting for both of them to do it.

[rox63]

67. I wish all Dems would boycott Fox

But like it or not, the nominee is going to have to win over some folks who sometimes vote Republican. I don't hold appearances on Fox against Hillary. But she is way too cozy with Murdoch and Scaife.

[izzybeans]

71. I could give a shit where they speak as long as they do so in support of

democratic policy.

[Medusa]

83. Exactly.

I've never criticized Hillary for giving an interview to Fox. I HAVE criticized her for cozying up to the likes of Rupert Murdoch and the Sciafe guy. Why don't YOU (the OP) and other HRC supporters explain THAT?

[izzybeans]

87. I agree. That is a more important question

no matter who the candidate is.

[AnarchoFreeThinker]

89. I have no problem with either appearing on Fox. I have a problem with either camp capitalizing on...

Fox's smears of the other candidate.

[BigDDem]

98. Hello, flock? Cat got your tongue?

Hillary gets slammed every time her name turns up on FOX.
When Barry goes on to tap dance around "God Damn America" it's "Brilliant!"

[madrchsod]

116. barry? oh that`s so right wing of you

[BigDDem]

117. His yearbook was very right wing too!

Thanks for sharing!
:rofl:

[merh]

103. .

[snooper2]

105. I think it's the frequency she appears...

and the fact that her whole posse go on faux news...

When is she doing the Hardball college tour again?

[mckeown1128]

107. I am disapointed in Obama and Clinton for going on fox.nt

[SIMPLYB1980]

112. K&R.

[ProSense]

113. Ask Ed Rendell

Video: Gov. Ed Rendell (D-PA): Fox News IS Fair and Balanced

[Cheap_Trick]

118. if you hillbots spin any faster

you can take off and fly like a helicopter.

[ampad]

145. They have nothing else

It would be funny if some of them were not so damn pathetic. It will be over soon, thank god.

[kdpeters]

119. Local news on a Fox television affiliate is not the Fox News Channel

Are you kidding me with this? Taking you at your word being honest, I'll explain that the Fox News Channel is a right wing propaganda arm of the Republican party and no Democrat or open government advocate has any business contributing to their right wing disinformation agenda or legitimizing them as a reputable news source. I have no objection to Fox Television. I've been a Simpson fan for 18 years. It's specifically the Fox News Channel. Michelle Obama did not appear on Fox News Channel. I hope that's clear now.


Then there's always the exception that proves the rule and Baracks appearance on Fox News Channel is it. He was confronting a vicious racist smear campaign at its source which happened to be Fox News Channel. In this instance, given the importance and the urgency of the smear campaign needing a response and the damage and harm it threatened, I personally find on balance that going on Fox News Channel was unfortunately the better decision than not. Even if you disagree with which way the options balance out, you must acknowledge that this smear campaign was presenting extraordinary circumstances that you can understand his decision.

[redqueen]

122. It's not so much her appearances on Fox & Friends or Morning Joe that bother me...

it's when you combine those with the fact that she was leaking fundraising figures to Drudge before releasing them to the media... and that her campaign reportedly had a frickin LIAISON for Drudge... that's the kind of thing that reeks of yuck...

But thank you for adding that detail. :hi:

[Cali_Democrat]

126. Your absolutely right

A local Fox affiliate is not the same thing as the Fox News Channel. No way.

[MadBadger]

125. I dont.

[weezie1317]

132. It's not that she's interviewed on Fox, it's what she says when she is interviewed. ()

[dchill]

138. The difference? Simple - Hillary goes on Fox News...

for the camaraderie. And that's a legitimate answer.

[PBS Poll-435]

141. Fox Fuck

Hearts Obama...

http://www.observer.com/2008/fox-frenemies

[dchill]

142. I hope for your sake that you are kidding.

Chris Wallace just wants to build up enough cred with Obama to get him on his show. Hasn't happened yet. Probably won't.

[PBS Poll-435]

143. Sure...

Him and Brian Kilmeade -

LEAVE OBAMA ALONE! You are lucky that he is even in the campaign.!

[dchill]

144. * sigh *

I AM lucky that he is in the campaign. So are you.

[PBS Poll-435]

148. Chuckle...

I thank the stars, daily.

[rinsd]

146. Forgetting whether there's a double standard, those videos should not be posted here.

That Michelle one is quite nasty.