For once you could hear some progressive candidates speak out (Kucinich, Gravel) instead of being drowned out by the corporately sponsored "big 3" you see everywhere.

People must be really naive to think that FOX news is much different than any other major news network. The difference between FOX and whatever you think are "liberal" news networks is the same as the difference between Republicans and Democrats today. They spout on and on about some trivial divisive issues and when it comes to the big picture you get the same results from both.

That would be the one FOX "news" program I would surely watch.

As was alluded to by another commenter, when Republicans will attend a debate hosted by Arianna Huffington in front of liberals, then maybe it would make sense for Democrats to go on Fox Noise in front of their neocon Kool-aid drinkers.

Otherwise (meaning you, tiberius) take your name-calling back to kindergarten where your playmates are waiting for you.

Why didn't the choose the Repugnican convention?

made a disgusting public statement concerning the "troop hating senators" who voted NO in the recent preemptive war funding bill. Biden knows, as does any jackass, that the troops would not be denied any weapon or armor (that they haven't been denied already) if the war was de-funded. Jesus Christ, how many army guys were killed for lack of funds when the war in Viet Nam was de-funded?

He knows that, Bush knows that, and so do any of the idiot caved democrats who voted yes. The funding would be cut, the troops would proceed to an orderly withdrawal from the field and no more americans would be obliterated because they were driving around looking for a reason to drive around. That they would somehow be left to scrounge for bullets and c-rations is a nauseating and brazen falsehood the Bidens, Bushes,and Liebermans would want the less knowledgeable citizenry to believe.

Why doesn't someone from the "liberal press" take this head-on? Oh yeah, there barely is a free press...

Fox isn't the only game in town and it's not like they're not going to lie anyway. Screw them. If fringe candidates want to play, I guess they have to given the limited exposure they already have. But for everyone else, participating in the Official Media Outlet of the White House is unnecessary. Our Ministry of Information should spend its time declaring that the earth is flat and mercury is health food, like it usually does.

...on a regular basis does not vote democratic and will not be voting for a democrat. Simple as that. Why would any self respecting candidate appear on the Fox network to be gamed when there's no upside?

I say, when the Republican candidates agree to a debate hosted by Air America, the Democrats should accept a debate hosted by Fox.

I'm sorry - what makes Kucinich et al. less legitimate candidates than Sen. Clinton, Edwards and Obama? Granted, the latter three have more money and media recognition; however, the nomination should be won based on a weighing of ideas, not coffers. The media's obsession with fundraising is doing an extreme disservice to our national political discourse. Let's focus more on the candidates' agendas and plans and less on how much or little money they raise in a given quarter.

To that end, boycotting the Fox News debate is infantile. Like it or not, the channel is a media power, watched by the very people Democrats need to reach in order to retake the White House in 2008. Boycotting the debate does nothing to undermine Fox News's legitimacy or popularity.

Bush will NEVER reach the tipping point -- here's an excerpt from an AP story that gives proof of how terminally out-of-touch he is, and will likely remain:

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,137382,00.html?ESRC=army-a.nl

- - - - - - - -

On Iraq, Bush Says Public is with Him

Associated Press | May 30, 2007

WASHINGTON - Confronted with strong opposition to his Iraq policies, President George W. Bush decides to interpret public opinion his own way. Actually, he says, people agree with him.

Democrats view the November elections that gave them control of Congress as a mandate to bring U.S. troops home from Iraq. They are backed by evidence; election exit poll surveys by The Associated Press and television networks found 55 percent saying the U.S. should withdraw some or all of its troops from Iraq.

Bush says Democrats have it all wrong: the public does not want the troops pulled out - they want to give the military more support in its mission.

"Last November, the American people said they were frustrated and wanted a change in our strategy in Iraq," he said April 24, ahead of a veto showdown with congressional Democrats over their desire to legislation a troop withdrawal timeline. "I listened. Today, General David Petraeus is carrying out a strategy that is dramatically different from our previous course."

What I'm about to write is painful, but, needs to be considered.

What if the only way for this President to see the error of his ways in Iraq is for the body-count of American soldiers and marines to be so high as to preclude any option except a phased near-term withdrawal of those soldiers and marines?

How many deaths will it take for him to realize his mind-numbingly arrogant decision to invade Iraq based on nothing but flawed intelligence was monumentally flawed? How many of our finest young men and women will have to be butchered by IED's, by jihadists and by some within the Iraqi government itself before Mr. Bush realizes his tactical error?

The "body-count" is a staple in the media: CNN runs a daily tally of killed, wounded and missing, MSNBC runs a similar grim statistic and the Sunday morning talk shows even run a sad pictorial "In Memoriam" featuring the entire last week's dead...with mournful music backgrounds.

Since Mr. Bush is now saying that we should prepare for "a bloody summer" and "I envision a long stay for our troops in Iraq...ten years perhaps", are we ready for thousands MORE of our troops to be killed in a systematic slaughter?

The body-count mounts, families continually grieve, shredded soldiers face a lifetime of difficulties and the drip, drip, drip of death continues unabated.

Ask yourself, Mr. President: how many will have to die for your lie?