What HRC, JE were really talking about: cutting down the number of debates/forums

[draft_mario_cuomo]

I know some are anxiously looking for a scandal here but the past history suggests that what they were very likely talking about was cutting down on the number of debates and forums (a legitimate position. See reply 1 to this thread). This is what HRC was likely referring to when she "we've gotta get back to it." The we? The Obama, HRC, and Edwards campaigns.

There is no evidence that they were seeking to limit the number of candidates in the debates. That is a Swift Boat-style myth made out of whole cloth and being peddled on DU by those who would like to see HRC and Edwards falter.

==February 02, 2007

Top Democrats Seek to Limit Joint Appearances

Campaign aides for Sen. Hillary Clinton, Sen. Barack Obama and John Edwards arranged a "secret meeting" with officials at the Democratic National Committee to limit the number of joint appearances that would be requested of them, the AP reports.

"In the next three months, there are two candidate forums scheduled in Nevada, a debate in New Hampshire and a debate in South Carolina. More gatherings are in the works for the year.

"The candidates are concerned about fitting all the joint appearances into their schedules, but are afraid to turn down invitations and upset the influential hosts who sponsor the gatherings. They want the party to set the limits so they don't have to, something that DNC officials said they are exploring with the nine candidates."==

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2007/02/02/top_democrats_seek_to_limit_joint_appearances.html

[draft_mario_cuomo]

1. Context: the list of 18 currently scheduled debates and 9 forums

The forum list is incomplete. For instance, it did not include yesterday's NAACP forum.

DEBATES
DEMOCRATIC
-April 26, 2007 - South Carolina Democratic Party/NBC News debate at South Carolina State University in Orangeburg, SC.
-June 3, 2007 - CNN/WMUR/New Hampshire Union Leader Democratic debate at Saint Anselm College in Manchester, NH.
-June 28, 2007 - PBS Democratic presidential forum at Howard University in Washington, DC. >
-**July 23, 2007 - YouTube/Google and CNN at The Citadel in Charleston, SC. 1, 2, 3
-Aug. 14, 2007 - FOX News/Nevada Democratic Party/Western Majority Project debate focusing on Western regional issues in Reno, NV.
-**Aug. 19, 2007 - ABC News and ABC5/WOI-TV/Iowa Democratic Party forum in Des Moines, IA. >, 2
-After Labor Day 2007 - Yahoo!, The Huffington Post and Slate online-only Democratic presidential debate. >
-Sept. 9, 2007 - Univision Democratic debate at BankUnited Center at the University of Miami, in Miami, FL. >
-Sept. 23, 2007 - Congressional Black Caucus Political Education and Leadership Institute (CBC Institute)/FOX debate in Detroit, MI. >
-**Sept. 26, 2007 - NECN, NBC News, Dartmouth College and NHPR debate at Dartmouth College in Hanover, NH. >
-Oct. 21, 2007 - ABC News/WMUR-TV/Union Leader Democratic debate in Manchester, NH.
-**Oct. 30, 2007 - NBC News/MSNBC in Philadelphia, PA.
-**Nov. 15, 2007 - CNN/Nevada Democratic Party Nevada Democratic Presidential Debate at UNLV in Las Vegas, NV (initially Nov. 4). >
-**Dec. 10, 2007 - CBS in Los Angeles, CA.
-Dec. 17, 2007 - John F. Kennedy Presidential Library Foundation /CNN/THE POLITICO debate in Boston, MA. >
-Jan. 9 or 10, 2008 - NPR/Iowa Public Radio debate in Des Moines, IA. >
-Jan. 2008 - Congressional Black Caucus Political Education and Leadership Institute (CBC Institute)/CNN debate in SC. >
-Jan. 31, 2008 - CNN/Los Angeles Times debate in Los Angeles, CA. >

FORUMS
DEMOCRATIC/LIBERAL
-Feb. 1-3, 2007 - Democratic National Committee Winter Meeting, Washington, DC.
-Feb. 21, 2007 - AFSCME-sponsored forum at Carson City Community Center in Carson City, NV.
-Mar. 24, 2007 - SEIU/Center for American Progress Action Fund "New Leadership on Health Care: A Presidential Forum" at UNLV in Las Vegas, NV.
-Mar. 28, 2007 - Building and Construction Trades Legislative Conference Presidential Forum at the Washington Hilton Hotel in Washington, DC.
-Apr. 10, 2007 - MoveOn.org "Virtual Town Hall on Iraq."
-Apr. 18-21, 2007 - National Action Network's 9th annual convention at the Sheraton Hotel and Towers in New York, NY.
-Apr. 28-29, 2007 - California Democratic Party Convention at the San Diego Convention Center in San Diego, CA.
-June 19, 2007 - AFSCME Democratic Presidential Forum moderated by MSNBC's Chris Matthews, part of AFSCME's 2007 National Leadership Conference, at Marriott Wardman Park Hotel in Washington, DC.
-Aug. 2007 - National Association of Chain Drug Stores Foundation (501c3) and the National Community Pharmacists Association Foundation (501c3) 2007 Presidential Candidate Forum on Health Care (Democrats) at Des Moines Area Community College in Ankeny. >
-Jan. 15, 2008 - Caucus of African American Nevadans/Impacto issues forum in Las Vegas, NV.

http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2008/primdeb08/primdeb08main.html

[BeyondGeography]

4. "We should try to have a more serious and a smaller group"

That's what Edwards said. Your post doesn't begin to explain what he meant by that. If your theory is correct and his statement refers to the forums, then he needs to explain which of the groups listed above aren't serious, correct? So he's on the hook for either offending candidates or constituencies. Another fuck-up.

"We've got to cut the number. ... They're not serious." That's what HRC said. Same problem for her. What's funny is she was just standing there minding her own business and Edwards managed to drag her into the first certifiable fuck-up of her campaign (well, the second, if you count the Geffen flap). You probably won't be seeing these two having meaningful chats on stage anymore.

[William769]

5. Shitting on Hillary is one thing, shitting on Hillary an d Edwards will bring you nothing but a can

Of whoop Ass.

For one where are your quotes taken from? I would like to see the context from which they came. We all know how quotes can be missused here on DU.

[BeyondGeography]

11. It's an AP story that's all over the place

http://www.kxmb.com/News/143289.asp

[William769]

18. Yea It's just found out it's Faux news.

:eyes:

I guess I won't shouldn't have to gold my breath for the audio link.

[BeyondGeography]

19. Keep playing the Fox-did-it, substance-free game...it's not working

:eyes:

[William769]

23. Keep buying into that station, works great for our side thanks.

On edit: heres just one example, how many more would you like?



http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/3/6/13482/03023

[BeyondGeography]

26. Diversionary tactics won't work, William

something else is not serious and trivial here...your responses.

[William769]

28. Well lets hear the audio.

I supplied proof of my statement, wheres yours?

[BeyondGeography]

32. NYCGirl has it below

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x40560

[William769]

34. Like I said lets hear the audio.

Not what Faux news is scrolling on the screen that they want us to think what was said. :eyes:

On Edit: Wheres your response in this thread? As you can see the usual suspects are nowhere to be found.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1316953&mesg_id=1316953

[BeyondGeography]

36. What you're telling me is you really wish Hillary didn't say these things

I understand.

[William769]

37. I want you to show me where she did. It's called put up or shut up.

The burdon of proof is on you. And like Obama it just isn't there. I guess Obama supporters are just like Obama, when sizzle meets fizzle.

[BeyondGeography]

40. Like yesterday

Obama finds his stride at NAACP debate
He takes aim at race-poverty link and outshines Clinton, others

July 13, 2007
BY MARY MITCHELL Sun-Times Columnist
DETROIT -- Sen. Barack Obama is indeed a quick study. After looking surprisingly unpolished in a nationally televised forum targeting black audiences nearly two weeks ago, Obama held his own against his closest rival, Sen. Hillary Clinton, at the 98th NAACP National Convention at Cobo Hall in Detroit on Thursday morning.
Obama, who is pitting change against experience in the 2008 Democratic primary, got off more than a few crisp one-liners while crafting a message that at times elicited thunderous applause that drowned out some of his words, but obviously bolstered his confidence in the debate arena.

"If you are poor in this country, it is hazardous to your health. If you are black and poor, that's downright deadly," Obama said in response to a question about health care posed by a delegate and given to the candidates in advance of the forum.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/mitchell/467077,CST-NWS-mitch13.article

[William769]

What? wheres the Audio?

I'm not letting you change the subject.

[ieoeja]

54. He provided the audio already (post #32).

However, even FAUX's transcription of what they say doesn't include any mention about other candidates. Furthermore, the two are speaking in a normal tone with the other candidates around them. If they really were talking about excluding some of the people around them, and doing so in a normal tone of voice, then they would have to be morons of W's level. And I hardly think Hillary or Edwards is that stupid.

After listening to that audio, Edwards' explanation that they were discussing the debates, not the participants, makes far more sense than FAUX's spin.

[NYCGirl]

55. Can you show me where Edwards made an explanation of this? NT

[William769]

41. self delete, dupe.

[Alamom]

7. Link to audio? If Fox has it, they should make it public. eom

[BeyondGeography]

10. So this is the line of defense du jour: They didn't say it because it was a Fox mike?

Good luck with that.

[NYCGirl]

13. Here's the video:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x40560

[flpoljunkie]

9. You are incorrect. The DNC responded, has already limited the number of DNC sanctioned debates.

[BeyondGeography]

12. Tell it to Mario, not me

[flpoljunkie]

45. Sorry, my bad. I was responding to Mario's original post.

[BeyondGeography]

51. No worries

[flpoljunkie]

69. And here are the DNC sanctioned debates posted on the DNC website on May 16, 2007

DNC Announces Dates, Media Sponsors and Locations for Sanctioned Debates

Posted by Stephanie Taylor on May 16, 2007 at 01:01 PM

http://dnc.org/a/2007/05/dnc_announces_d_1.php

Today the Democratic National Committee in partnership with six state parties announced the dates, media sponsors and cities for the six DNC sanctioned debates. Additional details regarding specifics for the individual debates including additional media partners and logistics will be announced at a later time. The DNC sanctioned debate schedule will be:

DNC SANCTIONED DEBATES:

July 23, 2007: YouTube/Google and CNN* in Charleston, SC

August 19, 2007: ABC in Des Moines, IA

September 26, 2007: NBC News/MSNBC** in Hanover, NH

October 30, 2007: NBC News/MSNBC** in Philadelphia, PA

November 15, 2007: CNN* in Las Vegas, NV

December 10, 2007: CBS in Los Angeles, CA


*Debate will be simulcast on CNN en Espanol.
**Telemundo will re-broadcast both debates.

"Our strong field of Democratic candidates have been working hard, talking about the issues the American people care about and laying out a positive vision for America’s future," said DNC Chairman Howard Dean. "We are grateful to the media sponsors and our state parties for their role in providing important, diverse settings for the American people to hear directly from our candidates."

[PATRICK]

70. I am not even going to attempt mind-reading

or studying up on the actual statements and context. It is just plain obvious by the math that having eight candidates makes a "debate" very difficult. I remember high school debates where speed talkers armed with note cards to insert point by the truckload made the very idea of "substantive" "oratorical" or "persuasive" nearly a joke. Our candidates are further hamstrung by feeling extreme pressure to get in memes and sound bites rather than anything substantive- for which there is zero time and no real judges to reward you for the mind-reeling sparks flying before the bell rings.

Since all these debates and the format and the whole manner of choosing such has been worked out long ago I think all campaigns and the party are to blame. Too much with too many in too screwed a format. Watching them on the forum concerning civil rights highlighted the flaws. Obama may not be in this current disgruntlement controversy but all candidates have been hamstrung. The League of Women Voters should have retained greater or ultimate say and showcase events done some other way, some other time. The Presidential debates are bad enough when a schlub disgrace like Junior with back pack of help on his back(I hear Rove people) can be orchestrated to somehow hold his own even minimally.

Mix matching one on ones. Letting them do a standup presentation on the issues with extended time(which is what they strive anxiously to do during the debates), press conference still grilling(which is what the questioners want). Instead they cram everything into a traveling road show trying to please everyone and controlling everything for safety. Like the Iraq War I think this has been predictable and the reason it is not as bad is because of the quality of the candidates themselves. Looking at the GOP one must wonder why they don't do away with the flaws since democracy or will of anyone except the kingmakers simply does not matter. This goes to the terrible quality of brains in that blighted party.
Or the arrogance or lack of imagination concerning everything except things done in secret.

Trying to get into this argument and try to get at individual candidates or democratic principles is to plunge blinkered into the morass. I am sure they will muddle through, edit out the cramming dates, deal with the chaos of states moving their voting dates. But if they had thought out process and goals on behalf of everyone and the goals and the values they wouldn't be trying to tweak things now. The moderated "debate" format time constraint has hampered all the candidates as far as I have observed. The ones creating this were ironically the candidates themselves, now and in the past with their campaign directors acting like lawyers and negotiators. Obviously process is malleable and the discipline of wisdom is to have a limited amount of real debates moderated outside the interests of competing party and candidate interests. And then do a bunch of other events to satisfy the needs of other forms of media presentation.

[AlGore-08.com]

2. I started a different thread about nobody is served by the current format

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3373927

Limiting the number of debates and/or the number of candidates participating is not the best solution to the problem, IMNSHO.

[waiting for hope]

14. That was well thought out - thanks

I have found the current "debates" frustrating - I wouldn't even call them a debate, just a Q&A session.

[Catchawave]

48. Great OP... I posted some thoughts

:hi:

[Alamom]

3. Suggested in a couple of threads, a couple of the words which are clear,

relate to the poverty issue. Makes sense for Clinton & Edwards.

[William769]

K&R!

[William769]

6. Self delete, dupe.

[JANdad]

8. I think this is a non-issue

all around. Who knows what they were talking about. First let's suppose they were talking about limiting the field...yea...and???? It's a COMPETITION for gawds sake! The idea is to win...and you do that by eliminating your opponents...HELLO!!!!!

Second...let's suppose they were talking about the debates/forums...any sane person would have to admit there are a great number of them and I can see where it would be hard to fit them all in and still remain on point...IMHO

[Tellurian]

20. The oppo supporters are grandstanding..

I'm surprised Kucinich is shooting his mouth off without doing his own research. He will be hurting himself in the end, as well as any from the Obama camp if they continue on and on with this non sequitur.

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/24636

[maxanne]

62. huh?

I don't have a problem with Kucinich reminding these folks that we are supposed to have DEMOCRATIC elections.

I don't want the corporate candidates deciding who I can and cannot hear.

[Tellurian]

74. The candidates don't decide who appears and who doesn't..

I have a problem with Kucinich if he isn't sure that is what Edwards and Hillary were talking about.

[Totally Committed]

15. This is JUST WRONG this far away from the primaries...

Limiting the debate now would, in effect, render the candidates with less $$$$$$$ voiceless.

I see their game here, and it disgusts me.


TC

[jsamuel]

16. Edwards said "sometime in the fall" that would be at most 3 months before the primaries

not a year as you suggest. Even now it is only 6 months away.

[Catchawave]

17. First primary is about 6 months away

correct me if I'm wrong :D

[Totally Committed]

29. Oops, my bad.... forgot about them moving them up so far!

I will correct my post to reflect that point. Thank you.

:)

TC

[jsamuel]

30. Is 3 months away too far? How far is too far to limit the debate for you?

[Totally Committed]

42. This is the United States...

where *supposedly* anyone can run for and become POTUS.

Why limit who debates at all? Just change the format of the debates, so that all positions and voices can be heard.

TC

[jsamuel]

47. Well, it's just that your first comment said this is wrong "this far away"

I was wondering how far away this could be done without it being wrong.

Besides, there are many candidates running right now that don't share that stage.

[Bread and Circus]

22. And by trying to silence the "non-serious" candidates, they are silencing...

all of the "non-serious" candidate's supporters.

Fuck Hillary and fuck Johnnie. They don't deserve to be in the White House.

God, I hope Gore runs.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

57. Read the OP. That is not what they were talking about

Obama fans are trying to milk this Faux Noise backed meme because they realize that if they can damage HRC and JE their candidate benefits by default.

[Tellurian]

24. Most likely they would like to limit the number of debates...not candidates..

easy to confuse the two- Or too convenient an issue for jumping on the bandwagon..

[William769]

21. Now that I have had my first cup of coffee, lets look at the facts.

Hillary is in her game while debating, theres no one better. Edwards is also a good debater, he is also very charismatic and has a smile that just won't quit.

If anyone should want to limit the debates it's Obama, his speaking style makes him look like a stiff board and of course him having no substance is also a good reason. Lets not forget the fact that he has lost the last three debates.

And finally, it's FAUX NEWS PEOPLE! Since when did they become credible here? Oh yea it's because it's Hillary and Edwatds thats the reason. :eyes:

[Tellurian]

25. The Obama supporters are all over this like stink on skunk!

Look who started the rumor: :crazy:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x40560

no surprise here!

[William769]

31. Thats laughable! thanks.

Can you say desperation? :rofl: :rofl:

[Mass]

33. Seems to me the media are all over the rumor

http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2007/07/ap-clinton-edwa.html

AP: Clinton & Edwards overheard talking about excluding some rivals from debates

No surprise that you are defending Hillary.
The truth is that there is NO WAY to know what they are speaking about. May be AP is right, may be the OP is right, may be it is about totally something else.

[William769]

35. The only thing that is correct is, Faux news is behind it.

What more needs to be said?

[BeyondGeography]

27. Oh yeah, and, by all accounts, Obama won yesterday

In fact, not only did he blow your candidate off the stage, she stepped in doo-doo when it was over.

A very good day indeed; love those unserious and trivial forums.

[churchofreality]

38. Obama = Captain Kirk

[jsamuel]

39. OMG!!!

:rofl:

[Totally Committed]

43. Did you forget the "sarcasm" smiley, or are you serious?

I literally don't know what to say to something like that.

TC

[churchofreality]

44. The way he pauses after everthing he says, sounds just like him...

Seriously

[Tellurian]

49. as Spock would say: "Totally illogical!"

:rofl:

[jsamuel]

52. That would be Gore.

"Assault on Reason, Captain"

[Tellurian]

53. Mmmm...

:rofl:

[NYCGirl]

50. So I guess that makes Edwards McCoy. NT

[draft_mario_cuomo]

58. Inconvenient truth: Obama joined HRC and Edwards in seeking to limit debates/forums

Yet BO fans continue to promote a Faux Noise based lie because if it gains traction it will boost their candidate's fading campaign. I guess the IWR card just doesn't have the zip it used to...

[GeorgeGist]

46. "The we? The Obama, HRC, and Edwards campaigns."

Unless you're being sarcastic, the OCE campaign message is clear: Get rid of the riff raff.

BTW how the phuck could you possibly know "What HRC, JE were really talking about"?

[draft_mario_cuomo]

59. No, they want to reduce the number of 18 debates and countless forums

That is a legitimate position. How many forums have actually mattered this year? It has nothing to do with candidates who are at 2% in the polls. Have the forums and debates helped them? No. We could have 1,000 debates and it would not affect the top 3.

==BTW how the phuck could you possibly know "What HRC, JE were really talking about"?==

Read the OP. I said this is what they were very likely talking about. Why? Instead of Swiftboating them based on Faux Noise I looked at past evidence that strongly suggests what they were talking about.

[Adelante]

56. Who the hell are they to decide something like this?

Ugh, this makes me sick.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

61. It is a legitimate position

The reason only they joined in is obvious: the other campaigns are desperate for any publicity they can get. I bet if they rose in the polls they would not be happy with 18+ debates either.

[TeamJordan23]

60. What was HRC referring to when she said "They are being trivialized"? nt

[rinsd]

63. I thought that was a reference to the forums themselves.

That's why I am unsure of the candidate limitation interpretation of what they said.

Because right before hand Hillary & Edwards are talking about something being trivialized then Hillary and Edwards go into discussing limiting it.

Why would they think other candidates were being trivialized and therefore had to be limited?

[draft_mario_cuomo]

64. Refer to post 63

Of course, we know you are not interested in the reality. You have already posted 2-3 threads promoting the lie without checking the facts. The IWR and money can only go so far...Ask Howard Dean.

[TeamJordan23]

65. Who were Edwards/Clintons referring to when they said "they are not being serious?" nt

[jillan]

66. This is even more ridiculous!

How are we going to decide who to vote for if we can't hear them debate????

Debates are so important. They give us an opportunity to look at the candidates side by side!

unbelievable!

[FrenchieCat]

67. Come on'!

To believe what you are saying is like saying......"we're getting Hosed"...again.



Stop with the nonsense excuses....Please! :eyes:

[jgraz]

68. Hey draft_mario, Thom Hartmann read this post on the air today!

:toast:

[draft_mario_cuomo]

71. Wow, that is quite an honor!

What did he say? I presume he agreed with it. :)

[jgraz]

72. You know Hartmann...he said it was "interesting"

Not sure he agreed, but he was trying to generate a little discussion on the topic.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

73. Cool. Thanks for notifying me about it

:toast:

[Tellurian]

75. good on you, dmc!

:party:

[draft_mario_cuomo]

76. Thanks nt

[ChiciB1]

77. Thanks For Posting This VERY Important Information... Sorry For Not

responding earlier, but I've been out of town and DON'T own a lap-top and had to get back home to reply!

I was sorry to see Dennis Kucinich make some comments regarding this on CNN, but apparently he felt he was being attacked and left out in some way. While I don't have ALL my ducks in the row regarding this I was keeping an eye on whatever news I could while I was away. The place I was at did not have the most up to date TV connections, but did have CNN.

I also would like to say for the record, that I have noticed some posts here quoting this or that poll and I for one don't put much stock in ANY of them right now. While watching C-Span this AM there was a person on there from NYT and he was stating the same thing, PLUS many many callers were saying the very same thing. They talked a lot about "money" issues too and while many have raised a lot, some candidates had some donors who donated the maximum of $2300.00 a pop which raised their totals in the beginning. The point being that this may not be sustainable until the election really gets hot!!

Just more of my two cents!!