Hillary and Edwards scheming to exclude "not serious" candidates

[jefferson_dem]

Run time: 03:06 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKbv5Wj_bzM   Posted on YouTube: July 12, 2007 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: July 13, 2007 By DU Member: jefferson_dem Views on DU: 2866

 
If you don't want to sit through all the FauxNews nonsense, you can hear the exchange between the two "serious ones" at around the 1:45 mark.

[MannyGoldstein]

1. Clinton/Edwards Debate - Two Candidates, Three Debaters

Moderator: Where do you stand on the Iraq war?
Edwards: I'm for the war!
Clinton: I'm for and against the war!
Edwards: I'm against the war!

Moderator: Where do you stand on outsourcing jobs to China?
Edwards: I'm for outsourcing jobs to China!
Clinton: I'm for and against outsourcing jobs to China!
Edwards: I'm against outsourcing jobs to China!

etc.

[Bread and Circus]

13. LMAO

[1932]

2. The last ten seconds are funny. Fox tells us what Obama critics are going to say about him

before they say it.

So, is that reporting, or is that spinning?

Also, Hil says something interesting that I haven's seen in the DU discussions about this. She says the others are being trivialized, which is why she thinks a smaller group would be good. I wonder what she meant by that.

[jefferson_dem]

3. No shit. If anyone needed any more evidence of bias, there you have it.

I guess FauxNews felt they needed to use this opportunity to slam another Dem too. How fucking transparant can they be. "Notes were permissible under the rules but..."

[Double T]

4. I hope the NAACP doesn't fall for this crap.

All candidates are viable UNTIL after the primaries, and sometimes beyond.

[jillan]

5. Thank you for posting this - I am sending it around.

I have already emailed Hillary.

[bluestateguy]

6. Nonetheless

Having a debate with 10 candidates crammed onto the stage kind of spreads things thin and functions more like a press conference, rather than an in-depth debate on the issues.

By the fall it will be time to separate the grownups from the kids eating peanut butter and jelly sandwiches at the kids table.

[Just-plain-Kathy]

33. "Grownups from the kids"? ...In this case, the kids care more about us then the adults.

I want to hear the kids speak.

[Pyrzqxgl]

44. What about having a debate with twice the time given

so the candidates all have enough time to give complete answers?

[robinlynne]

47. right!

[cui bono]

48. I agree whole heartedly. Kucinich is definitely the adult here.

Kucinich is the one with the adult ideas. He's the one who's mature enough to know that his job would be protecting the constitution and the people of the USA, not the corporations.

Not to mention the fact that he went over to shake Clinton's and Edwards' hands and they all but ignored him as if he were nonexistent. That really struck me as so rude. They should listen to him. He has better ideas than both of them.

[qazplm]

7. they are right

At some point, it will be time to cut this down. Don't know if we are there yet, but I would for one like to see it knocked down to the yes more serious candidates before the primaries start.

[jillan]

9. But how do you know who is a serious candidate YET?

Answer that question in six months.

Anything could happen between now and then.
Look at the repugs - Allen was the next in line for their party.

It could happen to any one of our candidates too.

[penguin7]

10. The more special interest money, the more serious

[Bread and Circus]

12. bingo! we have a winner

I'm a fairly sad panda after watching that, it was really bad form.

[Bread and Circus]

11. Actually, if that was real, I am really disgusted with Clinton and Edwards

I couldn't believe what I was hearing. It was fairly horrible.

It's hard to trust if it was real, coming from Fox though.

[Texas_Kat]

14. It's on ABCs site as well

The audio isn't as clear, but it's clear that Fox's version was not a distortion of what they said.

You probably have to have a lot of practice doing transcripts to catch it in the ABC version, I think.... but it's what they said.

[emulatorloo]

45. That's what they said, but to me it is unclear what they are talking about -- I THINK FOX IS LYING

In no way is it clearly stated that they are conspiring to shut out other candidates.

They could be talking about practically anything -- venues, caterers, crap I have no idea what.

That is it looks to me that FOX IS JUMPING TO CONCLUSIONS.

Fox has a history of misreporting things to put Democrats in the worst light possible.

My feeling is that they do it to pit democrat activists against one another -- Divide and Conquer is the oldest RNC GOP ROVE strategy in the book.

[beyurslf]

8. I agree. I don't want to watch a debate with almost a dozen people

up there. Please cut it down to a more manageable number.

[Texas_Kat]

15. The 04 debates had 10 candidates

Not the best way for a candidate to shine, but none of the 04 candidates connived to winnow down the field artificially.

[Conscious Confucius]

16. Easy for you, a Clinton supporter.

What about those of us who refuse media sponsorship and choose candidates for ourselves? I'd rather watch a debate between Kucinich and Gravel exclusively than Clinton and Edwards. After all, what's to debate between two candidates that refuse a stance on anything?

[purduejake]

18. There are too many people.

So lets get rid of the people we know support the war (Clinton), who support separate but "equal" institutions (Obama), and those who won't fight for office when a Republican steals it (Edwards). Makes it a little easier to follow once we weed out those who aren't serious about upholding the Constitution they'll be sworn to protect if elected.

[Conscious Confucius]

19. Why don't we just elect Kucinich and get it over with?

We need a Democrat that will represent Democratic ideals, and not conservative centrism.

[lyonn]

37. So who should be cut?

Biden is someone that I want to hear more from. There are many that feel Kucinich, Dodd, Richardson, etc. speaks for them or at least gets close. We are 6 months away from a primary. The "top tier" have more money to get their word out. How do the others compete? Is this a money game this early in the game?

[jsamuel]

17. Edwards specifically said "In the Fall" Which I think most people would agree with.

At some point, they have to get some of the main choices up there with enough time to answer a question with more time than 30 seconds. Otherwise candidates and watchers will have to learn to speak and hear without vowels.

[Bread and Circus]

20. I was coming around to Edwards a bit... Obama was fading in my eyes...

but not now.

Quixotic or not, I think I'm getting behind Kucinich, if only for a bit of justice in this world.

Hillary's and John's little exchange was an example of their arrogance and conceit revealed and unfiltered. Neither will ever get my vote or money.

Further, here's what was really being said:

Hillary: You know I'm gonna be the nominee, I can't believe I have to deal with these twits...
Edwards: Can I be your VP?

Am I wrong?

[jsamuel]

21. Edwards isn't going to be VP again.

He talks to another candidate, so that means he wants to be their VP? He won't have it. He hated it in 2004.

It's your choice who you want to support. If an offhand conversation about debate formats is more important to you than the issues, then I can't stop you from switching.

[pioneer111]

24. Yes, you are wrong

Kucinich is a good guy. Edwards is a winner. And anything Fox News says especially about Edwards is likely to be a lie.

[Bread and Circus]

35. Did you see the video? I've watched it several times, it seems clear to me...

what they are saying.

[William769]

22. I didn't hear anything.

I did see tough where Fauxs news rolled on the screen what they wanted us to hear. WTG Fuaxs news! :eyes:

WTG ofriginal OP for using FAUx NEWS! Are you all that desperate? :rofl:

[be inspired]

23. Couldn't hear it.

I listened to the audio from this exchange many times, and recorded the audio and played with it with an equalizer to try to hear it better. I never heard Edwards say "smaller." I think Fox News is making that up. I think they are talking about the format of the debates and about the media trivializing the political dialogue, not who can participate in the debates. Remember, this is from FAUX news. Just because they put a subtitle on it, doesn't mean the subtitle is accurate.

[zalinda]

36. I couldn't hear it either

What I did hear is Fox News trying to demonize the dems again. This is a bunch of crap. And even if you believed what Fox News was saying, it doesn't amount to much of anything. Gravel, Biden and Dodd have very little chance in getting the nomination, as does Kucinich. And snipping at the other dem candidates like they have done is not too terrific, especially if they agreed before hand not to do it.

Right now it is speculation at best on what they were even talking about. Fox is playing the gotcha game with the dems, but instead of the Howard scream, it's the Edwards/Clinton whisper. What's the saying? Divide and conquer.

zalinda

[jefferson_dem]

25. Somehow i'm not surprised that you don't hear anything, Will.

[William769]

26. Apparently I'm not the only one.

Once again no substance. But then again I didn't expect any.

[jefferson_dem]

27. Their conversation is being validated by other media outlets.

Ruh roh for your denials and deflections.

I post video/audio clip here. You say you don't hear anything.

...and then accuse me of lacking substance.

That's the real :rofl:

[William769]

28. Other media outlets are only reporting what FAUX news said happened.

:rofl: Typical of MSM.

I did hear on the audio though that Obaba said " There is no way I can win, I just want to be Hillary's VP". See how that works?

[jefferson_dem]

29. AP story says otherwise.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3373890&page=1

And you better get on the horn with the Kucinich camp. They seem to think the conversation happened as reported.
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/07-13-2007/0004624922&EDATE=

[William769]

30. Where does AP story say otherwise?

They just cut & pasted FAUX news As I said earlier.

As for the Kucinich camp, Who cares? As I said earlier in another thread, he's just pissed because a girl is trouncing him in his own State. Now thats new!

[William769]

31. self delete, dupe.

[lyonn]

39. Notice Kucinich walked behind them while the 2 were speaking

I'd like to know what he heard, if anything. Did he only pick up what Fox presented?

[slipslidingaway]

32. The audio is not great but the words on the screen match what

is being said when you listen closely. Thanks for posting.

[ieoeja]

34. Normal tone of voice surrounded by the people they plan to exclude.

Only FAUX could make up shit this stupid.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

38. Obama fans continue to try to milk this by promoting a lie about what they did

I guess the IWR card doesn't have the same zip it used to? ;) The truth: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3373953#3374059

[JDPriestly]

40. My analysis of the language makes me think they were talking about

the number of debates. The crucial words of Hillary were: "cut the number. . . ." and "they are just being trivialized."

The issue is whether these words applied to the debates, as Edwards and Hillary apparently maintain, or to the candidates as Faux News suggests. This issue arises because the excerpt from their conversation is missing a noun. Assuming it to be either "candidates" or "debates," we can figure out what they were most likely talking about as follows.

For the sake of argument, let's test different assumptions to determine whether they make sense. Underlying both assumptions is the given that Hillary speaks excellent English.

Assumption No. 1. Assuming that Hillary and Edwards were talking about the candidates, the term "number" would make sense. They would reasonably have used the word "number" in discussing the candidates. The noun to which the pronoun "they" refers is unclear from the short clip we hear, but that noun appears to be the same word that the word "number" referred to. Thus, "they" could refer to either candidates or debates. "They are just being trivialized." If we substitute the word "candidates" for "they," Hillary would have been saying: 'The candidates are just being trivialized.' You may think differently, but I find that to be extremely awkward English. It doesn't sound like Hillary. She is very careful in her use of language. Therefore, I do not think it is likely that Hillary and Edwards were talking about the candidates. I do not think that "the number" or "they" referred to the number of candidates.

Assumption No. 2. We assume for the reasons stated above that just what noun the words "number" and "they" refer to is ambiguous. We assume for the sake of argument that those words might refer to the debates. 'Cut the number of debates' makes sense. So does 'the debates are being trivialized.'

My understanding of English language and usage and application of logic causes me to believe that Hillary and Edwards were referring to the number of debates, not the number of candidates. It is of course possible that they were speaking of something else, neither debates nor candidates. And, I'm applying my understanding of and experience with English and my form of logic, so you c

My suspicion not based on fact or logic: Faux News is mad because the Democrats won't debate on their propaganda network. And Edwards and Hillary were instrumental in snubbing Faux. Maybe that is what this is really about.

Personally, I believe that all the candidates are interesting and contributing to our national discourse. I think it is too soon to eliminate any of them. Hillary and Edwards are probably quite happy to have the likes of Gravel, Biden and Dodd in the debates because their presence draws a lot of attention and publicity. Both Hillary and Edwards are probably hoping for endorsements from the so-called minor candidates along the way. And, who knows, any one or all of the so-called major candidates could drop out at any point. That is not unusual at all. Look at McCain's campaign. And he was the front running Republican not that long ago.

[lyonn]

42. This makes more sense,

Add to your logic the idea of those two discussing eliminating some of the candidates right there while everyone is milling around doesn't fit. It is more likely they were discussing how often they should debate.

Fox is no doubt having a good time stirring up dissention. Especially since only one repub thought the debate was worth their time. Not likely, the cowardly, one note Johnnies would get whipped by our team!

[Alamom]

46. I agree. If you're planning on knocking people off, you do it in private.n/t

[KansDem]

41. WAIT!!! Obama is being criticized for using a note-pad but Bush can use an earpiece in his debates?

I don't recall FOX raising that issue at all!

[venable]

43. Every single candidate EVER wants only to debate those polling higher or the same

there is nothing in this that is anti-democratic, anti-openness... it is for clarity.

How come the candidate of pure environmentalism, or socialist workers party, or others are not involved....because at some point a weaning occurs.

it is not yet time to lower the number of debaters, but later it will be...as Edwards said, maybe in the fall.

at that time, I would really like to see five people debating.

whoever are the five most likely candidates.

I think Gravel and/or Kucinich should be included because they speak for a real constituency, and move the conversation from the middle (as does Edwards BTW)

Like last time, Rev Al was critical.

But we need detailed answers, and a large number of debaters prohibit that. I want to hear what people say when they can go on for a bit.

This is simply not a big deal, except to those candidates and their supporters who would be left behind.