It’s hard to describe the Clinton campaign’s decision to do a 180 and accept an invitation to participate in a debate hosted by Fox News as anything other than nuts.

According to the Lear Center, Fox News is the most politically divisive news channel. 70% of its daily viewers are conservative and only 3% are liberal.

Via The Hill, a Media Vote study paints an equally imbalanced picture of the Fox audience:

Yet, in our 2004 polling with Media Vote, using Nielsen diaries, we found that Fox News viewers supported George Bush over John Kerry by 88 percent to 7 percent. No demographic segment, other than Republicans, was as united in supporting Bush. Conservatives, white evangelical Christians, gun owners, and supporters of the Iraq war all gave Bush fewer votes than did regular Fox News viewers.

Moreover, Democrats are getting huge turnouts in the polls so far. The viewership for their debates on other networks is through the roof. Fortunately it looks like the Obama campaign is currently holding the line on Fox debates:

“As of right now, there are no debates on our schedule at all,” Burton told the Huffington Post. “We’ll figure out our schedule, including any debates, soon.”

The good news is that you can’t have a debate with just one candidate there (though I did see Tom Tancredo be the only GOP candidate in attendance at the NAACP Presidential Forum in July, which was hilarious). I’m all for more head to head debates between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, particularly if the Democratic nominating process might run all the way to the convention. But there’s no reason to hold future debates on Fox News.


It’s worth noting that Robert Greenwald’s Brave New Films series of “Fox Attacks” videos are as convincing a body of evidence as any other for Democrats to avoid Fox News.

3 thoughts on “Nuts

  1. Free media for a campaign running low on cash?

    Gets to look tough by going in to the lions den?

    As good as Obama is, HRC shines at the debates. By going on the offense, if he says no she gets to claim superiority… A good move by HRC… but it is also sort of an underdog move…


  2. Mike the issue isn’t whether or not Clinton should be challenging Obama for a debate – I’d be content if they had one a week from now until the convention.

    It’s simple: Democrats should not validate Fox News. It’s a partisan Republican propaganda outlet and there’s simply no reason to go on. Saying yes isn’t tough, it’s stupid.

    Let’s concede that this makes her look more tough than Obama. Who is she going to claim superiority to if he says “no”? That is, what constituency is she helping herself in? If the answer is “Republicans,” then she hasn’t actually helped herself.


  3. Agreed… I was arguing the wrong point to your subject.

    She could claim her willingness to debate (on fox) as a (false) badge of honor. To fellow dems whom may be worried if Obama is tough enough for the general she gets to say, “I’m tough enough to take what ever they can throw at me, I’ve done it for 35 years. How can BHO survive the the general if he will not debate in this environment.”

    I’m not saying he should but you can see the spin she could get of of it.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s