Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Clinton, Edwards talk of limiting debate Kucinich Camp Outraged (2 articles)

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 » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
seriousstan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 09:09 AM
Original message
Clinton, Edwards talk of limiting debate Kucinich Camp Outraged (2 articles)
Source: Associated Press

DETROIT (AP) - Democrats John Edwards and Hillary Rodham Clinton consider themselves among the top presidential candidates.

They were caught by Fox News microphones discussing their desire to limit future joint appearances to exclude some lower rivals after a forum in Detroit Thursday.

Edwards says, "We should try to have a more serious and a smaller group."

Clinton agrees, saying, "We've got to cut the number" and "they're not serious." She also says that she thought their campaigns had already tried to limit the debates and say, "We've gotta get back to it."

Others taking part in the forum sponsored by the NAACP were Senators Barack Obama, Chris Dodd and Joe Biden, Congressman Dennis Kucinich, New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson and former Alaska Senator Mike Gravel.


Kucinich Camp Outraged by 'Overheard' Plans of Clinton and Edwards to Eliminate Candidates from Future Presidential Debates, Forums

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/20070713/pl_usnw/kucinich_...

DETROIT, July 13 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Top campaign officials for Ohio Congressman and Democratic Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich tonight expressed outrage that rival candidates Hillary Clinton and John Edwards were overheard collaborating on a strategy to eliminate other Democratic candidates from future debates and forums

---cut---

"Candidates, no matter how important or influential they perceive themselves to be, do not have and should not have the power to determine who is allowed to speak to the American public and who is not," said Kucinich.


"Imperial candidates are as repugnant to the American people and to our Democracy as an imperial President."


The Kucinich campaign will immediately take steps to address the planned actions of the Clinton and Edwards campaigns.





Read more: http://www.wluctv6.com/Global/story.asp?S=6784011
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
merwin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 09:20 AM
Response to Original message
1. Hate to say it, but that's the point of a campaign. Limit the debate, frame the issues, and
do anything you can to win.

Nobody would say anything if a Dem was doing that to a Republican in the general election, why is it any different when a Democrat does it to another Democrat?

And as to the "Candidates do not have the power to determine who is allowed to speak to the American public" line, that's complete BS. We have proven that grassroots campaigns are successful. If one campaign is trying to shut you out, find a new way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mikelgb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 09:23 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. Dennis is finding a way.
he is speaking out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stressfulreality Donating Member (118 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 02:28 PM
Response to Reply #3
61. which is a good thing, but...
until he starts supporting to protect our 2nd ammendment - Dennis is ____ in my book.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grahamhgreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 09:54 AM
Response to Reply #1
14. Why don't we just have you decide on who should debate and what issues should be discussed?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merwin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 11:25 AM
Response to Reply #14
37. Where do I say that a thid party should decide what issues and who to debate?
Just because Hillary and Edwards might be attempting to limit it, doesn't mean that the other candidates aren't allowed to find another way to get their message out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
harun Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 10:36 AM
Response to Reply #1
24. Limit the Debate? That is not what should happen at this stage
I would like to hear from the Clinton and Edwards camps exactly which candidates they were talking about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
november3rd Donating Member (653 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 01:30 PM
Response to Reply #1
48. Uhh....
Thanks, anyway, but I prefer to let the people decide who we want to represent us, not some other candidates.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Honeycombe8 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-14-07 12:39 PM
Response to Reply #1
103. It used to be that debate was limited to those with at least 15% public support.
Edited on Sat Jul-14-07 12:40 PM by indie_ana_500
I don't know why it was opened up to anyone and everyone, and then for so long a period of time. After all, it has been months, and there have been several debates. The candidates with almost no chance of winning the nomination - we have heard their messages, and they were worth hearing. But it's time to get serious. Voters need to really hear at debates more than soundbites from the candidates who have a chance of winning.

We all know that there are several candidates who have no chance whatsoever of winning the nomination. It is fair to include all of them at the outset to hear their message.

But closer to the primaries, it is very important to hone in on the candidates who have any significant support at all, so that the debate can be focused among the candidates who have at least a serious chance of winning the nomination. This lets each candidate really talk more about the nuances of the various positions, rather than us hearing soundbites from 10 or so candidates.

In a perfect world, the candidates with almost no chance of winning would drop out, for the benefit of the party and the country (and us, the voters). But when they don't, for whatever reason, then we, the voters, should insist that they step aside and stop taking crucial debate time from the ones who have at least a nominal chance of winning.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
marshall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-15-07 09:43 AM
Response to Reply #1
121. Don't hate it when it's the truth
It's a dog fight from start to finish. Anybody who isn't willing to do anything within legal and ethical bounds in order to win doesn't believe in themselves enough and probably sholdn't be in the race.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Javaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 09:21 AM
Response to Original message
2. Yeah can't have candidates there that tell the truth after all. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1monster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 09:26 AM
Response to Original message
4. Give us, the voters equal opportunity to see ALL of the candidates and let US decide who
is best suited for the Presidency.

It is time to stop the artificial stifling of the candidates.

I don't need HR Clinton or Edwards or anyone else deciding who is a "lower level" candidate and who is serious or not.

That is up to us, the voters, the decide.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
qazplm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 09:34 AM
Response to Reply #4
7. well
havent the polls kinda started the process pretty clearly already.

I have just as much of a chance of being elected president as gravel or kucinich.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frazzled Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 09:46 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. Well ....
in the last Democratic primaries, candidates like Sharpton, Mosley-Braun, Kucinich, or even Clark for that matter, had little chance. But they were in all of the debates and their voices added important aspects to the discussion. It should be that way again.

It should be the debate hosts who decide who will participate (and take the resulting heat), not the candidates themselves. I suppose Edwards and Hillary want to collaborate to threaten they won't participate in a particular debate unless the number of speakers is limited. I hope debate sponsors don't succumb to the blackmail.

I'm not crazy about Gravel being in these debates because he's a crackpot. But that's the price of an open society and a democratic system. So let him stay, I guess. But I can think of no other candidate who is not "serious." How dare these two deign to determine who is "serious" and who is not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
emulatorloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 09:51 AM
Response to Reply #8
11. I agree, the more the merrier for a while -- realistically though it is gonna come down to Clinton,
Edwards, Obama.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
go west young man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 09:54 AM
Response to Reply #8
13. "Crackpots" a bit strong don't you think?
Personally I like him. He is passionate and cuts right to the point. And he's right most of the candidates can't be trusted. They let their guard down and gave Bush the power to take us to war. While Byrd and Kucinich were in Congress trying to keep the Constitution intact they were relegating their authority to a spoiled frat boy turned failed oilman.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
qazplm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 10:03 AM
Response to Reply #8
18. Clark had more of a chance than some of these guys
no Mosley-Braun had no chance and she dropped out pretty early. Sharpton, well, he's Sharpton. :)

He at least was entertaining and I believe he did contribute to the debates, Gravel does nothing but growl.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iamjoy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 06:22 PM
Response to Reply #8
82. That's A Pretty Big Assumption You Make
that Edwards and Clinton would threaten to boycott a debate if candidates they don't consider "serious" were included.

Who is to determine who is serious and who is not? In the 2000 Presidential election, there were 10 candidates on the ballot (Florida). Would you apply the same rule in the general election and say the Presidential debates should be open to all candidates or only the serious ones? How would we define serious?

Perhaps all Edwards and Clinton were trying to do was arrange a discussion on how to have a serious, more focused debate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
asthmaticeog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 09:56 AM
Response to Reply #7
15. How well was Bill Clinton polling early in his campaign?
POORLY, that's how. The debates exposed him and his ideas to the American people and despite being one of the smaller names in that year's field, I'm pretty sure he ended up winning.

I'm now saying that Gravel, Dodd or Kucinich have such a great chance at prevailing, but they belong in the presidential debates. Because they're running for president. When corporatists like Clinton and Edwards conspire to keep them out, it's becuase they're finding it harder and harder to answer questions about health care when other JUST AS SERIOUS candidates are using terms like "single payer."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
qazplm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 10:01 AM
Response to Reply #15
17. If Gravel, Kucinich or Dodd
win I will go buy a hat and then eat it.

If any of those guys win, I'll liquidate my entire bank account and give it to the nearest homeless person I can find.

It ain't happening and we all know it.

I dont think they "belong" in the debates. I don't have any heartache with them being in the debates but I don't see what they are adding and they are wasting the time for the rest of us to figure out in more detail those candidates who do have a legitimate chance of gaining the nomination.

So I'm not going to get all excised because the front-runners want to start getting serious, if I were them, I'd like to see it pared down too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
asthmaticeog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 10:29 AM
Response to Reply #17
21. Oof, bad typo: "I'm now saying" should have been "I'm NOT saying."
That said, injecting ideas about policy into a national political debate is NEVER "wasting time." But you'd just as soon they shut up and that the only people permitted to speak about ideas to the primary campaign table be corporatists, a FULL YEAR before the convention. Interesting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 10:49 AM
Response to Reply #21
28. Well only the corporate-approve candidates are realistic.
Doesn't that convince you that we should only hear from those wiling to trade away worker rights, a truly humane healthcare system, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera?

:banghead:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
asthmaticeog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 10:55 AM
Response to Reply #28
32. Somehow, I always think of the candidates with "bad" hair as being MORE serious.
Edited on Fri Jul-13-07 11:00 AM by asthmaticeog
Silly fuckin' me, I guess. It must be time for me to make my peace with outsourcing, perpetual war and Pantene Pro-V. :eyes:

Edit: spelling. I'm big on the typos today, it seems...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 11:44 AM
Response to Reply #32
43. Yeah, Lincoln had bad hair,too.
:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truedelphi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 01:45 PM
Response to Reply #28
50. Yep after all, how can we keep our government a government
Of the Corporations if we have free wielding candidates?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
5X Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 10:49 AM
Response to Reply #17
27. cheney? that you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zhade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 02:58 PM
Response to Reply #17
68. Thank goodness YOU don't run the democratic process.
NT!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
silverojo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 05:16 PM
Response to Reply #17
78. It's sad, but I agree
I don't have any heartache with them being in the debates but I don't see what they are adding and they are wasting the time for the rest of us to figure out in more detail those candidates who do have a legitimate chance of gaining the nomination.

It's impossible to have a debate in which you can hear what the front-runners believe in (in-depth) when there are so many candidates involved that each person is asked only a handful of questions. And the lesser candidates often just wildly attack the front-runners in an attempt to get attention for their campaigns, but it never works (though I like Kucinich, he was guilty of doing just that in the recent debates).

When candidates are polling in single digits, the people have already spoken--they're simply not interested. We've already had the debates in which everybody got to have their say, and the poll numbers haven't changed significantly.

Even though I'm an Edwards supporter...if he were polling on a level with Kucinich, et. al., I'd be moving along and trying to choose a front-runner to support. I'd even hold my nose and vote for Hillary, if necessary...because the important thing is making sure NO Republican takes up where Dumbya leaves off.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lyonn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 11:39 AM
Response to Reply #15
42. Since I lean towards Biden, it is important to some of us that
the "lower tier" (hate how they now classify our candidates) have a chance to speak along with the "upper tier". I don't have a problem with any of our candidates in particular, they all have pluses and minuses. Most of our candidates are too cautious from the "upper tier" with their platform. At least Kucinich, Biden and Richardson make the others come out of the shadows and explain themselves.

Uhhh, could we get Clark to throw his hat in the ring? Course Clark is handy to have around in any position in an administration!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
silverojo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 05:20 PM
Response to Reply #42
79. You lean towards Biden?
That plagiarist turned Credit Card Company Advocate can just go to hell, right along with his poll numbers. Kucinich has more values in his pinky finger than that corporate whore has in his entire body.

Though Edwards may be something of a corporatist, too, at least he cares about the poor and working class, which the other candidates don't care about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lydia Leftcoast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 01:49 PM
Response to Reply #7
52. The polls are responding to the fact that the mainstream media
act as if there are only three candidates in the Dem race: Hillary, Obama, and Edwards. They're the ones who are featured in Time and Newsweek and on TV news. The corporate media have already named them the frontrunners, partly because of their ability to raise corporate and PAC cash, partly because they're three candidates who won't rock the boat in any serious way.

So your average non-political junkie American is going to naturally think of these three when asked for his/her choice for the Dem nomination.

Try an experiment. Ask some of your friends and relatives who are not active on the Internet who all the candidates for the Dem nomination are.

My guess is that all will be able to name Hillary and Obama, a majority but not all will be able to name Edwards, and almost none will be able to name the rest.

And that, you see, is completely the result of the corporate media deciding who's an "acceptable" candidate.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zhade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 02:57 PM
Response to Reply #7
67. Popularity doesn't run the democratic process.
THAT'S called "mob rule".

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProudDad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-14-07 11:30 PM
Response to Reply #67
112. Yep
We've got "Corporate Rule"...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1monster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 05:39 PM
Response to Reply #7
80. No. At this point the polls don't count. The people need to be able to hear from
the candidates.

Kucinich comes across as reasonable, intelligent, open, honest, and for the people.

I don't know that much about Gravel at this point.

My husband likes Richardson.

It is NOT up to the candidates themselves or the news media to chose our nominee for us, though both of those do their best to do so anyway.

And, no, I don't think your chances are as good as Kucinich's chances.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Honeycombe8 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-14-07 12:37 PM
Response to Reply #4
102. The opportunity has been given. There have been SEVERAL debates with ALL candidates.
We all know that there are several candidates who have no chance whatsoever of winning the nomination. It is fair to include all of them at the outset to hear their message.

But closer to the primaries, it is very important to hone in on the candidates who have any significant support at all, so that the debate can be focused among the candidates who have at least a serious chance of winning the nomination. This lets each candidate really talk more about the nuances of the various positions, rather than us hearing soundbites from 10 or so candidates.

In a perfect world, the candidates with almost no chance of winning would drop out, for the benefit of the party and the country (and us, the voters). But when they don't, for whatever reason, then we, the voters, should insist that they step aside and stop taking crucial debate time from the ones who have at least a nominal chance of winning.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frazzled Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 09:27 AM
Response to Original message
5. I finally looked at the video this morning
Edwards initiates the discussion of cutting out some candidates, going over to Clinton. She agrees and as they turn to leave, Clinton saying "our guys should talk," they both blow off Obama.

Kucinich has every right to be outraged. And all the others. Where do these two get away with trying to machinate the debates? Edwards gets the main boos here for bringing it up (more me time, please!); Clinton for agreeing and offering to sic her dogs on the issue.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-14-07 12:06 PM
Response to Reply #5
96. Not sure Edwards should get the lion's share of the boos
He may have initiated the conversation, but it's pretty clear Clinton is an equal partner in running this railroad.

Yes, of course, this is petty. But this is big league politics, too. Frankly, I'm surprised they haven't run Gravel off the stage yet. He's the only one I'd like to see cut at this time; he's deadweight. Kucinich is giving a legitimate, measured, and serious voice to issues the big three (and me too) would like to go away. As much as I disagree with Kucinich's approach to politics, his voice belongs onstage. He makes us centrists uncomfortable, as we should be.

Still, Edwards & Clinton have every right to try and narrow the field of consideration--it's not idealistic or glamorous, but it's a legitimate move in the democratic game. It's called a campaign for a reason: you're supposed to outwit, out organize, and outmaneuver your opponents. This is how the game is played. Kucinich knows this and he's handling it brilliantly.

This whisper game doesn't affect my opinion of either Clinton or Edwards a bit. I'd vote for either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dogmudgeon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 09:30 AM
Response to Original message
6. "They were caught by Fox News microphones ..."
Don't that just say it all.

--p!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seriousstan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 09:49 AM
Response to Reply #6
9. Bad microphones, bad, bad microphones. They made them say those things.
Talk about shooting the messenger.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NavyDavy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 09:52 AM
Response to Reply #6
12. it looks like some supporters of dennis are willing to believe
anything they hear.....so now faux news is credible....give me a frigging break....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seriousstan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 09:59 AM
Response to Reply #12
16. And haters of Fox don't believe their own eyes and ears. Did you see the video?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Justyce Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 10:25 AM
Response to Reply #16
20. I've watched the video, and I still am not
totally convinced this is what they are even talking about -- it's so vague. "trying to trivialize" "got to get back to that", sounds like it could be any issue. *IF* that's what they're saying, then I agree it's inappropriate and not up to them to decide...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Count Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 01:51 PM
Response to Reply #16
55. dang! The ABC cameras are lying too! Seems like the champion of the little guy
started this "let's get rid of the little guy" thinghie too. How perfectly appropriate!
Thanks for this
http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=3371185
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zhade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 03:00 PM
Response to Reply #16
69. "haters of Fox"? Wow, you make it sound like they're somehow NOT worthy of contempt.
So now you're defending Fox News? Why am I not surprised?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
go west young man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 09:49 AM
Response to Original message
10. Thanks you Dennis Kucinich for fighting.
Light shed on things like this is much better for America in the future. You have the spine this country needs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Freddie Stubbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 10:06 AM
Response to Original message
19. Why did Kucinich assume he was one of the non-'serious' candidates they were talking about?
Edited on Fri Jul-13-07 10:07 AM by Freddie Stubbs
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JTFrog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 10:36 AM
Response to Reply #19
23. Because if you look
at the minutes given to each of the candidates in the debates, he's been trivialized. The facts prove his point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 10:46 AM
Response to Reply #23
25. he was being snarky
*sigh*

i can see such a shiny, bright future ahead for our oh-so-progressive party
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zhade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 03:04 PM
Response to Reply #25
71. That's the main problem - it's not progressive.
Edited on Fri Jul-13-07 03:04 PM by Zhade
The party, and even a fair amount of its base, are somewhat conservative at heart (based on their ignorance of what's actually going on in the world) - despite their self-labeling as liberal.

As long as we welcome conservative lies and propaganda into the fold (e.g. "NAFTA is good! Corporations are good!"), things won't change. Hence, the party will splinter significantly sometime in the not-too-distant future.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 04:34 PM
Response to Reply #71
77. Reagan babies?
Think it might be due to an entire generation being fed the BS since birth?

I had an otherwise liberal person tell me that there shouldn't be a minimum wage, and then spout horatio alger platitudes at me. Two, actually.

*sigh*
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-14-07 12:11 PM
Response to Reply #19
97. It doesn't matter who they meant. They made a mistake and he hit 'em both hard.
This was a great move on Kucinich's part. They could've meant Biden and Richardson and Blitzer for all he cares. The point is that they got caught talking strategy on mic and he used it to boost his image. There's no way the candidate forums can be whittled down now. This was a top notch play by Kooch and he deserves all the credit he gets.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frylock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 10:32 AM
Response to Original message
22. just business as usual..
why anyone be surprised by this is beyond me. Prepare yourself for more BAU and "moving on" when Clinton's elected.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 10:48 AM
Response to Reply #22
26. I'm surprised at Edwards. So much for that "two Americas" stuff.
Don't know which is worse, Edwards pretense of inclusivity or the blatant undemocratic behavior that is Clinton's habit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 10:52 AM
Response to Reply #26
30. No reason to be surprised.
They're politicians.

Kucinich is as good as we can get, but people won't even try...

We get what the majority will ask/work for, I guess.

*sigh*
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 10:54 AM
Response to Reply #30
31. I'm signing up with DK's campaign today. You're right. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Psephos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 11:13 AM
Response to Reply #26
33. Well said n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frylock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 11:15 AM
Response to Reply #26
34. as trivial as it was, edwards lost me with the traveling stylist..
you can't portray yourself as the Johnny Cash of the political circuit, then turn around and spend that kind of jack on a haircut without losing some cred. Just my humble opinion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 11:24 AM
Response to Reply #34
36. I tried to ignore the haircut. In fact, I usually hang out until
the Democrats have a candidate. But, this is just galling. I'm now "sunset" at the DK site forum and have signed up to flyer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sellitman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 01:48 PM
Response to Reply #34
51. You are drinking Repig swill
Health care, the War, and Pollution isn't important but hair cuts work for you?

You are whats wrong with voters in this country.

:spank:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frylock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 02:18 PM
Response to Reply #51
60. it's the hypocrisy..
and I vote on issues, not along party lines. Voting along party lines is what's WRONG with voters in this country. I voted for Kerry, and he was the first and only Democratic candidate for President I ever cast a vote for. I'm no longer going to vote to block. It's gotten me NOTHING. The Dems need to get off of their collective NUTS and earn the votes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sellitman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 02:42 PM
Response to Reply #60
63. Issues?
Since when is a haircut an issue?

You need to pay attention.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frylock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 03:57 PM
Response to Reply #63
76. hypocrisy is the issue
comprende?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sellitman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-14-07 08:14 AM
Response to Reply #76
94. So...
Only poor people can workto help the poor according to your logic.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frylock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-14-07 11:51 AM
Response to Reply #94
95. so...
long.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProudDad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-14-07 11:33 PM
Response to Reply #51
113. Not just repug swill
Hillary's boy Mark Penn:

"Hillary Pollster Mark Penn's Firm Tests Negative Messages On Obama And Edwards -- Including On $400 Haircut"

Who needs the repubs when you've got Mark Penn - the union busting hillarybot...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sellitman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 01:50 PM
Response to Reply #34
54. Dennis Kucinich brings too much to the table.
To limit his ideas and debate makes our party weaker.

This is a very sad development at this time in the election cycle.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Occulus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 10:52 AM
Response to Original message
29. I hope they realize they just lost votes
mine included.

Sorry, but that was the straw from Hillary that truly broke my back. She won't ever be getting a dime from me, and she won't get my vote. If she gets the nomination I'll just zip my lip until after the election.

There's nothing good to say about this and we all should be bloody outraged. I'll retract the entirety of this post if they both apologize.

This crap is the last thing out country needs right now. That they apparently don't realize this should disqualify them both in the eyes of the electorate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BigDDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 11:19 AM
Response to Original message
35. Funny that
Dennis, the king of 1% put himself in the category of "not serious."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lyonn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 11:26 AM
Response to Original message
38. This is the Primary season, no one has been annointed, yet - nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fovea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 11:29 AM
Response to Original message
39. Serious....
It's about what you say and what you do, not how you poll or how much money you raise in an insanely long campaign season.

If this is actually what was said, I need a strong apology from either of these to take them seriously again, and I was up till this moment a strong Edwards supporter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 11:32 AM
Response to Original message
40. If I was Hillary, I would want to silence Dennis K's voice too.
It is soooo embarrassing for the "serious" candidates to have someone who is CLEAR & Consistent on the stage with them while they triangulate and weasel.

If DK is eliminated from the debates, who will tell America that:

*Single Payer Universal HealthCare is not only possible, but cheaper.

*that "For Profit" HealthCare is obscene

*that Mandatory Health Insurance is NOT REALLY Universal HealthCare

*that the Democratic Party and American taxpayers really should NOT be forced to subsidize some of the richest CEOs in history by supporting the HealthCare Insurance Corps and HMOs.

*that the Us SHOULD give the Imperial Palace (Green Zone) back to the Iraqis, close the permanent bases, expel all Corporate Consultants, withdraw ALL US Troops, and begin paying reparations NOW.

*that redeploying some troops at some future date is a PRO-WAR position.

*that The Democratic Party supported "Oil Law Benchmark" is a War Crime

*That we can have election accountability with "Paper Ballots publicly hand counted at the precinct".

*that we CAN cut $Billions$ from the Defense Budget, and they will do just fine.

*that the RICHEST Corporations in history do NOT need $Billions$ in welfare subsidies

*that NAFTA (Free Trade) has not been a good thing for Americans who have to work for a living

Who will tell the truth to America if DK is kicked off the Democratic stage? :shrug:
Dennis Kucinich's Truth to Power voice is one of the few reasons I am still in the Democratic Party.
Kicking DK off the stage IS kicking ME off the stage.


The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zhade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 03:08 PM
Response to Reply #40
73. Hear, hear.
NT!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dhalgren Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-14-07 10:07 PM
Response to Reply #40
110. I wish that I could "recommend" an individual post, because I would
recommend yours! Excellent points and dead fucking on!

:yourock: :applause:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProudDad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-14-07 11:35 PM
Response to Reply #40
114. HEAR, HEAR! (n/t)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NastyDiaper Donating Member (806 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 11:35 AM
Response to Original message
41. They should just crown themselves and have a tea party already. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ima_sinnic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 11:59 AM
Response to Original message
44. last straw for me re Edwards--I'd been considering him
--I love Kucinich, but know the chances are slim he will end up as the candidate. Thus I'd been considering Edwards as the least of the evils of the "big 3" of Clinton, Obama, & Edwards.

Between his campaign calling me DAILY asking for a $100 donation (AS IF ...) and this blatant attempt to squelch the voices of those who dare to take a strong stand that is not in line with the DLC plan--fuck off, Edwards. I will be replying to one of his incessant e-mails with exactly what I think of him now. I wouldn't vote for Clinton under any circumstances, she is just one big continuation of corporate politics. Obama just doesn't do it for me, either--too "made," too middle of the road, and his health care plan sucks the huge one.

I hope all 3 of these bite the dust--soon. Clark and Gore, now!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-14-07 12:18 PM
Response to Reply #44
98. This was a real stab in the back by Edwards, who was quite friendly to Kucinich in '04
The two campaigns cooperated (each to help themselves of course) pretty well four years ago. But you don't get any respect as a player in Washington if you aren't willing to kick a few asses and make a few enemies. As of yesterday, Kucinich had done both.

And he won. There's no way they'll limit the number of debaters now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MilesColtrane Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 12:13 PM
Response to Original message
45. I don't blame Edwards or Clinton for trying to limit the number of people on the podium.
That's the only way that they get more camera time.

I don't necessarily think that they're being anti-democratic. What they're doing is trying to get their message across and campaigning to win, and they're trying to use their strong poll showings to facilitate that.

Here's a list of the remaining primary debates and their sponsors.

If anybody's really fired up to have all 8 candidates in all of the debates they could write a letter to the sponsors.

Somehow I think most people wouldn't have a problem limiting the participants, as long as their favorite made the cut.

July 23, 2007 - Charleston, South Carolina
CNN will hold this debate, which will have a simulcast on CNN en Espaol. Internet services You Tube and Google will also participate, allowing them to stream the event live and have clips for future use.<15> Individual voters will be able to send their videos via You Tube and their questions through Google and CNN.com; the debate will be moderated by Anderson Cooper of Anderson Cooper 360. The debate is to be located on the campus of The Citadel.

August 19, 2007 - Des Moines, Iowa
ABC News in conjunction with the Iowa Democratic Party announced a debate streamed on This Week moderated by George Stephanopoulos.

September 26, 2007 - Hanover, New Hampshire
NBC News announced a debate to be streamed live on MSNBC. The debate is also in conjunction with New England Cable News and New Hampshire Public Radio. The debates will be at Dartmouth College.

October 30, 2007 - Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
NBC News announced a debate to be streamed live on MSNBC.

November 15, 2007 - Las Vegas, Nevada
The Nevada Democratic Party will host a Democratic debate to be aired on CNN. Potential moderators are Wolf Blitzer and Anderson Cooper.

December 10, 2007 - Los Angeles, California
CBS announced a debate in conjunction with the California Democratic Party; potential moderators are Bob Schieffer and Katie Couric.

January 6, 2008 - Johnson County, Iowa
The Des Moines Register and Iowa Public Television will host a Democratic debate in Johnson County, Iowa.

January 15, 2008 - Las Vegas, Nevada
The Caucus of African-American Nevadans and Impacto will host a Democratic debate in Las Vegas.

January 31, 2008 - California
The Los Angeles Times and CNN will host a Democratic debate in California.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
goodgd_yall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 01:08 PM
Response to Reply #45
47. I'd go for eliminating Gravel
He doesn't add solutions, only attacks on his fellow candidates.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Count Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 01:54 PM
Response to Reply #47
58. Will you shoot him, poison him or blow him up? Just checking - as I love him.
Amazing, these operatives on DU showing their red asses!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
goodgd_yall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 01:06 PM
Response to Original message
46. Kucinich has been stealing the applause.
He's gotten as big or bigger audience response as she and Edwards. That's what they don't like.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Seabiscuit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 01:49 PM
Response to Reply #46
53. He's the only one getting my money these days.
It's a sad day in hell when the only candidate with spine and principle is pronounced far and wide as "unelectable".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
clixtox Donating Member (941 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-14-07 01:29 AM
Response to Reply #46
89. It's Kucinich All The Way...

For me also in 2008. From my perspective he is one of the few genuine democrats among the Democratic nomination aspirants. Kucinich is one of the very few Democrats who has the cujones and a platform progressive enough to share the stage with someone as intelligent as even Ralph Nader during a debate.

Most of the other potential candidates are afraid of Gravel and Kucinich for the same reasons that they were terrified of Nader in 2000 & 2004. Clinton, Edwards and Obama, among others, are so busy greedily selling working peoples interests out for corporate financial support that they can't bear any real scrutiny or confrontation with an articulate politician representing any progressive perspective.

Why don't about half of the eligible potential voters even bother to register to vote? Why do about half of those who do register to vote not even bother to go vote on election day or fill out an absentee ballot? IMHO it is because there isn't a candidate in the race, with a realistic chance to prevail, who actually represents working and poor people. I can't really blame them for informally boycotting the disfunctional election process. Can you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hedgehog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 01:35 PM
Response to Original message
49. During the 2006 election season, Hillary refused to debate Jonathan Tasini
ahead of the Democratic Primary. He was the anti-war candidate and also had some good ideas on health care. Although most people never got a chance to even hear his name, he polled 17% of the vote.

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0911-30.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lydia Leftcoast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 01:52 PM
Response to Reply #49
56. That's the key
Without the debates, Mr. and Ms. Average American will never hear the voices of the less-funded candidates...

which is exactly what the self-appointed "frontrunners" want, because the contrast is too glaring.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MilesColtrane Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 02:40 PM
Response to Reply #56
62. Realistically the average American will never see a primary debate.
Edited on Fri Jul-13-07 02:41 PM by MilesColtrane
If that's the argument for not excluding some candidates it's not a good one.

The last rated debates I could quickly find were the 2000 Presidential debates.
On average, only 14.3% of all Americans watched a debate then.

http://politicalcampaigns.missouri.edu/general/debatenu...

You could probably halve that figure for a primary debate.

Unfortunately most Americans will form their opinions of the candidates based on media coverage (re: Leno jokes) and campaign ads.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProudDad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-14-07 11:37 PM
Response to Reply #62
115. That's why OUR AIRWAVES
must be taken back for frequent, full candidates statements and real debates on issues...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Count Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 01:52 PM
Response to Reply #49
57. She was asking people to vote for her in November - before the primary.
hence - no vote from me. That was really the last drop in that arrogance there. edwards is just his usual hypocrite...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SIMPLYB1980 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 02:08 PM
Response to Original message
59. Wow lots of Republicans posting on DU now?
Edited on Fri Jul-13-07 02:08 PM by SIMPLYB1980
Kucinich fell for a for a FAUX NOISE hit piece, and either a lot of DU'rs fell for it to or we have a lot of Freepers Posting on here today. Also a lot of OMFG! HRC and EDWARS SUCK!!1!!1 Post today . Could not one post hold all this nonsense? Anyway stop being sheeple for FAUX NOISE people.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 02:45 PM
Response to Reply #59
64. That's funny.
You're funny.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 02:52 PM
Response to Reply #59
65. So your position is that Fox is lying? Should Hillary give back Rupert Murdocks donation and
those gathered at the fundraiser? i mean to protest the lies?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 03:07 PM
Response to Reply #65
72. ahahahahahah
:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zhade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 03:11 PM
Response to Reply #65
75. PWNED!
Nice.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rinsd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 06:06 PM
Response to Reply #65
81. FoxNews considers Kucinich to be one of their favorite pets.
They love having him on.

He's like a mini-Colmes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 06:47 PM
Response to Reply #81
83. Did Rupert donate money to him also? I hadn't heard. Who holds the Fox appearence record?
If it turns out to be Hillary be sure to let us know, OK?


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rinsd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 06:50 PM
Response to Reply #83
84. Naaahhhh Kucinich just takes his money from taxpayers in the form of matching funds
http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politicalticker/2007/...

I bet that $135K would be handy for this election.

I think Hillary used that $4K from Rupert for her Senate campaign as toilet paper.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 07:00 PM
Response to Reply #84
85. It's nice to see that someone actually believes in public financing of elections.
Corporate financing hasn't worked out too well for anyone but the corporations and their tools.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProudDad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-14-07 11:40 PM
Response to Reply #84
116. Ooooooooh, Nasty Kucinich
Beholden to the People instead of the corporations...

Bad Dennis :sarcasm:

Until they're all publicly financed we will NEVER be able to live in a democracy...

http://www.publicampaign.org /
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Alamom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-14-07 04:09 AM
Response to Reply #83
91. Murdoch "has" supported Dem Noms, Gore, Kerry, + Obama. D. Feinstien, T Kennedy
Edited on Sat Jul-14-07 04:10 AM by Alamom
and many others in senate races.


Source: Newsmeat


edgr
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zhade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 03:10 PM
Response to Reply #59
74. Man, I love irony.
Keep posting, let's see how long YOU last.

Just for the record: criticizing Clinton and Edwards does not equate to being a Republican operative. That's quite a b*s*-esque view you're holding.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-14-07 12:25 PM
Response to Reply #74
99. But this was a classic Fox hit peice: it's one thing to learn about candidate strategy....
...but it's obviously extreme political bias to, um, report on what they find. Okay, that's not my point. My point is that it's basically Faux-type cheating to play back the candidates' own words against them.

No wait, that's not my argument. This is a smear peice because it was a Fox "News" microphone that caught those words. And everyone knows that after Murdoch went and raised all that money for Clinton it's entirely in his interest to... uh... smear her....

Wait, that's not my point either.

Gimme a second...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Psephos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 08:23 PM
Response to Reply #59
87. Did you consider that it's in Fox's business interests to have a contentious field?
Fox News (and any other news company) profits from viewership, which increases in a contested field.

Your ideological assertion is understandable from an emotional point of view, but not from a rational one. Fox has no interest in a ho-hum primary season, where the moneyed candidates like HRC and Edwards have squelched the Kucinich's and Gravel's.

Just a thought.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
surfermaw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-14-07 07:55 PM
Response to Reply #59
109.  I s there lots of Republican money going into some democrats pockets
First we should be more concerned over, and if some Democrats are getting republican money, I am not sure are you?

Second the only way CNN will even speak the word Edwards, is if he does something wrong, same with the Charlotte Observer, could it be Begala and Carville, is the reason for CNN thing, and Big Bill was on the committee that help McClatchy News buy out the Charlotte Observer...better be thinking about things like this, instead of the whispers by Clinton and Edwards..It did keep their names before the people didn't it? Well maybe that is the reason Edwards and Clinton did their thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProudDad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-14-07 11:43 PM
Response to Reply #109
117. Why the hell not?
Where else should a person who happens to be registered "republican" give their money?

One of these assholes???

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zhade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 02:55 PM
Response to Original message
66. Wow, they don't fully believe in the democratic process.
Or, if they do, their actions are a direct contradiction of that.

Shameful. The arrogance is stunning.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pitohui Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 03:01 PM
Response to Original message
70. what a tempest in a teapot
nothing wrong as a practical matter w. the leading candidates wanting focus on real issues and real possibilities

nothing wrong either w. kucinich wanting his voice heard also

it's a legitimate difference of opinion, w. both sides making sense if you start from where they're starting from

big deal, this is "late breaking news?"

let's get back to the stories of GOP congresscritters selling BJs in bathroom stalls, now that's a juicy story!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
obxhead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 07:02 PM
Response to Original message
86. The next election is rigged anyway....
so ho much does it matter :sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BenDavid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-14-07 12:08 AM
Response to Original message
88. Po Po Dennis....He only got
pissed after Faux had already put their spin on this conversation... Seems strange that Dennis walked upon HRC and Edwards and they did not stop talking or change the subject...seems like they would if this was some big ass conspiracy between them.....HRC even said, Thank you Dennis and then he walked away....Obama was there too....So I guess he does not have as good ears as Cleveland Denn....Oh and he was thank too by HRC....and did they stop talking when he appeared? NO....Did they change the subject? No....So what big ass conspiracy is this? NONE....

I do thank you
Ben David
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Alamom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-14-07 04:00 AM
Response to Reply #88
90. I agree completely. Shady and underhanded deals are not made in public a few feet away from the
Edited on Sat Jul-14-07 04:04 AM by Alamom

intended and now offended.

I can believe the MSM is going after Dems taking Faux News Information, without verifiable proof.

I never dreamed I would see Faux and Dr*dge seen as credible on DU.


I guess this blows the crap out of "Murdoch supports Hillary"


BTW, I support Hillary, it's obvious. However, I would defend any Democrat against the opposition no matter who they are.

FYI, I also support my candidate without damning any other.

Check - my - posts.


edgr



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
humbled_opinion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-14-07 08:05 AM
Response to Reply #90
93. I'm sorry but I heard the tape its pretty self evident what they are doing
Anyway we don't need this controversy... IMO the only credible candidate that will get us out of Iraq for Real and turn this country's power to good is Dennis Kucinich... I read in Time online that most of the top Democrats Hillary included will not really withdraw the troops from Iraq and will come up with some reason or other for "continuing on the struggle" for Democracy killing thousands and thousands more for the same rationale that Chimp uses.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-14-07 12:37 PM
Response to Reply #90
101. Corection: Shady, underhanded deals SHOULD NOT be made in public or by a mic
There was no "deal" here, of course, and it wasn't underhanded. It's hardball politics, but fair game, to try and keep some of their opponents from getting any extra publicity. Still, let's not lipstick the pig: the intent of their recorded words is pretty clear. Having a conversation like that in range of Fox News microphones was an amateurish mistake. They should both be embarrassed for the full 6 days that this story will continue to matter.

Long after it's forgotten, of course, Kucinich will be safely on stage.
There's no way they'll limit the number of debaters now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Orsino Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-14-07 07:28 AM
Response to Original message
92. Big Money trumps little money
"Serious and smaller" = better financed. Is Edwards ready to sign on with Hillary to squeeze out Obama?

They're that afraid to debate Kucinich?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Honeycombe8 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-14-07 12:47 PM
Response to Reply #92
104. Big money being influential is news? That's the oldest rule in the book.
As for being "afraid" to debate Kucinich, come on, now. No one is afraid of DK (of those who have noticed him). There have been several debates now, and Kucinich has had ample opportunity to present his viewpoints on the issues. (These weren't really debates, IMO...they were opportunities to present prepared soundbites on various issues. There simply isn't enough time with that many candidates to "debate" anything. Debates require follow-up questions, follow-up answers, explanations, nuanced discussions of positions on issues....none of this has been done because of the sheer number of candidates. Time to trim it down. All candidates who don't stand a chance of winning the nomination...and DK is one of them....should do the right thing and stand aside for the benefit of the country, so taht we can hear deep discussions among the ones from whom the next leader of the country will come)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Orsino Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-14-07 01:34 PM
Response to Reply #104
105. It's a rule that needs to be done away with.
Let's not advocate buying one's way into office.

"Time to trim it down" sounds completely arbitrary, and very, very convenient for the big-money candidates.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Honeycombe8 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-14-07 06:51 PM
Response to Reply #105
107. It's not arbitrary. What IS arbitrary is allowing anyone with enough $$$
to participate in the debates, even though they stand zero, or close to zero, chance of getting the nomination or of winning a general election.

Used to be there was a rule that a candidate had to have 15% or something of popular support to participate in the debates. Maybe that still exists for the general election. In any case, I really want to hear more than sound bites. I want to hear follow-up questions and answers, and nuanced answers. More deep debates than what we've had. That simply isn't possible with that many candidates...and some of them are not really serious candidates. I figure they have a message they want to be heard, or they have a huge ego. As for their messages, we've heard them during the several debates so far. As for the ego part, only people like Ralph Nader can explain how they sleep at night for putting their own interests above those of the country. Ironically, these are usu. the candidates that say they, more than the other candidates, have the best interests of the country at heart. Oh, really? I ask.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dhalgren Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-14-07 10:22 PM
Response to Reply #107
111. That rule, I believe is for the general election - not the primary elections...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Orsino Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-15-07 05:33 AM
Response to Reply #107
119. Oh, it's arbitrary, all right.
We need more candidates, more parties, and public financing for it all. That might be termed expensive, but it would be far less so than this stupid war that never would have gained support but for our political duopoly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
clixtox Donating Member (941 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-14-07 07:50 PM
Response to Reply #104
108. Whether Only Those Potential Candidates For The Democratic Nomination....

That are supported by our corporate masters should be allowed to be heard is what this discussion is actually about. Since those potential nominees who are critical of this corporate control of our government, and the very lives of most of us, are not going to get this financial support, then what? They are marginalized, demonized and declared unfit for a political future representing those among us who oppose corporate fascist values like hate, the class war, illegal wars of aggression, the "drug" war, limiting personal freedoms like privacy and free speech, etc., etc.

Those who engage in these discussions on the side of promoting the limiting or exclusion of Gravel or Kucinich, among others, who don't have the corporate (medias) blessing are witting or unwitting tools of our corporate masters. If you doubt that this is the way it is then your ingenuousness or ignorance will help continue all of the "Neo-Conservative" agenda that is ruining our once great country.

These "Neos" would have been Tories during our own war of liberation from England in the 1770's. The first thing they would have done is hang George Washington and all of the other "terrorists" fighting for their (and our) liberty from oppression. Think about that for a minute, if you can.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProudDad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-14-07 11:45 PM
Response to Reply #104
118. So your vote is to do away with MY candidate
nearly a YEAR before the fucking primary???

Well, thank you very little.... :grr: :grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-14-07 12:30 PM
Response to Original message
100. My comment posted on edwards blog:
Edited on Sat Jul-14-07 12:32 PM by yurbud
http://blog.johnedwards.com/story/2007/7/14/10589/6500#...


Of the top three contenders for Democratic nomination, Edwards is head and shoulders above the rest with me, but this exchange with Hillary about excluding other candidates from the debates was a little disturbing.

I would like to know exactly which of the other candidates they think are "trivializing" the debate.

Is it Joe Biden, Bill Richardson, and Chris Dodd, who bring slight variations of the DC conventional wisdom but have no chance or winning or are they talking about Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel who cut through the crap about Iraq and make it harder to sell "redeployment" that will protect Big Oil's contracts based on the Hydrocarbon Law their lobbyists wrote and Bush is forcing on the Iraqis?

Edwards needs to address this quickly if he wants to have credibility with progressives and not seem to be just another DC insider who has done a better than average job of pretending to care about the rest of us.

At the end of a forum with the eight Democratic presidential contenders in Detroit on Thursday, Mr. Edwards walked up to Mrs. Clinton, leaned toward her and said: "We should try to have a more serious ... smaller group."

"We've got to cut the number..." Mrs. Clinton responded. "I think there was an effort by our campaigns to do that ... it got somehow detoured. We've got to get back to it," and added, "our guys should talk."

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007 / 07/13/open-mike-moment-sparks-debate-abo ut-debates/#comment-136538
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Neshanic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-14-07 01:38 PM
Response to Original message
106. "We should try to have a more serious and a smaller group." Like he's the boss?
and the "serious" thing. What those other people are not?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SKKY Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-15-07 09:13 AM
Response to Original message
120. I think this is more about Obama than anything else...
...the want to confront him, and really can't because of the sheer number of candidates. With a smaller group, they could focus their efforts on him- that to me is the only logical reason for wanting to do this. Do they really think that Gravel, Richardson, Kucinich, and Dodd are serious candidates? Of course not. Form and alliance and get rid of the competition. Someone has been watching too much Survivor.
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 Apr 03rd 2020, 10:37 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News 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