This is definitely great news.

Congrats on the new job, btw.

Score.

The geographic location where this debate would have been held is Republican by 2:1.  Think of how big an audience of Republicans our Democratic candidates could have reached.  Those who have a real message had the potential to introduce themselves and possibly bring a few along.  I don't see what it accomplished.

If you can't stand up to one of the Fox News talking head, can you take the heat with combative or dangerous world leaders?

This is called backbone... standing up to the extremists.  Did you watch this?  http://www.youtube.c...

NOBODY. It's an extremist Republican outlet, even moderate soft Republicans know it's a joke. Besides, Bush barely won Nevada in '04. Nevada is no longer red, it's clearly in the purple column.

Almost one quarter of their viewers are Democrats, and almost another quarter are Independents.  Then, there are those moderate Republicans.  Just because you don't watch Fox, and I don't watch Fox, doesn't mean that no one who watches Fox votes Democratic. 

Wouldn't they want to now pick it up?

Cheers to Edwards, Richardson, Carson City Dems.

Jeers to Howard Dean who once called Fox News a GOP propoganda tool, and then did a complete 180 when it came to this debate. I'm still in shock that someone with his integrity would stoop to something like this.

According to Think Progress:  http://thinkprogress...

(There's video there also.)

On Fox News' Beltway Boys, co-host Mort Kondracke blasted the decision by the Nevada Democratic Party to pull out of a Fox News-sponsored presidential debate.  Kondracke said, "This tells you a lot about what Moveon.org, Daily Kos kind of left-wing liberals are all about. I mean they are not about free speech and free debate." He added, "This is junior grade Stalinism on their part." Defending his network, Kondracke claimed, "If Fox was embarrassingly right wing or something like that, it would be plain for all to see."

Junior grade Stalinism?  I don't think Kondracke understands the implications of his comment.  Democratic liberals killed millions of dissidents? 

These Fox blowhards don't even know basic European history.

If he wanted to allege that the Democrats are against free speech (and clearly he's never been to a Democratic meeting)  a better analogy would have been -- "This is junior grade Albertogonzalezism" . . .

Until this moment, I pictured this whole thing as a Lucy Fox News luring Charlie Brown Democrats to kick the football.

I am glad that the candidates listened to us.

I have only been following this with one eye and ear -- but John Aravosis reports that Edwards is going after Fox again:

http://americablog.b...

In recent weeks they [Fox] have run blatant lies about Senator Obama's background. And Fox was only too happy to give Ann Coulter a platform to spew more hate a few days after her bigoted attack on Senator Edwards and the gay community.

Now it's time for Democrats to stand together and send a clear message to Roger Ailes, Fox News and all the rest of them***we need to send the message to Fox that if they want to be the corporate mouthpiece of the Republican Party more than they want to be an impartial news outlet, they shouldn't expect Democrats to play along.

Good.  It's time for all the Democratic candidates to refuse to play nice with Fox.

For the sake of argument, let's say "Faux News" is a far-right, conservative mouthpiece.

Could someone explain to this poor conservative why it would be a bad thing, for Democrats, to have a Democratic debate on Fox?

My thinking sort of went along the lines of this op-ed:

But liberals' aversion to Fox News has finally gone over the top. The Nevada Democratic Party had agreed to let the right-tilting network co-sponsor, of all things, an August debate in Reno between Democratic presidential candidates. Party officials were serious about drawing national attention to the state's January presidential caucus, the country's second in the 2008 nominating process. What better way for the party to reach conservative and "values" voters who might consider changing allegiances?

But the socialist, Web-addicted wing of the Democratic Party was apoplectic. The prospect of having to watch Fox News to see their own candidates would have been torture in itself. So they set the blogosphere aflame with efforts to kill the broadcast arrangement, or at least have all the candidates pull out of the event. Before Friday, the opportunistic John Edwards was the only candidate to jump on that bandwagon.

You'd think the deal called for having Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter mock the candidates between comments. No, even unfiltered, unedited, live debate between loyal Democrats couldn't be entrusted to Fox News.

[...] Imagine if every political organization created litmus tests for news organizations before agreeing to appear on their programming. Republicans would have boycotted PBS, CBS, NBC, ABC, National Public Radio and The Associated Press decades ago.

I am a bit puzzled over this one. Would someone please explain what the rationale is?

This Link will make you understand.

I can only imagine what would be said/written by Fox News during the debate.

The main issue is, when Fox controls the message, people ware misinformed in favor of liars.

(I hesitate to say Republicans, because I respect Republicans like Charles Mathias and the Republican that Connie Morella used to be before she allowed herself to be badgered into a Newt Gingrich Republican.)

A new study based on a series of seven US polls [by PIPA] conducted from January through September of this year reveals that before and after the Iraq war, a majority of Americans have had significant misperceptions and these are highly related to support for the war in Iraq.