It’s hard to put into words just how bad an idea the Nevada Democratic Party came up with for their Democratic debate.  Neigh on impossible, actually.  Yellow Dog takes on the news with the best style I’ve read so far:

BobGeiger.com: Fox News Sponsoring Democratic Debate; Fur Council and PETA Merge

And, as much as I was sure I was hearing something that was fabricated on, well, Fox News, I have since found out that it’s true that the Nevada Democratic Party will indeed allow the network that loves to hate on Democrats to broadcast the state’s August Democratic presidential debate.

What are you going to tell me next? That Britney Spears shaved her head while I was gone?

Indeed. And what, pray-tell, is the Democratic National Committee’s response to all this? Certainly, not all Democrats want to send their party and our nation further down the toilet? Please, let’s hear from the hero of the party. Let’s hear it from the man who had the balls to call the country on the war before anyone was ready. Let us now hear from the man who we all put so much faith in to lead the party to a brighter future:

Dems in uproar over Fox plan to cover debate

“This is about talking to voters, not a network,” Dean said Thursday. “While the Fox News Channel rarely has coverage that is fair and balanced, we believe that Fox viewers, who are potential voters, should have the opportunity to see a debate between our candidates. These forums provide an important unfiltered opportunity for potential voters to see Democrats without the bias of the network.”

Oh, man. Howard, just STFU, already.  “Unfiltered?”  That’s the whole problem: they already consider themselves “fair and balanced,” of course they’re going to tell you that they’re giving you the “unfiltered” debate, but they won’t.

Remember the whole controversy with Bush and the supposed wire during the debates in ‘04?  Yeah, camera angles and unflattering cut-aways matter.  So does the ticker at the bottom of the screen.  So, even, does sound mixing.

And as the above-linked article points out, so does post-debate analysis.  Letting Fox’s bullpen of hyper-conservative pundits loose on the air immediately after the debate is bound to turn whatever enthusiasm drummed up by a given challenger into cold oatmeal in seconds.  Oh, maybe they won’t tear anyone apart right away, but the entire discussion will be “well, Bush screwed up, so I guess we have to pick one of these losers.”

“But the real question, I think is,” drawls Robert Novak, leaned back in his chair, “can Americans stomach four years of Hillary Clinton as president?  I mean, because I just don’t see anyone else winning in this field.”

Kirsten Searer, the only representative from the Nevada Democratic Party without the requisite seniority to avoid talking to the press, said “A 50-state strategy means talking to every American.”  Then she emptied the trash, put a new liner in, and pushed her cart on to the next cube.

OK, Kirsten, fair enough.  But until Howard Dean dresses up in a latex mask, leather thong and nipple rings for an appearance at a fetish rodeo, he hasn’t quite spoken to everyone, now has he?  Why should we start with Fox News before hitting up the ball-gag crowd?

Technorati Tags: Democrats, Fox, Debates, Journalist Watching

powered by performancing firefox