The stakes in Nevada are bigger than I have heard anyone articulate, so far. If we can scuttle the Fox debate, we will be setting a precedent. No other state Democratic party or progressive institution will try to partner with Fox in the future for a debate after witnessing the spectacle of the national netroots/grassroots/party activists joining with local Nevada democrats to shut it down.
For a long time now Fox has played smash-mouth politics with the Democrats on an unfair playing field with little or no consequence. Now we have an opportunity to hand Fox a defeat, and one that will pay back for a long time.
It's just as good a victory if the candidates themselves boycott the debate (props to Edwards), but I think we'll get a more effective long-term result if we keep up the pressure and the crticism on the Nevada party and Harry Reid to get rid of Fox, and they do it.
We will also be setting a precedent in the general election: No debates hosted by Fox News, period. Non-negotiable. However we win this fight, we will have to keep active later in the cycle to ensure that Democrats don't backslide in the general.

There's more...

I'm told that tomorrow morning at 11:45am, the executive board has been summoned to conference call with Chairman Tom Collins of the Nevada State Democratic Party.  It's going to be interesting to see where the discussion is at this point; clearly the Nevada folks are under a lot of pressure.  Honestly, though, this is very puzzling.  Here's Markos with an update from the Presidential campaign perspective.  Blogpac has held off on going there, because we wanted to start with a dialogue with Democrats in Nevada.

I've asked several campaigns whether they plan on attending the Fox News debate in Nevada. I've started collecting responses, and expect to post them tomorrow. I can say off the bat that the question clearly has campaigns conflicted. It's not a position they want to be in, and I'm sure they're cursing whoever it was that negotiated the deal with Fox News. (That Democratic Party decision maker, by the way, is still secret. Everyone claims they don't know who signed the deal.)

The campaigns could make things easier for themselves by just stating, en masse, that they won't do a Fox News debate, but that they'll be happy to debate in Nevada with another media partner.

The issue here isn't to screw over Nevada or its Dems (it's a state where we should be far more competitive, and will be in the next few cycles), and to deprive them of a close look at the field.

The issue is to deprive the right wing's premier propaganda outlet an easy opportunity to take cheap shots at our guys.

The smart campaigns will look for an alternate venue from which to communicate to Nevada's Democratic primary voters.

This whole episode is puzzling.  No one is taking responsibility for this decision.  I don't believe that Tom Collins, the outgoing Chair of the Party in Nevada, did this on his own.  There's some backbone here, a willingness to reject our arguments and those from Democratic grassroots activists in Nevada.  The heads of the Professional Firefighters, the Nevada AFL-CIO, and the Culinary workers chimed in on behalf of Fox News.  Various state parties, working to build an alliance of Western states, backed the decision.

Mike Zahara, a Democrat on the executive board, has come out and represented the tremendous dissatisfaction on the ground among Nevada Democrats.  Other Nevada unions - important ones - have stayed silent, and it's probably the case that it is only the union leadership that weighed in on the decision.

Throughout all of this, Reid has stayed silent.  There is simply no way that he isn't aware of what's going on.  While it is likely that he had something to do with this debate in the first place (a Presidential forum in his home state), it's undeniable that he has allowed this to go on as long as it has.  He's not even saying that this is a state party matter, just that he personally did not negotiate the deal.  I can't believe that the union muscle, the secrecy, and the closed ranks are something that Reid would allow to go on unless he has some major part in this debacle.  Perhaps there are furious behind-the-scenes discussions going on, and he's annoyed to be dragged into this.  Maybe Fox News has something on him, though I would find that unlikely as well.  Maybe he's hoping for better coverage for his reelection in 2010, or maybe he's just a conservative Democrat who doesn't get the pernicious role of Fox News.  Maybe there's money involved.  Honestly, I don't know.  It could be a mistake that the Nevada Democrats are in the midst of fixing in a somewhat clumsy and opaque manner.

Tomorrow we'll learn more.

Update (Chris): Edwards to skip Fox News debate. Fantastic! This is a very good start.

There's more...

Cross-posted on Daily Kos

Over the past week and a half, many of us have been engaged in a very public conversation with the Nevada Democratic Party leadership on their choice to have Fox News host a Presidential forum in August in Nevada.  3500 of you sent emails to Nevada State Party Chair Tom Collins through Blogpac.  Moveon has a petition, and Robert Greenwald has created a video at FoxAttacks where the petition is hosted to demonstrate the partisan nature of Fox News as an information source.

The argument that we've made is not that the Fox News audience is bad in and of itself.  It's important to talk to the whole public; the election of Howard Dean to DNC Chair was about the 50 state strategy, and no one has pushed that strategy harder than the progressive wing of the party.  And it worked, in 2006, as we elected a whole host of members of Congress that seemed unlikely to win when insiders in DC were drawing up their prognostications for yet another swing state strategy.   No, the problem that we have is that allowing Fox News to singlehandedly host the debate gives that channel the legitimacy of claiming to be a real news source.  If the Democratic Party places its highest and most valuable political debate - that over our nominee to the Presidency - on Fox News, we are giving a Republican partisan news outlet the ability to argue that they are not biased.  We force thousands of diehard Democrats to watch a Republican propaganda outlet, and allow Fox News to spin and impute meaning to the debate.  This is a serious problem.

The reaction to our reasonable request has unfortunately not been what we had hoped.  Harry Reid has basically stayed silent, and as one of the most powerful Democrats in the country, and certainly the most powerful in Nevada, he has a part in this decision.  It's hard to believe that he would not take some interest in a Presidential forum in his state.  After a few days, several Nevada union leaders, including Danny Thompson of the Nevada AFL-CIO, D. Taylor of the Culinary Union, and Rusty McAllister of the Firefighters, backed the choice of Fox News by Tom Collins of the Nevada State Democratic Party, arguing that Democrats need to reach out to a diverse audience segment.  Of course, Fox News makes regular and dishonest arguments against the minimum wage, for corporate abuses, and for privatizing Social Security.  Prominent Fox News figures use misleading statistics to bolster the case for right-wing economics, and we can be sure that Fox News is very willing to spread lies about stronger labor law protections.

The reaction was not uniformly negative.  Michael Zahara, a Clark County member of the Nevada State Democratic Party's Executive Board, bravely and publicly argued that this decision was a poor one, and more to the point, was made in a veil of secrecy.  

In the case of the decision to include FOX News in our partisan pre-caucus debate this August, apparently those who made this decision forgot who and what FOX News is and who and what our opponents are. This was not a NV Dems decision, this was a unilateral move without the consultation of the Executive Board of the Democratic Party of the State of Nevada, nor the executive boards of the other sponsor states.

He went on to point out that grassroots Nevada Democrats are unhappy with this decision:

The overwhelming majority of our State Central Committee and our voters have a big problem with this decision. My email box is filled with the opinions of those who elected me to my position on the Board and others. 75% are in favor of my views on this matter.

Despite various leaders backing the decision with lukewarm calls for diversity, it looks like the majority of Nevada Democrats paying attention to this discussion do not like Fox News's role in the Presidential forum.

Now to be clear, many of us who disagreed with the Nevada Democratic Party's choice of Fox News are not averse to having Fox News broadcast the debate.  We simply object to having Fox News legitimized as a neutral news source by being the sole host of the debate.  As such, some of our allies asked the Nevada Democratic Party if they would allow Air America to co-host the debate and have equal panelists to balance Fox News and their partisan approach to politics.  This would have accommodated their desire to reach conservatives while also making it clear that Fox is not a neutral news outlet.  It would further increase the diversity of the viewership of the debate.  I believe that we're open to other arrangements as well, anything that does not legitimize Fox News as a neutral news outlet.

The Nevada State Democratic Party rejected these requests.  Tom Collins, who is the Chair of the Party, apparently does not think that Fox News's partisan agenda is enough to warrant a reexamination of the debate arrangement, or even a real conversation about how the party handles the Presidential contest.  In fact, it's impossible to find out who made the decision to let Fox News host the debate.  As Michael Zahara said:  

Regrettably, no one is owning up to this mistake and by all appearances,it was FOX that came with their Trojan Horse to those who made this decision. We simply don't know what the truth is at this point, and likely never will.

I'm less concerned with who is responsible and more interested in immediately relieving FOXNEWS of their participation in our partisan event and protecting our candidates and Caucus...

As I said before, none of us on the Executive Board of the NSDP, or the other states were in the loop on this. The outgoing Chair may have felt that he had the authority to act unilaterally, but many of us believe he should have consulted us. Trust that this decision very likely wouldn't have passed a vote of our E-Board, and would not have garnered the support of our State Central Committee here in Nevada.

Clearly something is not right in how this decision was made.  Nevada Democrats do not support it, the Executive Board never voted on it, and I doubt that many who mouthed support for this decision were fully briefed on what this decision meant.

What is needed right now in Nevada is the kind of leadership shown by Democrats like Michael Zahara.  Senator Reid, the most powerful official in Nevada and a key leader in the national Democratic Party, is either part of these decisions or could substantively accommodate our legitimate concerns.  At this point, he's simply being silent and evasive, just like the Nevada Democratic Party (this despite Fox News's constant and baseless attacks on his patriotism and character).

Please call Reid's offices and ask him to not legitimize Fox News as a neutral news outlet.  If you are not in Nevada, use this number: 202-224-3542 / Fax: 202-224-7327

If you live in Nevada, use this number, which is restricted to 775 and 702 area codes: 1-866-SEN-REID (736-7343)

It's time to let Senator Reid know that we want him to act like a good Democrat and ensure that the candidate forum in August treats the Democratic Party and our Democratic leaders vying for the Presidency with the respect that they deserve.  Treating Fox News as a neutral news outlet by letting them solely host this debate does not do that.

And feel free to leave an account of your conversation in the comment thread.

There's more...