FOX'S FURY. I have to disagree with Garance below. I think John Edwards' decision to pull out of the Fox News debate was a good thing, but not, for him, a smart move. What Edwards did, it seems to me, is take one for the team. He put himself out front as the candidate willing to spurn and expose Fox, and so became the candidate they will work the hardest to destroy -- both now and if he captures the nomination. That's no minor hurdle. Fox News would always have been hostile to his candidacy, but not more so than to most other (non-Hillary) Democrats. Now, however, I guarantee you they'll task a platoon of reporters with digging up and trumping up scandals both real and imagined, and whatever they can find or concoct will receive exceedingly prominent play on their network. That, of course, will catapult it into the more mainstream channels, and then into the newspapers, and then into the general consciousness, etc. A leading cable news channel is a powerful enemy. Conversely, all the other Democrats can leave the debate now or pressure the Nevada Democratic Party to cancel the debate without raising any particular ire from the channel. They can make the same move without anything near the same reprisal. In the end, the question for Edwards will be whether the base appreciates this action enough to increase his chances of getting the nomination by the same amount that Fox's fury will decrease his shot. And on that, I'm unconvinced. Edwards undoubtedly did the right thing here, but I just don't know that the netroots have the power or focus to make it worth his while. --Ezra Klein
