Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Kucinich embraces deceit in his spin of the Hillary Clinton & John Edwards post debate discussion

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU
 
stevenleser Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 12:09 AM
Original message
Kucinich embraces deceit in his spin of the Hillary Clinton & John Edwards post debate discussion
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_steven_l_070715...

July 15, 2007 at 23:44:52

Kucinich embraces deceit in his spin of the Hillary Clinton & John Edwards post debate discussion

by Steven Leser

http://www.opednews.com

There are key moments in a persons life where they can make a choice between staying on the narrow path of honesty and integrity, and going off the path to make a quick score. It isnt always apparent beforehand what that quick score will cost you. Kucinich has always been touted as the guy who is for all things good, honest and decent, the guy who believes what he says and who eschews rhetoric. That is now over as far as I am concerned.


If you missed the brief brouhaha over the discussions between Hillary Clinton and John Edwards after the last debate, they were heard discussing limiting the debates to fewer people. It was a quick discussion, one where neither had the opportunity to completely explain their views on the subject. Edwards later explained that he believes in formats where there would be three or four candidates at a time. All candidates would participate, but on separate nights. This way, instead of eight to ten candidates sharing ninety minutes, which equates to about ten to twelve minutes each (less after moderator and other time is deducted), three or four candidates would share ninety minutes at a time, giving us all much more time to get to know all of the candidates, so far, so good.



Kucinich takes this and spins it into some conspiracy to prevent him from participating in the debates. He very well knows that this is not the truth of what Edwards meant, but he wants to score some points to boost his sagging campaign, so he made the quick score. I guess Kucinich is tired of running for President every four years and not making it past 1% in the primaries so he figured he didnt have anything to lose.


Think about this for a minute, to believe Kucinich, you would have to believe that after the entire 2004 campaign, plus the debates of the 2008 campaign thus far, no one knows who Kucinich is and what he believes. And you would have to believe that Edwards was concerned, despite Kucinich currently polling at 1% among Democrats, about Kucinichs continued presence in the campaign such that he would be discussing excluding him from future debates.


That does not make sense at all. If one looks at this objectively, one has to believe that Edwards only concern in terms of the primary is beating Obama and Clinton. Edwards is currently polling third at 16% behind Clinton and Obama. Polling fourth and fifth are Richardson with 3% and Biden at 2%. I doubt Edwards is looking over his shoulder even at either of them as a threat. He is certainly not worried about Kucinich polling ninth with 1%, a figure virtually no one sees him exceeding. In fact, if you take this further, more candidates actually helps Edwards because the other candidates would probably center their attacks (if they were to attack other Democratic candidates) on front runners Obama and Clinton which would probably help Edwards overtake them.


If I can figure this out with about 15 seconds of deductive reasoning, Kucinich and his campaign can figure it out as well. Kucinich knew very well he was telling a whopper. Well, Dennis, Im here to tell you, you were wrong when you thought you had nothing to lose by telling this lie. You did have something to lose, your honor.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
mikelgb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 12:21 AM
Response to Original message
1. bullshit
Kucinich takes this and spins it into some conspiracy to prevent him from participating in the debates. He very well knows that this is not the truth of what Edwards meant, but he wants to score some points to boost his sagging campaign, so he made the quick score. I guess Kucinich is tired of running for President every four years and not making it past 1% in the primaries so he figured he didnt have anything to lose.


utter bullshit

elitists Edwards & Clinton, and their apologists should be ashamed
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stevenleser Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 12:23 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. Yes, because they have so much to fear from him at 1%
Engage your brain for 10 seconds and tell us if this makes sense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cui bono Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 12:33 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. It has nothing to do with polling percentages. It's about controlling the issues.
The leading mainstream candidates have a history of shutting out the lesser knowns because of the issues they raise. There have even been debate rules changed to require a higher polling number in order to be "allowed" to participate. And that's done by PRIVATE organizations running the debates, they weren't government run debates. So why is that? Because they want to control the issues debated. If they can keep only mainstream candidates in the debates they don't have to dig very deep into the real issues affecting Americans. They won't have to worry about someone bringing up the "I" word. They can keep the debate moderate, only dealing with issues palatable to centrists, they won't have to be afraid that the people will find out that we don't have to worship corporations and allow them to be treated as citizens until it comes time for them to pay their share of taxes.

I think you really missed the mark with that piece, imho.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stevenleser Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 12:38 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. No, I didn't...
I addressed that when I said, "to believe Kucinich, you would have to believe that after the entire 2004 campaign, plus the debates of the 2008 campaign thus far, no one knows who Kucinich is and what he believes"

We all know what Kucinich believes. We all know what issues he raises. There have been three debates this year (Not to mention how many there were in 2004) and he has raised those issues. AND HE IS STILL AT 1%.

Nothing new is going to happen for Kucinich or Gravel at this point. Although I will say that if Edwards' plan goes through and each candidate can talk for close to half an hour each debate, it might give them more of a shot than having all eight to ten at once.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cui bono Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 12:42 AM
Response to Reply #7
10. WE know... I'm pretty sure the general public doesn't.
Plus every election is different with different pressing needs. He needs to stay in so he can have his voice heard at least a tiny bit. The M$M spends all of its time covering the front runners who are afraid to defend our constitution and back impeachment. They're willing to let the presidency retain all of the powers that Cheney has grabbed and I doubt they would give any of them back if they were elected. Edwards might, but I'm pretty damn sure Hilary wouldn't.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stevenleser Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 12:49 AM
Response to Reply #10
14. Those who participate in primaries and caucuses know.
They know him, they know what he believes and he is at 1%. He isnt a threat to anyone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cui bono Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 12:54 AM
Response to Reply #14
17. It's not just about what he believes, it's about the issues.
And I think the general public is more aware now, after 6 disastrous years of a lying, moronic president, of the injustices in our country. I think they are paying more attention and are ready for a change. The top contenders will just be more of the same.

The point is to let him speak so more people will know and hear about real issues. That he is at 1% means nothing. His ideas are the best of them all, he brings up issues the others would not dare to and the public deserves to be allowed to hear them in the debates.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stevenleser Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 01:06 AM
Response to Reply #17
21. And we have all seen them in three debates...
it doesnt change his support at all. People were mentioning the spouse of someone who came home with lipstick on their collars not wanting to believe?

Kucinich is not going anywhere. He is not even going to pass Richardson or Biden. The people who everyone is focused on are Clinton and Obama. They arent worried about Dennis or his ideas at 1%. This is the same tired crap the far conservative right were saying about Duncan Hunter who occupies the same space on the ultra conservative side that Kucinich does on the ultra progressive side. They arent going anywhere.

What percentage of Americans have the internet? People know who the candidates are and what they have to say.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cui bono Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 01:14 AM
Response to Reply #21
24. No we haven't. And by we I'm talking about the general public.
I strongly believe that more people are paying attention now than ever before. So new people will hear them.

You seem scared to have him in the debates. By continuing to argue that 1% should determine it and by not addressing the fact that we need to hear the real issues and not allow the corporatist front runners determine the content of the debates you are making me believe all the more that that is the real issue.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 01:19 AM
Response to Reply #21
27. I haven't seen any of the debates. I don't have cable. I only learned about
Kucinich and his issues and his solutions a few months ago. I read his excellent web page which has detailed position papers on all his stands.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 12:22 AM
Response to Original message
2. I say give Edwards, Clinton and Kucinich a lie detector test. That will tell the
tale quickly and fairly.

My bet is that Edwards is lying, Hillary tried to pin the whole thing on Edwards, and Kucinich stood up and said, no way, quit colluding to try to limit other candidates in the debate.

I'll write Kucincih and see if he is willing to participate.

You write Edwards and Hillary and get them to commit, and let's see where it goes. OK?

It would truely be of service to Democrats interested in knowing who they can trust.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stevenleser Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 12:26 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. Hillary said "Edwards has some ideas on this"
that isnt exactly trying to "pin this all on him".

Tell you what, you write all three campaigns, and when you get them to commit, I pick the polygrapher.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 12:38 AM
Response to Reply #4
8. Yeah, but on the tape she said her campaign was already working on it, and
needed to do more.

That's different than, He has some ideas on this, which implys that it was all his idea. Why didn't she say, Oh we were talking about having smaller random paired debates?

i'm going to send this to Kucinich. For one thing it will keep it in the public eye, and for another, I think he's telling the truth, and he knows he's telling the truth. It would be a good way to call out the colluders and see what they are made of. Obama, Dodd, Gravel, Biden, and Richards could all make a suggestion for a polygrapher and the name could be pulled out of a hat.

i hope Dennis goes for it. It would knock out a couple of the top 3 is my bet. i mean who would trust them on anything after that? If they refuse to participate, then will you agree that they have something to hide?

If they both agree and Dennis refuses, I will conceed he has something to hide.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stevenleser Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 12:45 AM
Response to Reply #8
12. I would say it is all conjecture...
I could see a lot of reasons to refuse polygraphs. If any of the bunch refuse to take them I would bet it would be Kucinich and rightly so. Pro-worker groups spent a lot of time getting polygraphs thrown out for pre-employment screening. They are an inexact science heavily dependant on the abilities of the polygrapher (hence my request to choose the polygrapher).

The APA (American Polygraph Association) is also very heavy with Republicans. Not just Republicans but very right wing Republicans. I've attended two conventions as a family member is a polygrapher. Might as well have been Freeper conventions. I think my family member and I were the only two Democrats.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 12:52 AM
Response to Reply #12
15. Ok then, polygraphs and voice stress analysis. Whatever. personally I think it's a
winner for Dennis any way you slice it. The fact Hillary wouldn't go one record except to attempt to distance herself from the whole thing is pretty clear. Why? Is the idea to have smaller random participation debates something she's ashamed that her campaign has been working on?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stevenleser Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 01:01 AM
Response to Reply #15
19. Like I said below, call and ask her campaign...
... as far as I am concerned this has nothing to do with the main issue here.

Kucinich knowingly lied. Edwards has no reason to exclude any of the other candidates from the race, it doesnt make sense for him to do so. His idea for 3-4 at a time? That makes sense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 01:08 AM
Response to Reply #19
23. Sure. Why? So when he get randomly paired with Gravel, Biden and Dodd he
can pull away from the pack?

Ha ha ha that's a good one.

It makes a lot more sense to try to throw the candidates with different views on the issues under the bus so he gets more face time agaisnt Hillary and Obama.

You are doing acrobatics here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frazzled Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 12:37 AM
Response to Original message
6. Love is blind ...
That's all I have to say.
Edwards sounds like a husband caught with lipstick on his collar. And you, the adoring wife, accept his story about how it got there because ... well, if you don't, it means he isn't who you thought he was. So you believe. Even though all the evidence points to the contrary. It's a common syndrome.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stevenleser Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 12:40 AM
Response to Reply #6
9. For that to be true there has to be some evidence...
...and there isnt any. There is supposition and inuendo. And I have countered that with logic. If you dont have the evidence you mentioned (because there isnt any) how about trying to best the logic I put forward in my article. If you can't, then who is the adoring spouse? Sounds like you want to believe Kucinich's lies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 12:44 AM
Response to Reply #9
11. Kucinich saw the tape, like everybody else did. It's on tape.
And then there are thier statements afterwords. Why would Hillary say John brought it up (translation: It wasn't me) If they were just, you know, talking about some crazy ass brand new fangled debate format where you break up the candidates?

Love is blind!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stevenleser Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 12:47 AM
Response to Reply #11
13. Ahh yes, the old snippet out of context routine...
I know Love is blind, and that is why you believe this garbage coming out of Kucinich's mouth.

It doesnt make sense, but you believe it anyway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 12:54 AM
Response to Reply #13
16. Why wouldn't Hillary discuss it? She said her campaign had already been working on it
That's clear as a bell on the tape.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stevenleser Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 12:59 AM
Response to Reply #16
18. Why don't you call and ask her campaign?
Your asking me to suppose something that has nothing to do with the main thesis here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 01:04 AM
Response to Reply #18
20. Why don't you? Your the one with the thesis, which is pretty weak by the way.
If you tied up the loose ends you might have a stronger thesis.

But it's always better not to look at things that don't seem to support your thesis, if you don't want to undermine your own thesis.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stevenleser Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 01:08 AM
Response to Reply #20
22. If it was so weak, you wouldnt be fighting so hard to disprove it, would you?
The logic of the article stands and none of the detractors on this thread have even shaken it the slightest bit. Once again:

Think about this for a minute, to believe Kucinich, you would have to believe that after the entire 2004 campaign, plus the debates of the 2008 campaign thus far, no one knows who Kucinich is and what he believes. And you would have to believe that Edwards was concerned, despite Kucinich currently polling at 1% among Democrats, about Kucinichs continued presence in the campaign such that he would be discussing excluding him from future debates.


That does not make sense at all. If one looks at this objectively, one has to believe that Edwards only concern in terms of the primary is beating Obama and Clinton. Edwards is currently polling third at 16% behind Clinton and Obama. Polling fourth and fifth are Richardson with 3% and Biden at 2%. I doubt Edwards is looking over his shoulder even at either of them as a threat. He is certainly not worried about Kucinich polling ninth with 1%, a figure virtually no one sees him exceeding. In fact, if you take this further, more candidates actually helps Edwards because the other candidates would probably center their attacks (if they were to attack other Democratic candidates) on front runners Obama and Clinton which would probably help Edwards overtake them.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 01:17 AM
Response to Reply #22
25. First off, you assume that the polls now will be the polls in 6 months.
History has shown that not to be true.

Based on the polls in 04 at this stage, Joe Lieberman should have been the nominee, or maybe Gephardt. That's not what happened.

In 92 Bill Clinton was at 2% at this stage. I bet there are a few people who wished they colluded and got rid of Clinton nice and early.

Your thesis of polling numbers to try to decide who is telling the truth is, frankly, more bizarre than the break the candidates up into small groups idea, which is pretty bizarre.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cui bono Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 01:18 AM
Response to Reply #22
26. "none of the detractors on this thread have even shaken it the slightest bit."
Edited on Mon Jul-16-07 01:19 AM by cui bono
I completely disagree. In fact, you have failed to make a point that has no detractors. And you never even addressed my point regarding framing the issues. You just keep sticking to your 1% doctrine. And having a 1% doctrine does not put you in good company.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Oct 24th 2014, 06:37 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC