^ maybe but I hope not oxymoronic….Faux news would probably load the questions in Obama’s favor.  Temporarily making him look good, but then comes the blowback which wouldn’t help him.  News analysts would spin the crap out of it…certainly I may be off in this, but never underestimate….....anyway, why give Faux news any credibility?  Does that help or is my “logic” too twisted?

an ocean started with a single drop of water. I am hopeful (not the Obama brand of HOPE though) that not only neocons turn to FOX. I am a reasonable person who trun to FOX for the BEST entertainment.

Papeehara:

My thoughts exactly.  Wouldn’t this give BOTH of them (Obama, Clinton) a golden opportunity to offer “corrective” to FOX and its viewers?  (That is, if they don’t pander for their votes…LOL.)

Maybe, as GB suggests, FOX will “ask the candidates the most idiotic neocon garbarge questions to entertain their redneck audience.”  But if both candidates are smart, they will use those “idiotic neocon garbage questions” to show just how idiotic the neocons are.  And while it is unlikely that either of them will change the minds of any of the neocon “dittoheads” (and we are assuming that HAVE “minds” to change…LOL), it never hurts to try!

Peace.

MAANI: I CAN BREATH AGAIN LOL!

MAYBE OBAMA CAN SPREAD HIS WORD OF HOPE AND CHANGE AND INSPIRE FOX TO SEE THE “SILLINESS” OF THEIR IDEOLOGIES. AS A “UNITER-IN-CHIEF” OBAMA COULD DRESS THE “FOX IN SHEEP’S CLOTHING” AS IS CONSISTENT WITH HIS RELIGIOUS FLIP FLOPS.

papeehara:

Finally!  Something you and I agree on!  LOL.

And to farmertx’s comment that “Debate among some of the world’s less mainstream leader’s can hardly be compared to a tacit approval of a blatant propaganda machine for the Neo-con movement,” I would ask: So you think it is okay to sit down with a leader (Ahmadinejad) who denies the Holocaust and thinks Israel should be “wiped off the map,” but it is not okay to debate on a station that may well be a sop for the right wing (and perhaps even a propaganda machine), even though the only benefit FOX would get is having alot of extra viewers that evening?

Hmmm…

Peace.

Expat:

I was basically with you until, “As an aside, Faux News would probably pander to Obama (I’m sure they hate Hillary), which would be to his advantage of course…...but not really, in the long run!”

Excuse me?  Do you want to explain this comment?  Why would it be to Obama’s advantage, “but not in the long run?”  This seems oxymoronic.

Peace.

Debate among some of the World’s less mainstream leader’s can hardly be compared to a tacit approval of a blatant propaganda machine for the Neo-con movement.
Hillary being so willing to go on their show just shows that she took some money and is having to earn it now.
Maybe this time she will leave off the onion vapors and hold the tears in check.
Regardless, she lost this Democrat when she announced that taking money from Special Interest Groups was not wrong.

^ is @ Maani

^ as jackpine savage says above, why pander to Faux News.  Dems should be boycotting those emotionally vacuous printers of many vagaries and less than accurate pontificators.  Obama and Hillary can debate; just not on Faux news.  He can agree to debate anywhere else.  As an aside, Faux News would probably pander to Obama (I’m sure they hate Hillary), which would be to his advantage of course…...but not really, in the long run!  Why give Faux News any credibility?

i,Q,  you gave me the best laugh of my evening; young bison, LOL (a lot) thanks so much.

This is what happens when James Carville and Bill Frist drink Coca Cola and tour the capital in a convertible double decker bus.

Not that i’m terribly surprised, it is typical of the Clinton machine. When the going gets tough, set double standards and cheat. Or play the gender card… or the race card… or cry… or complain that the media is giving free passes… or sue the DNC to reinstate the delegates from FL and MI…

If Barrack doesn’t accept BoxedNews’ invitation, Hillary can use the airtime to revisit her vote to authorize the war… “finally, an audience who really gets me!”

Whoa there, young bison. This story broke—among other sources—on the Daily Show like five hours ago. You might want to wait until Barrack has a chance to eat breakfast before you slit his throat.

IF OBAMA IS WILLING TO SIT DOWN AND TALK WITH THE WORLD’S DICTATORS AND CALL A SUMMIT OF MUSLIM NATIONS AS SOON AS HE ENTERS THE WHITEHOUSE WHY WOULD HE SHY AWAY FROM FOX, EVEN IF HE DOES NOT AGREE WITH THEIR POLITICS? WHAT A HYPOCRITE.

Faux News is a blatant propaganda machine for the Neo-cons. Roger Ailes worked for Richard Nixon did he not? Did they not just hire Carl Rove as a political consultant. Let’s not even get in to O’Reilly, Hannitty, Hume, Gibson and ‘special’ appearances by Mann Coulter. They are all sycophants and shills.

I have to question anyone’s motives for being willing to deal with this network.

Who in that campaign thought that this would be a good idea?  Moreover, who thought that this morning would be a good time to tell the world about it?

This will only light the activist blogosphere up with flaming hatred.  And what kind of Democrat breaks the agreed upon boycott of Fox anyhow?

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.  After all, Obama made “positive” comments about Reagan, got lambasted for it, and then noted that it was wrong to suggest that one could not say ANYTHING good about someone who may have been “bad” in many ways.

If Obama now refuses to debate on FOX, and tries to demonize Hillary for being willing to do so, he will certainly look (if not be) hypocritical.

Peace.