If I didn't love you, I'd hate you ...  Column ››› ››› ERIC
ALTERMAN  What's up with my buddy Edsall? Hello, Tom, what
exactly -- and I do mean "exactly" -- is the connection between
refusing to take part in a Fox News-sponsored debate and taking
the money of its owner or its employees? The implication here is
that the Democrats who've taken Murdoch money are either
hypocritical or self-contradictory, but that reasoning is
impossible to uphold. In one case, a candidate is legitimating a
propaganda network that pretends to be an honest news source and
allowing them to determine the agenda for a debate and, by
extension, the campaign. The case is arguable, but I agree with
the Democrats' position, as I made clear here. In the other
case, well, what? Don't all political campaigns run on money?
Isn't any money just as good as any other money? He notes that
any number of Democrats work for Murdoch. Does Tom think it
appropriate for candidates to demand that all contributors pass
a morals exam before a campaign acc