Dionne has a column in today’s WP which elaborates even further on the FOX debate issue.
He blames the network for leaking information on Obama and poses the question, with that credibility, why debate on Fox?
This, after all, is the network that in January floated a false report that Obama had been educated at a madrassa. The nicely staccato Fox report said of Obama's alleged time in an Islamic school: "The first decade of his life, raised by his Muslim father as a Muslim and was educated in a madrassa.... Financed by Saudis, they teach this Wahhabism, which pretty much hates us. The big question is, was that on the curriculum back then?" Talk about Innuendo City. Fox's competition, notably CNN, went after the story and proved it untrue. Obama, as he recounted in his own book, went to an Indonesian public school.
Claiming to be an avid reader of conservative material, Mr Dionne claims he would recommend passing if any of the organizations offered to sponsor a debate.
I am an avid reader of conservative magazines such as National Review and the Weekly Standard. But if these two publications teamed up to sponsor a Democratic debate, would anyone accuse Edwards, Obama and Clinton of "blacklisting" if the candidates said, "no, thanks"?
What is a fair and balanced sponsor? Conservatives don’t seem to be concerned. Dems are more meticulous, if the terms of the event are not 'satisfactory' they bow out.
Who is fooling who?