Edwards supports Fox/ABC candidate purge

[SoxFan]

In contrast, John Edwards told UnionLeader.com this afternoon, "I'm staying out of that. I don't get to set the rules for the debates. I'll let the people who are in charge of the debates set the rules. And I'll be there."

http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Debates%3a+Who%27s+in%2c+who%27s+out%2c+who%27s+mad&articleId=d54d1b4f-91bd-4342-aad7-3d11d99b4a05

[rodeodance]

1. good to stay out of those decisions at this point.

[Bluebear]

2. "staying out of that" = "supports" all of a sudden.

[dogishboy]

Another example of the New Politics at work

"Obama supporters - Bringing new lies to life"

[Adelante]

3. Clinton and Obama in support of our Democratic candidates

UPDATE: A top local Hillary Clinton supporter said today that the senator's campaign will issue a statement that ABC and WMUR should not bar candidates. In a posting on BlueHampshire.com, a liberal Democratic blog, former state party chair Kathy Sullivan said, "I spoke this morning to the Clinton staff here, who got on the phone and got through to the campaign in Iowa. As you can probably imagine, they are a little preoccupied with the caucuses in two days. Senator Clinton's campaign will be issuing a statement later today that the candidates who are being excluded by ABC and WMUR should be allowed into the debate." Sullivan urged anyone upset by the debate's format to call WMUR and complain.

In a statement, Barack Obama said: "The voters of New Hampshire deserve to hear all the Democratic candidates’ views on who can best lead America in a fundamentally new direction, and that’s why I urge these networks to allow full participation in this week’s debate.”

In contrast, John Edwards told UnionLeader.com this afternoon, "I'm staying out of that. I don't get to set the rules for the debates. I'll let the people who are in charge of the debates set the rules. And I'll be there."

[1corona4u]

Good for them for speaking up!!

[annie1]

40. yay Clinton!!!!!!!!! good for her, i'm suprised. i love her.

[FrenchieCat]

4. It's called....sitting on the fence.......

What a fighter! :sarcasm:

[TwilightZone]

5. "supports"?

You should probably re-read what you quoted. "Staying out of" doesn't remotely equate to "supports".

[Donnachaidh]

6. trying to twist his words?

Getting very desperate all of a sudden?

[FrenchieCat]

16. "In the End, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends. "

Life's most persistent and urgent question is, 'What are you doing for others?'

Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.

He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it.

That old law about 'an eye for an eye' leaves everybody blind. The time is always right to do the right thing.

The first question which the priest and the Levite asked was: "If I stop to help this man, what will happen to me?" But... the good Samaritan reversed the question: "If I do not stop to help this man, what will happen to him?"

The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.

The ultimate tragedy is not the oppression and cruelty by the bad people but the silence over that by the good people.
--------------------------
All of the above stated by Martin Luther King Jr.

[jillan]

7. why the f* I'm I not surprised?

[Bluebear]

9. I first thought your sig line said "NO JOE!"

Whew!

[liberalnurse]

8. So do I support the "cuts"

Not everyone can make the Team.....They, the low % support candidates, had their platform time...they didn't make the first elimination round...Lets get down to business now.

[1corona4u]

13. Well, they should have waited until after Iowa...

what happens now if any of them show up better than they thought, and one of the current top 3 falls? They going to do a change up??

[Eurobabe]

14. Oh please. Yeah let's have the media choose who gets to participate

that's REAL democratic. :eyes:

[jillan]

24. Do you feel the same way about your patients - do you tend to the ones first that have

more money than the ones that have no insurance?

[liberalnurse]

29. That's easy to answer

100% of my patients do not have insurance. All medical services are paid by the County/State and Federal reimbursement plan. I have 968 patients at the moment. So, go sit you ass back on the couch or go pick your nose...just be yourself for the rest of the day.

[jillan]

30. excuse me? How do you even know what my life is like?

You personally have 968 patients??

I sincerely hope that you don't have this much attitude around them.

[Steely_Dan]

38. Thank You For Your Support

I guess it was a waste of time to protest the fact that Kucinich was left out earlier. Go ahead. let the media select your candidate. Good luck.

-P

[jefferson_dem]

10. This is nothing new. Recall that JE was conspiring to exclude candidate from debates long ago...

Remember --- http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/07/14/clinton-edwards-caught-on-open-mic/

[napi21]

11. Come on guys! Every candidate would loke to see the field narrowed!

To b quite honest, so would I! The smaller the field, the more time each candidate gets. And yes, I'm saying this as a Biden supporter. I recognize that if Joe doesn't show in the top 3 in Iowa, I've got to pick someone else!

[1corona4u]

15. But, what if he does?

It means someone who "surprised" will not be able to be heard. If he didn't surprise, then I would agree, but I think they made the decision way too soon.

[ecstatic]

12. Apparently Edwards doesn't even want to give fellow Dems a seat at "the table"

He is greedy!

[tritsofme]

17. I agree with Edwards here

Its time to start thinning out the pack.

[Little Star]

19. I'm with you there. n/t

[Pastiche423]

33. johnnyboy should be the 1st to go

[tritsofme]

35. That doesn't make much sense.

Seeing as he is obviously one of the candidates with an actual shot at the nomination.

But if you were just whining, I'll let you get back to that.

[Froward69]

37. Then Edwards should Drop out!!!

[tritsofme]

39. Why? nt

[Froward69]

41. why?

Iget in trouble for pointing out his flaws as i see them. in short It is because he puts one thing in his website and then says another. he never tells the WHOLE truth. I'll stop now. but thats why.

[gaiilonfong]

18. This what I dont like about Edwards

If Kucinich would have supported him he would have said let's have him in debate
Also Dennis remind EVERYONE during the debate which candidates voted for the Iraq war and Edwards doesn't like it!

[Bluebear]

21. You have busy little fingers today. Please re-read, Edwards said he is STAYING OUT OF THIS.

[gaiilonfong]

23. But he should be in it ! He should support fellow candidates.

That is the progressive way.
As for my busy fingers, got a problem wid'it, I don't.....so......
pomm ne gaii wheei!

[Bluebear]

25. No, no problem "wid'it". Carry on wid ur bad self.

:silly:

[gaiilonfong]

26. Thanks Bro

appreciate it!
Happy New Year!

[SoxFan]

28. There's an old saying

The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who remain neutral in times of crisis

[FrenchieCat]

36. That's MLK jr. who said that...

isn't it?

[SoxFan]

43. It predates MLK

he used it, as did RFK, but I've seen it attributed to everyone from Dante to Benjamin Franklin.

[sniffa]

20. Edwards on Third-Party Candidates and Debates

Memo to Prohibitionists, Socialists, Libertarians, and/or other fringe third party organizations: your presidential nominee is probably not welcome to any general election debates - at least not if John Edwards has his say in it.

Edwards told a large crowd of about 400 caucus goers at Iowa State University that unless a third party candidate is viable, he or she should not be invited to a national presidential debate. The subject came up in the Q and A session when one audience member asked Edwards to commit to allowing all third-party candidates an equal chance in the debates.

"This has nothing to do with excluding people," said Edwards. "If you had a legitimate chance of being the President of the United States, yes, you should be participating in the debates.

"But what you can't do is flood the stage with 15 or 20 people for an hour-and-a-half debate because nobody gets anything out of that."

This was a bit of a sore subject back in July, when Edwards was overheard at the end of a debate in Detroit telling Hillary Clinton that there should be fewer candidates participating in the Democratic debates.

While on the subject, Edwards also said there should be MORE debates during the general election, saying that three presidential debates in the fall isn't enough.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/01/01/politics/fromtheroad/entry3664480.shtml

[dogishboy]

22. I agree with Edwards

[Adelante]

27. What a schmuck the man is nt

[jillan]

32. Really - what is he going to do if he comes in 4th in Iowa?

[Pastiche423]

34. Drop out?

I hope. I hope. I hope.

[bunnies]

31. what a load of crap.

most progressive my ass.

[Rowdyboy]

42. God forbid we should have a real debate between the serious candidates...you know

the ones who might conceivably win.

[Clark2008]

44. Then that would exclude Edwards.

Because, if he's the nominee, then the people will learn exactly how he voted when he was in the Senate and it will become clear he's not presidential material.