Why won't Edwards fight for fellow Democratic candidates?

[Adelante]

Networks Face Candidate Rebellion in NH


Ron Paul supporters are up in arms over the expulsion of their candidate from a Fox Republican candidate forum two days before the New Hampshire vote.

"If we permit Fox News Channel executives the power 'to limit a Sunday forum the state GOP party is co-sponsoring to five presidential candidates' based on polls, then this country really is in trouble," said Michael Kelly in a comment to the Nashua Telegraph this morning.

Meanwhile, both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are asking ABC and the local WMUR — sponsors of the last big debate this Saturday — to let in candidates who have been included in past debates.

Under criteria set by the sponsors, Chris Dodd and Joe Biden, two sitting Democratic senators, and Dennis Kucinich, a sitting congressman, are likely to be excluded. Clinton said yesterday: "I believe in the true spirit of the New Hampshire process; the candidates who have participated in past debates should not be excluded from this one."

"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," Obama said.

John Edwards and John McCain said they didn't want to interfere with the network decision.

-more

http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2008/01/6713_networks_face_c.html

This didn't work out for him, I guess:

[sandnsea]

1. oh yeah, I had forgotten all about that

What was that Edwards said again? They aren't serious, or something like that.

[redqueen]

2. Don't know why... but Kucinich being the only one who could

outshine his progressive light on stage may play a role, sure.

[FrenchieCat]

3. Seeing Kucinich in the edge of that picture makes me sad......

Guess its all about the "Have" and the "Haves not". :cry:

[alteredstate]

15. It makes me sad, too

Kucinich is a great man.

[Donnachaidh]

4. yet more spin

:boring:

[Horse with no Name]

5. It's not his fight to fight.

Obama and Hillary have EVERYTHING to lose on limited forums and nothing to gain. Typically, more questions will be directed at THEM instead of Edwards.
They do NOT want that.
A diluted appearance is best for them.
Their positions are self-serving, not altruistic as you would like us to believe.
However, Edwards (and McCain) needs the exposure that a limited forum could offer--it could help differentiate him above the two front runners.
With that being said...I don't think anyone should be excluded. I didn't think Kucinich and/or Gravel should have been excluded from the debates that they have (but as MANY here wanted to point out, they weren't viable--so now that MORE candidates are being excluded--suddenly it is Edwards burden?):rofl:
I don't believe Edwards ever said they should be excluded either...it isn't something that is his decision and it's just not a battle that is his to fight. If you, as a consumer, are against this exclusion, then get YOUR ass busy writing letters to change this because truly, it IS your battle if you disagree.

[Adelante]

21. Maybe he's not the fighter he claims to be

Maybe fighting big media corporations is something he just wants to talk about.

PS If you do a search for Gravel and WesDem you will find I did write letters on Gravel's behalf and I did post threads calling for help for him to be included in those debates. Did you?

[Horse with no Name]

23. As a matter of fact, I did.

But what did YOUR candidate do?
You can't judge MY candidate by what I do, just like I can't judge YOUR candidate by what you do.

[Adelante]

26. YOUR candidate is the one who claims to be the big fighter

Here he has a chance to fight big media corporations and what does he do? He has a chance to stand up for Democrats and what does he do? Nada, so far. But he is just as likely to change his mind as not.

You raised the issue of whether or not I wrote letters on behalf of excluded candidates. I answered.

[Horse with no Name]

29. Okay. You are just being obtuse.

Gotcha. Have a nice day. :hi:

[Laurab]

45. It may not be his decision, but he could still speak out.

If Edwards was my 1st choice, I would definitely contact his campaign about this. He should speak out about the unfairness of it, and how he is against it. IF he is the man he's telling his supporters he is, the "I'll fight for the people" guy. This would be a perfect opportunity for him to show that he means it.

He's my 2nd - actually 3rd, if Biden were higher in the polls, choice, but something like this just adds to my worries about him. All his changes of mind, all his apologies - are they heartfelt and true? I had thought so, and I believed him, but this is IMPORTANT, and something he SHOULD speak out about, whether it's his decision or not. Even his supporters should see that.

[MethuenProgressive]

6. If Edwards wants just the top candidates to debate...

...I hope he enjoys watching Barack and Hillary on stage without him.

[Horse with no Name]

8. Why didn't YOUR candidate do something when Kucinich and Gravel weren't

invited to the debates?

[MethuenProgressive]

12. Unlike Edwards, Richardson never called them "not serious candidates"

Edwards is acting like a spoiled brat.

[Horse with no Name]

13. Show the link from a reputable source. I don't believe you. At all. n/t

[MethuenProgressive]

16. ABC News: Clinton, Edwards Talk of Limited Debates

Clinton and Edwards Caught on Tape during NAACP Forum
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3373890
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."

[Horse with no Name]

19. Not what you said. You SAID he called them "not serious candidates"

I will waiting for THAT link.

[MethuenProgressive]

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

You knew of and approved of this sneer, then?
If that's the kind of person you want, you can have him.

[Horse with no Name]

22. If you remember, the first debates were sound bites.

The DEBATES were NOT serious--that is WHAT he was referring to, not the candidates and YOU damned well know it.
He also advocated EVERYONE being involved in the smaller debates, not just the top tier.
In the first debates, your candidate had to HIJACK the damned debate to even get a word in edgewise--taking time away from the others (besides Hillary and Obama) who got very little face time. It was rude and crass(but very much in character)--but he did what he thought he had to do.
Of course you know all of this---but you providing an "ABC" link tells me all I need to know.

[MethuenProgressive]

24. "more serious and smaller group" doesn't refer to the candidates?

Richardson "hijacked the damned debate"? That's as silly as saying what Edwards was caught on tape saying never happened. You Edwardians are funny people! :rofl:

[Horse with no Name]

25. You deny that YOUR candidate kept answering questions that were posed to others when a question

was finally directed to him?
You are in some serious denial. But I guess that's what happens when you support corporate candidates.

[MethuenProgressive]

30. Bill Richardsom is a "debate hijacking" "corporate candidate"?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Horse with no Name]

36. Finally! You speak some truth!

:)

[itsrobert]

7. Maybe it racism/sexism?

Edwards wants to be the only white male candidate on stage?

[bunnies]

9. Way to fight the big corporations on behalf of the voters!

oh wait. Never mind.

[Horse with no Name]

11. I find it "quite" telling that Obama and Hillary always seem to do this

on issues like these...always saying the "right" thing when they know that their opinion doesn't really mean shit (like waiting to vote until they are certain that their vote doesn't count).
They are quite the panderers. Sad that THEIR minions always fall for it.

[bunnies]

14. Edwards had the opportunity to put his money where his mouth is...

and he missed it with this one. Sorry to say. If anyone should be speaking up against this it should be him. Do you disagree?

[Horse with no Name]

18. It isn't his decision.

I don't think ANY of the candidates should have been left out of ANY of the debates.
Where was THAT outrage when it started happening?
I don't recall seeing Biden, Richardson or Dodd protesting when Kucinich and/or Gravel were left out?
"First they came for the Jews, I didn't speak because I wasn't a Jew"...etc.
Well, now they have come for the rest of the 2nd tier. More protesting should have been happening when those two were being excluded.
As far as Edwards...gee, let's see. Kucinich threw his support to someone else. Richardson scolded him for hurting Hillary's feelings...excuse me while I don't blame him for not defending those that denigrate him.
However, it wasn't HIS decision to make who attended the debates...he is responsible for HIS campaign.
Hillary and Obama are just pandering. It IS what they do best. They know it isn't their decision either.
But "some" folks suck that shit up like it's chocolate and talk about how good it tastes. Yummy.:puke:

[bunnies]

31. It isnt his decision? So what!

That doesnt stop candidates from making statements and you know it. And Im sorry... its not about Edwards "defending those that denigrate him" as you put it. But it IS about standing up for the voters who wont get to hear the other candidates. Is he *not* the one who paints himself the man to free us from our corporate masters? Is he *not* the one who will stand up to the powers that be?

Im not talking about Hillary, Obama, or any other candidate for that matter. I dont know why you keep trying to drag them into this topic. And I'm not at all sure how to respond to your obvious loathing of "some" people. These passive aggressive insults make it very difficult to have a conversation.

[Horse with no Name]

35. If YOU want to hear THOSE candidates..it is YOUR responsibility

to write letters/protest the media outlets that are refusing to comply. They will listen to consumers. They won't listen to the candidates--because if they did, it would NOT matter what Edwards said as long as Hillary and Obama were A-ok with it. That would be majority rules. No?
It is NOT Edwards decision. Exactly as he said. He was HONEST.
The other TWO candidates CHOSE to pander knowing the same fact. It was not THEIR decision to make.
Some bought it. But they always do.

[bunnies]

44. I feel like youre missing my entire point.

And I doubt its accidental so... I'm not going to keep trying to explain it. IMHO, he wasted an opportunity to take on Faux. Obviously you disagree. As for Hillary & Obama... their statements were wise moves politically. And Id love to hear your thoughts on who you think they're pandering to. Supporters of the excluded candidates? Honest question.

[Two Americas]

56. take on Faux?

That would be taking on Faux?

[annie1]

38. i don't think anyone's falling for it.

[surfermaw]

10. Didn't Biden and Dennis slap him around a little in the last weeks

[corkhead]

17. you don't think Hillary made her decision on how it benefits her?

Her motivation is that the more opponents there are to split the anybody-but-Hillary vote, the better off she is.

Oh she wants all of her opponents to have a fair shake.:eyes:

Give me a break.

[Horse with no Name]

27. It doesn't compute to those that support either of them.

Hillary--Good
Edwards--Bad

It's all they know.:shrug:

[corkhead]

51. Fortunately we won't be hearing much more from them once the wheels fall off

First it will be that Iowa doesn't matter. but when she tanks everywhere else, they will eventually crawl back under the rocks they slithered out from.

I have contended from day one that she is Rupert Murdoch's favorite candidate, along with the rest of the pukes for 2 simple reasons.

1. she will be the easiest to beat in the general, perhaps the ONLY one they will be able to beat. Funny, you would expect Faux Nooze to be bashing her 24-7, but it is quiet now because they are saving their material for after the nomination and they hope she gets it.

2. If in the unlikely event she does get the nomination and wins in November, she is the most like them anyway and furthers the cause of shifting the political center of this country even more out of skew to the right than it already is.

That said, I would probably vote for in the general, but she is at the bottom of my list because of these very reasons.

[Jai4WKC08]

34. Sounds a little funny

Using Hillary's behavior to justify Edwards'.

I don't know whether you're correct about her motivations, but aren't you folks always saying how much of a corporatist she is? ow she triangulates and manipulates and does whatever it takes to promote herself?

But it's ok if Edwards does the same thing because she does it too?

LOL :rofl:

Like I've always said, Edwards and his supporters deserve each other.

[Horse with no Name]

37. Yes they do.

But we do NOT deserve Hillary. Which is what we are desperately trying to stop.

[Jai4WKC08]

And the rest of us don't deserve Edwards

I guess it really just comes down to that.

[Horse with no Name]

40. I guess it does.

Which leaves nothing but carnage between my candidate and yours. Sad state of affairs.

[corkhead]

49. Where was I justifying the behavior?

I was merely pointing out the flawed logic in the op.

you seem to have a case of the "projections". I didn't say anything about Edwards; it was the OP dragged him into this.

Yes, Edwards is my first choice at this point, but I don't go around personally attacking those who don't share my viewpoint.

and yes, I very much hope I get what I "deserve". In fact, your post motivated me to donate $25 to John Edwards.

Thanks!:headbang:

[stray cat]

28. Front runners gain by more debators at this point - Edwards doesn't.

Its all politics.

[jillan]

32. Another prime example of he fights for the people.

[jenmito]

33. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that Kucinich wants his supporters to go to Obama 2nd

rather than to him (Edwards). Edwards is only for the people when it benefits him.

[annie1]

39. Is there a link with the people we could write to to ask the candidates be included?

[Horse with no Name]

41. Here you go

You can always write ABC, but I doubt that will do any good.
I suggest you write WMUR directly.

http://www.wmur.com/contact/index.html

[annie1]

42. thanks

[Jillian]

43. I bet he would feel different if he was the one not invited to the debate.

[FrenchieCat]

48. Yes....but that would take someone actually thinking about

wanting to treat others as they, themselves, would want to be treated.

Edwards does a lot of talking....and just like he wasn't a fighter calling for much of anything that equated to the good of the nation while he had the opportunity during his stint in the Great Halls of Power....this 11th hour Revolutionary Crusader role can only be seen as being about winning and not much else.

[jillan]

50. Amen!

[jillan]

46. Maybe this explains why Kucinich went for Obama, not Edwards.

[jenmito]

47. I think it's the other way around-he doesn't want Kucinich there BECAUSE Kucinich went for Obama

or at least told his supporters to support Obama as a 2nd choice when last time he said they should go to Edwards.

[Adelante]

52. Kucinich said in an interview with Thom Hartmann

He was upset with Edwards about the 527 ads in Iowa and the money coming from the Mellon fortune. I think Kucinich decided this year that Edwards is just a hypocrite. I most certainly would agree with that. I didn't hear the interview, though. It was discussed in a thread here on DU this morning.

[jillan]

53. I really like Kucinich. Not only because of this, but he is a good man with a good heart.

[Adelante]

54. Oh, yes, I do, too - I have nothing but respect for Dennis nt

[Radical Activist]

55. Another flip flop from Edwards.

He spoke for inclusion in other debates months ago.

[tritsofme]

57. I'm ready to see a real debate with the real candidates.

Its long past time for the just for fun candidates to be on their way.

[cadmium]

58. It says something about the wish to believe the best

about people that well-meaning Dems trust this guy. He apologizes his head off about the IWR that he co-sponsored. He benefitted from Kucinich's supporters in IA caucus in 2004, but then works to excluding him from 2008 debate. In general I dont like to diss Democrats but the more I have seen of him the less I like him. I know and like a lot of J. Edwards' supporters but I think that hey are wrong on thinking the best about him. Like her or not -- at least Hillary is honest about who she is.

[MalloyLiberal]

59. Why stand up for Kucinich when he constantly slams and criticizes him, and subverts the democratic

process

[lisainmilo]

60. Who owns the television station?

:shrug:

[JDPriestly]

61. I think Edwards is just focused on getting his message out there