NEW YORK, Nov. 21, 2007

No Dem Debate If CBS News Writers Strike

Candidates Say They Won't Cross Picket Line For Debate On December 10

  • The Democratic presidential hopefuls at the last debate, Nov. 15, 2007 in Las Vegas. From left: Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., and former Sen. John Edwards.

    The Democratic presidential hopefuls at the last debate, Nov. 15, 2007 in Las Vegas. From left: Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., and former Sen. John Edwards.  (AP)

(AP)  A potential strike by CBS news writers imperils a debate among Democratic presidential contenders in California.

In a statement Wednesday, Hillary Rodham Clinton said she would not cross a picket line to participate in the debate, scheduled Dec. 10 in Los Angeles. Most of the other candidates quickly followed.

CBS is to broadcast the debate, which is co-sponsored by the Democratic National Committee.

"It is my hope that both sides will reach an agreement that results in a secure contract for the workers at CBS News, but let me be clear: I will honor the picket line if the workers at CBS News decide to strike," Clinton said.

John Edwards, on a conference call with reporters, said he would not cross the picket line in the event of a strike. Spokesmen for Barack Obama, Bill Richardson, Joe Biden and Chris Dodd also said those candidates would not participate.

CBS News writers on Monday authorized their union leaders to call a national strike. About 500 of the network's television and radio news writers in New York, Los Angeles and other cities have been working under an expired contract since April 2005.

CBS News called the vote "unfortunate" and said its latest offer was "fair and reasonable."

Democratic spokeswoman Karen Finney said the committee would monitor the CBS labor situation, and she indicated the party would cancel the debate in the event of a strike.

"The Democratic Party believes the right to organize and collectively bargain is one of our most fundamental rights, and we are proud to stand with the working men and women in the labor movement," Finney said. "Given the Democratic Party's long history of supporting the labor movement in America, if the strike is still going on, we will not cross the picket lines."

The DNC recently announced it would move its winter meeting from Baltimore to suburban Virginia west of Washington because of a labor dispute at the Baltimore hotel.

© MMVII The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Candidate Profiles & RSS Feeds


Share:
  • Share
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Mixx
Add a Comment See all 34 Comments
by truthprophet November 24, 2007 8:48 PM EST
COULDN''T VOTE FOR A REPUBLICAN? REALLY?
Everytime I hear Democrats say "I hate the Republican Party. Look at what Bush has done.," I can''t help but think about all of Bush''s Democratic enablers in the Congress like Clinton, Obama, Pelosi, et. al. who made all of his dastardly deeds possible. They handed him every bit of legislation with which he has used to make himself the virtual dictator he now is on a silver platter. The Democrats in Congress don''t even seem to express any interest in investigating Bush for the crimes he and Cheney have surely committed against our country even though a vast majority of Americans think they should. What cowards! In fact, Obama and Clinton even voted in favor of legislation which actually allows Bush to pre-pardon himself and his administration for crimes dating all the way back to 9/11. What''s up with that? Look. Do yourself and your country a favor. Focus on the candidate, and the ideas and positions he or she represents, and then study the candidate''s track record of performance with respect to those positions. That''s all that really matters in the end. Elections are not a contest of two teams. Ultimately, It''s the politician who will either serve your interests or betray them while in office--not their party. Finally, Democrats, I ask you this: Would you have voted for Steven Douglas (a Democrat), who was ardently pro-slavery, against Abraham Lincoln (a Republican) simply because Douglas was a Democrat? I think most of you would.
Reply to this comment
by greatprophet November 24, 2007 8:48 PM EST
RON PAUL IS NOT YOUR FATHER''S REPUBLICAN
Ron Paul represents a different Republican Party from the one that Iraq, deficits and corruption have soured the country on. It''s ironic that other GOP candidates are scared to death of his message, because his positions are more conservative than theirs. Being anti-war; pro-life; pro civil liberties; pro Second Amendment; pro States rights; pro secure borders; and in favor of a sound economic policy IS TOTALLY CONSERVATIVE. The Republican party has "lost its way," Paul said during a recent GOP debate. Like the limited federal government principles espoused by Dwight D. Eisenhower, his school of Republicanism stands for a certain idea of The Constitution that much of the power asserted by modern Presidents has been usurped from Congress, and that much of the power asserted by Congress has been usurped from the States. Though Paul acknowledges flaws in both The Constitution (it included slavery) and The Bill of Rights (it doesn''t go far enough), he still thinks a comprehensive array of positions can be drawn therefrom: against gun control; for the sovereignty of States; and against foreign-policy adventures like the ones currently being played-out in the Mid-East. After ten terms of service as a U.S. Congressman, Ron Paul has demonstrated a consistent track record of adherance to The Constitution unmatched by anyone in either party. Ron Paul does not represent your Father''s school of political thought. He represents your Founding Fathers.
Reply to this comment
by fairprophet November 24, 2007 8:47 PM EST
ARE WE A NATION OF LAWS?
Consider the Patriot Act. The Law is 342 pages long, or 57,000 words, making it a bit longer than Dostoevsky''s "Notes from Underground" or, if you''re partial to pigs, about twice the size of Orwell''s "Animal Farm." The Patriot Act is the reigning champion of our government''s recent un-American activities. When it was first paraded before Congress and the Senate following the 9/11 attacks, few Members, other than Congressman, Ron Paul dared to vote against it. Most in Congress simply gave it their rubber-stamp of approval, without ever reading it. Why bother? It was, after all, named the "USA Patriot Act." It must be a good thing. Right? Now in effect, the Law wrecks a generation''s worth of constitutional protections against government snooping, legalizing police-state tactics in searches and seizures, criminalizing certain forms of speech and political activity, and opening the way for the mistreatment of foreigners in government custody and wholesale expulsions and imprisonment. It is a repugnant, unnecessary Law that goes against the very principles its name wrongly implies. Yet, it remains unchecked and unbalanced by public opinion, Lawmakers or the Courts. So, yes, we''re a nation of Laws. But the Laws aren''t much to speak of when they''re designed to hoodwink the public to win its docility. Neither is public responsibility much to speak of these days when its docility is secured with nothing more than a ploy-riddled play on the word "patriot."
Reply to this comment
by truthprophet November 24, 2007 8:47 PM EST
DEMOCRATS HOODWINKED BY HILLARY
Sadly, even though Clinton voted for the war in Iraq, and a host of Laws aimed at removing civil liberties; and our country''s sovereignty, Democrats are so blinded by her cult of personality that I predict they will overwhelmingly vote to put her crime family back into office. While I''ve made some progress in educating Liberals as to the phony staged consensus of the left-right paradigm, the fact remains that a majority of Democrats still see the White House as some kind of political Super Bowl, where the success of their "team" is the be all and end all - to the expense of America as a whole. The Punch and Judy show theater that was the "troop surge" debate in the Senate characterizes Hillary''s role in hoodwinking Americans perfectly. The debate is framed as not whether the U.S. should get out of the Middle-East altogether, but the relative minutia of whether to feed thousands of more troops into the meat grinder or not. A Clinton presidency will mean more war, more dead Americans, and a further desecration of the tattered shreds of what''s left of our Constitution. Clinton is the ultimate global elitist and represents the Democrats supposed base: the poor and downtrodden, about as much as Lindsay Lohan represents grace and dignity. I''m sure she informed the likes of David Rockefeller and Queen Beatrix as to her presidential aspirations during her last visit to attend the Bilderberger conference. Vote for a REAL AMERICAN. Vote for Ron Paul.
Reply to this comment
by greatprophet November 24, 2007 8:46 PM EST
BILDERBERGERS RULE
The Bilderberg Group is a secretive gathering of global power brokers, which includes Hillary Clinton, and a virtual who''s who of other folks whose names you will recognize (Search Wikipedia: "Bilderberg Attendees"), has inspired layers of ridicule. In recent times, the deeds laid at the group''s doorstep have included the creation of the EU, the Iraq war, and the group''s current efforts to create a North American Union, which will erase U.S. borders and sovereignty. Their agenda: economic and political domination; one world government; and world population reduction. After it was leaked that a speech by John Edwards at their meeting in Italy, was one reason for his selection as John Kerry''s vice-presidential running mate in 2000, people began to ask, "Are the Bilderbergers now shaping the worldwide political scene?" Over 130 of the world''s most powerful monarchs, politicians and business leaders attend the annual, invitation-only gatherings in order to to discuss and orchestrate public policy worldwide. The hotels involved are closed-off to other guests and reporters. Guards are placed around the perimeter, and attendees promise to keep quiet about what they hear and say. "They do not have to sign anything, but they understand that they do not talk," said Maja Banck-Polderman, the group''s Secretary. Tony Gosling, a British reporter who has followed the group says, "I think that a forum where so many rich and powerful people meet should be open to public scrutiny."
Reply to this comment
by fairprophet November 24, 2007 8:46 PM EST
CLINTON MAKES BUSH DICTATOR
With the full support of Senators Clinton, Obama and McCain, President Bush recently signed into Law the John Warner Defense Authorization Act, which, according to Senator Leahy (VT), will actually "encourage the President to declare Martial Law." It does so by revising the Insurrection Act, a Laws which limits the President''s ability to deploy troops within the United States. The Insurrection Act has historically, along with the Posse Comitatus Act, helped to enforce strict prohibitions on military involvement in domestic Law enforcement. With one cloaked swipe of his pen, Bush has now undone all of those prohibitions. The John Warner Defense Authorization Act, which was signed by the President in an unpublicized ceremony, allows the President to declare a "public emergency," suspend Congress; The Constitution; and to take control of state-based National Guard units without the consent of your Governor or local authorities, in order to "suppress public disorder." President Bush seized this unprecedented power on the very same day that he signed the equally odious Military Commissions Act. The two Laws compliment one another. One allows for torture and detention abroad of those who dissent and are stripped of their citizenship, while the other seeks to enforce acquiescence at home by allowing the President to order the military onto our streets in a domestic Law enforcement role, which is already being done. Vote for Liberty. Vote for Ron Paul.
Reply to this comment
by truthprophet November 24, 2007 8:46 PM EST
CLINTON LETS BUSH PARDON HIMSELF
Buried deep inside Military Commisions Act, which was FULLY SUPPORTED by Senators Clinton, Obama and McCain, is a provision which pre-pardons President Bush and all the members of his administration for any crimes which they may have committed all the way back to September 11, 2001. Why that far back? That kind of makes you wonder. Huh? I can''t help but recall what Nixon said during an interview following the Watergate scandal when he said, "If the President does it, by definition, it''s not illegal." History never repeats itself, folks. It only rhymes. At least Nixon had enough class to wait for another President to pardon him for his crimes against our country. Bush apparently doesn''t want to take that chance. He has to consider the risk that Ron Paul will become our next President.
Reply to this comment
by greatprophet November 24, 2007 8:45 PM EST
CAMPING-OUT WITH HILLARY
The John Warner Defense Authorization Act, which was supported by Clinton, Obama and McCain, permits militarized police round-ups and detention of "protesters" and other "undesirables" for detention in facilities which are already contracted for and under construction by Kellog, Brown & Root, a subsidiary of Halliburton. This Law, which was sold to an emergency managed and willfully gullible public in the wake of the 9/11 attacks as a necessary measure needed by our President in order to fight his "global war on terrorism," permits the indefinite detention of American citizens who resists the foreign and domestic agenda of our President. The Journal of Counterterrorism & Homeland Security International reported recently that global engineering and technical services powerhouse, Kellog, Brown & Root announced during January 2006 that its Government and Infrastructure division had been awarded a (no bid) Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity contract to build these detainment camps with a maximum total value of $385 million over a five year term, and that this contract called for the company to build "temporary detention and processing capabilities" to augment existing U.S. government Detention and Removal Operations and to support "the rapid development of new programs." New Programs? Could it possibly get any worse? Why would the president be so concerned about Americans protesting? Aren''t we all happy campers?
Reply to this comment
by fairprophet November 24, 2007 8:45 PM EST
WILL CLINTON MAKE THIS A THOUGHT CRIME?
While CBS was busy pretending all other news didn''t exist during the California wildfires, our Constitution was burning on the floors of Congress. On Oct 23, the House overwhelmingly passed HR 1955, the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act. This Bill is one of the most blatant attacks against our right to freedom of speech ever devised by Congress. The Bill actually defines different types of thought as "homegrown terrorism," and unlike previous anti-terror legislation, it specifically targets U.S. citizens. The Bill uses extremely vague language to define "terrorist propoganda" as any speech which promotes an agenda that the government considers an "extremist belief system." Since the bill doesn''t specifically define what an "extremist belief system" is, it will be entirely up to the interpretation of government officials. Isn''t that comforting? Considering how much the government has done to desecrate our Constitution lately, they would surely have to define this post as promoting an "extremist belief" system, since it promotes the restoration of civil liberties--something not en vogue these days. As disturbing as this Bill is, so to is the additional requirement that there be a seperate, "public version." In other words, the Bill we see is different from what Congress is seeing. Why''s that necessary? Whatever the reason, I predict this Bil
Reply to this comment
by truthprophet November 24, 2007 8:45 PM EST
RON PAUL IS THE NEW WAY
What we need is a President who will show us the way. Not the old way. Not the same way, but a NEW way. Think about this for a minute. What if we pulled all of our troops out of South Korea? They''ve been there for 50+ years. What if we quit worrying about Iran, but instead, realized that its having a nuclear weapon will not mean the end of the world? What if we pulled all of our troops out of the Middle-East, and brought them all home? What if we realistically addressed the National Debt, and paid attention to REALLY DOING SOMETHING about stopping illegal immigration? These are the ideas of Presidential candidate, Ron Paul. He''s a ten term Congressman and a physician who has delivered over 4,000 babies. He''s an intellectual who''s published four books, three of which are devoted entirely to sound economics and one to foreign policy. He was raised on a dairy farm in Pennsylvania as a pious Lutheran, but now he attends a Baptist church. Paul is given to mulling things over morally. Whenever he recollects the helicopter pilots he treated as an Air Force Flight Surgeon (Captain) during the Vietnam War, a war which he now says was "totally unnecessary and illegal," he laments, "They were gung-ho. I''ve often thought about how many of those people never came back." Candidates with the high level of personal integrity and proven track record of adherence to The Constitution, Congressman Paul has always demonstrated only come around once in a lifetime, if we''re lucky.
Reply to this comment
See all 34 Comments

Exclusive Webshow

Author Thomas Friedman on Obama's Afghanistan plan and the war on terror. Watch Now

Latest News
News in Pictures
Scroll Left Scroll Right
Connect with CBS News

Stay connected with the CBS News using your favorite social networks and online news applications: