AND the truth is...... the secret conversation was about... You Ready? Are You? You Sure? Ok...

[jsamuel]

For his part, Edwards told reporters in Iowa that he wasn't in favor of barring anyone from future gatherings. Rather, he said he wanted to see them separated into two groups of four each, chosen randomly.

"The result would be that we would have a much more serious discussion and people would actually be able to see what the differences are between us," he said.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8QBT8HG0&show_article=1


So John Edwards wanted to break up into 2 groups of 4 so that more could be covered.

I guess everyone just jumped to conclusions. All the other reduction talk was about the debates themselves. In other words, the conversation was about debate format.


PS.
If people wouldn't mind rec'ing this to make up for all the false rec'd ones, that'd be nice

[Catherine Vincent]

1. That's not a bad idea.

Break them up into two groups and rotate randomly. Cool!

[mod mom]

2. Thanks for the clarification, jsamuel.

:hi:

[aquart]

3. That's all I needed. Was that so hard?

Makes perfectly reasonable sense.

[rodeodance]

4. Please do not include me in on your 'everyone' jumping to conclusions. thanks

[Hissyspit]

11. Everyone should be skeptical when a conversation is captured by Fox News. n/t

[jsamuel]

28. I am glad you didn't. I will deduct your name from my everyone list.

:P

[jsamuel]

5. If people wouldn't mind rec'ing this to make up for all the false rec'd ones, that'd be nice

thanks.

[shadowknows69]

6. That I could live with

but IMO no one should be excluded until the day they decide to drop out. Also I don't want these two groups to be "Upper tier" and "lower tier" they should be an even mixture of both.

[MissWaverly]

8. I totally agree, this is not a coronation

but an election.

:-)

[Socal31]

7. And you believe him just like that..?

Or is that what you just wanted to hear?

[Lex]

9. LOL!

:rofl:

[Socal31]

25. You may think its funny,

but top $$ candidates conspiring to shut-out the rest from meaningful debate isnt humorous to me.

Of course Edwards came out with some other explanation. What else could he do?

[Lex]

26. So WHAT? The candidates are each trying to be the only one standing

and that's what the primaries are about.

You think they all should have a group hug and pledge to vote for each other?

[Socal31]

37. No, thats not what im saying.

Im sure we would all do the same thing.


But dont you think this just perpetuates the cycle?


Candidates with most early exposure + most donations (many from corps.) = Candidates that get thier message out during debates = candidates who are elected to power.


I know thats just how it is, but it sucks.

[Lex]

48. The others aren't participating because Edwards and Clinton say so.

Are they?

[MilesColtrane]

92. "Candidates with most early exposure...

"Candidates with most early exposure + most donations (many from corps.) = Candidates that get their message out during debates = candidates who are elected to power."

It is illegal for any corporation to donate to a federal election as per the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971.

I assume you are referring to PAC money, which is limited to $5,000 per election. (That's only about 2X what individual are limited to. So two generous Gravel contributors could match one PAC donation to Clinton.)

I love watching the debates, but most people don't. I would safely guess that less than 10% of Americans will see a primary debate.
I think other media coverage (news, advertising..) has more of an impact upon people's opinion of a candidate.

[cascadiance]

84. If he is making this up, he's taking some big risks...

Now, perhaps Fox has additional footage that they've not aired that has other "hidden conversation" chunks of that meeting. There then would be two possibilities:

1) They've held back showing it or other additional info, anticipating that Edwards might try to offer this explanation (if it weren't true) and then show it and really tank Edwards for being disenguous with the American voter and his backers, if this footage contradicts what Edwards says now.

2) They've held back showing it, knowing that showing it would back up Edwards' statements now, and make their original release seem inconsequential, and expose THEM for trying to manipulate footage to "hatch a plot" that doesn't exist.

Now if it is the latter, Edwards is calling their bluff, and we likely won't hear anything further from Fox News on this. You KNOW that if Fox has the former, then they would nail him with it.

If there isn't any other info or corroborating/disproving information out there, then life will go on as if possibility 2 was reality. If it is that Fox has no additional info, and Edwards is making this up, he's taking a very real risk that situation 1 doesn't exist. If it is situation 2, then perhaps a lot of folks can try to work to find out if Fox has been intentionally distorting the news on this story and really nail Fox with it too.

[Malidictus Maximus]

93. I really don't expect *ANY* candidate

to be anything other than ruthless when it comes to winning. No matter how nice they appear.
People who want power and make it into first name contention for a shot at the POTUS *HAVE* to be capable of playing hardball.
All I ask of a candidate is that their *GOALS* align with mine, I don't expect any of them to be anything other than a bloodthirsty shark who's going to play to win at all costs; because that's who they'll be running against in the general and that is who many of the other world leaders will be- deadly, calculating power hungry power players. Expecting *ANY* politician not to be somewhat devious and cruel is like expecting a basketball player to be short or a ballerina to be clumsy. I don't need to LIKE 'em I just want the hell out of Iraq and some love for the Earth.
Just my .02

[Throwing Stones]

95. Fox, Distort News?! I'm Shocked, Shocked I Tell You

Expecting Fox to "hold back" part of the tape is like expecting a 16 year old boy to hold back his load while he's doing Jennifer Anniston.

[emulatorloo]

59. and you believe FOX NEWS just like that?

Fox news has a history of misrepresenting Democrats.

If you watch the Fox report video, it is ******impossible****** to tell what the subject of the conversation Clinton and Edwards are having.



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

It is totally unclear what Clinton and Edwards are talking about -- FOX JUST SAYS THEY ARE CONSPIRING TO EXCLUDE the other candidates/

But the Fox reporter jumps to a conclusion that put everything in the worst possible light.

FOX LIES and it is lying again as far as I can tell.

[vssmith]

81. The worlds two most dishonest groups

Fox News
and
politicians

[yurbud]

107. no kidding!

[HeraldSquare212]

10. Hmmm

I don't really believe that explanation. I could see modifying the formats to allow longer answers, or having the debates be on particular topics. But breaking the group up into smaller groups each of which would have a debate? Doesn't really allow a contrast to emerge. It would probably just start a debate about the debate, such as, "If so-and-so had been there and been asked that, he/she would have said...." Or it would be a gift to those who weren't at a particular debate - they could take some time to craft answers instead of having had to think on their feet. I think it's more likely two front-runners were trying to limit participation, which as everyone has noted is very common in every election campaign, but in my view it's way too early for that. If they want to get away from soundbites, then do thematic debates where each candidate gets a reasonable amount of time to provide a detailed answer.

[frogcycle]

13. believe it or don't

who really gives a shit?

[MagickMuffin]

39. I think your response is uncalled for....

and I know your answer will probably be "I don't really give a shit", but consider if someone was wanting to join the Democratic Party is that how you think they would want to be treated???

Would you want to be part of a party who treated you this way???

There seems to be more and more, less tolerant people here, which I really don't understand.:shrug:

Where is this anger coming from?

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[pokercat999]

79. "Where is the anger coming from?" I don't know about

you and the other frequent posters on DU but my anger, and I have lots, is mostly borne from the frustration of a government that is unresponsive to the people. A government that is, by the corporation, for the corporations and of the corporations. Said corporations are NOT Americans although they have the same "rights" as individual citizens and much, much more power. This has got to change and not one "LEADING" candidate is even talking about it. Jesus, even Glen Beck the neo nazi has realized this. He actually blamed the corps for unlawful immigration and other problems on his radio program (I only get one talk station) before he realized what he was saying. He changed the topic really, really fast.

[MagickMuffin]

80. Anger should only be directed at the people who causes the anger

it shouldn't be directed at people who post on DU, period.....

I try very hard NOT to direct my anger at people who post here. I don't see that as very productive and find it counter productive.

Just because your angry doesn't make it right to attack people here

Would you kick your dog because Exxon makes you angry?

Or would you take out your anger on your family because _F_i_l_l__i_n__t_h_e__b_l_a_n_k__ mad you upset or angry?

I would hope not. And again if you are wanting people to vote for the Democratic Party I think this approach of attacking people here is NOT the best way to achieve that goal.....

[pokercat999]

113. Agreed, I was just commenting on where the anger

might come from. I wasn't supporting attacking anyone.

I kinda feel like "I'm mad as hell.....but I can't do anything about it".

[goodgd_yall]

75. Welcome to DU

:hi:

Never mind some of the hot air mixed with alcohol that goes on at times.

[iamjoy]

77. Well, I Wonder Too

Except most debates are jokes in which the candidates don't really ask each other questions.

For the most part, I think Edwards was strategizing as all candidates do. Now, realizing how this is being spun he is trying to rectify the situation. Call it a lie, if you must, but to me it's the equivalent of "no, honey, those jeans do not make you look fat."

How do the candidates decide who is in the debate and who isn't? Doesn't the group organizing the debate decide who to invite? I can't really imagine the DNC being okay with a Democratic primary debate that excludes candidates who are already known to be running. So, what say-so do Edwards and Clinton have in this?

Anyway, why did he approach her after the debate? It's not like he can't get a hold of her any other way. If it was strategy why not have his people talk to her people first? Even if they didn't realize the microphones were on, why do it in earshot of some of the other candidates? If this were really some secret conspiracy, it would have been done completely in private. Everyone would have just assumed he was angling for another VP spot. So now, I have to wonder if John Edwards wasn't expressing frustration with the current process, frustration that was stronger immediately following the debates than it is in the normal course of the campaign.

And I would hope that rather than trying to convince us that we look fine in those jeans, he (and we) stop all of the jockeying and spin for or against a certain candidate and have a debate on the political process as a whole.

Or we could just forget about it. How many dead in Iraq? How many Americans without health insurance? How much will sea levels rise if we do nothing? And some people want to pout because he wanted to have a party and not invite everybody?

[ryanus]

12. yeah right

break into 2 of 4. That's what he meant. That's how most debates are done...not

[jsamuel]

15. your right

it isn't how other debates are done, that is why he was proposing to change it

[waiting for hope]

64. Yes - what in the hell have we been

watching? A Q&A session? Raise you hands.... Bullshit. I've gotten more information about the candidates form here and youtube than the last, what? three nicey nice sessions. I want to here how they can defend their position, offer explanations on how something they proposed is going to happen, not sound bytes and platitudes. I did hear, however, earlier tonight on KO, Craig Crawford made the comment that perhaps a format like that wouldn't be as good a thing for the front runner, but for Edwards, I say hell yes - give the man the exposure he deserves and allow him to make his case, for the more people that hear him, the more will come to understand that he truly wants to be a public servant to this country and do everything thing in his power to help ALL Americans, not just the ones with the most money.

[benny05]

14. K and R

Dennis needs to follow Stephen Covey's great ideas for leaders:

Seek to understand first, then be understood.

[frazzled]

16. As Kucinich just said on Hardball ...

when that statement was read to him ... "that doesn't pass the smile test."

A bit of fancy footwork, or rather backpedaling, I'd say. If you believe it, I have a bridge to sell to you, in Brooklyn.

[frogcycle]

17. all together now...

Who gives a shit?

[John Q. Citizen]

54. I do. If you don't care about collusion, lying, and restricting choices for voters

you might be in the wrong party.

[dannoynted1]

70. Progressive......

R N'T u?


Or just the Aggressive party?


Party/tarty/tardy....how 'bout independent and informed voter......nah too progressive for the party favors!?!

[jsamuel]

18. well, Kucinich didn't waste a second to lambast him for it even though he didn't know what the

conversation was about.

Kucinich is going to use what he can to get ahead.

[Swamp Rat]

22. Like Edwards, Hillary, Biden...

[John Q. Citizen]

55. Yes he did know. Hillary says it's all John' fault, John says they were discussing

some wierd plan on how the debates should be randomly broken up, and the audio shows that Hillary and Edwards were colluding to try to get other candidates banned from the debates.

Seems clear as a bell, unless you are a Hillary fan or an Edwards fan.

Then you need to do some heavy rationalizing.

[saracat]

101. Baloney. Every exuse to attack. Nonsense.

Actually, I would like to hear MORE of Hillary Barak and Edwards.Gravel is a waste of time and Kucinich is losing some of the respect I had given him earlier.

[John Q. Citizen]

108. Can you let me in on policy differences between the three you want to hear more from?

On Healthcare, for instance, I can't see that any of them differ except in very minor or obscure ways. All three seem to favor subsidizing private insurance companies out of the national treasury.

This is just another advancement on the privitization policies originally pushed by such Republican notibles as Newt Gingritch. Private prisons, private armies, private schools, all subsidized by public taxpayers

All three also seem to favor American Empire. Two voted recently to give bush the ability to claim that Iranians are waging war on the US, and the third has been silent on this.

Where do these three stand on private proprietary voting machine technology? Any one of them calling for dumping the machines? Considering our national experience of the last 7 years one has to wonder how all three front runners could possibly have their collective heads so deep in the sand.

Your respect seems to be predicted on conformity to the party line.

There is a reason voters gave the Democrats back control of both houses, just as there is a reason that these same voters now give the Democratic controlled congress a 14% approval rating. Or is that Kucinich's and Gravel's fault?

I am old enough to remember when Democrats stood for diversity, for democracy, for equal opportunity. So much for that, I guess.

[lumberjack_jeff]

90. I like Kucinich and Edwards.

The last couple of days has increased my respect for the former at the expense of the latter.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

111. I'll Take Edward's Word Over Kucinich's.

I'll give John the benefit of the doubt here.

[Swamp Rat]

19. What Edwards said to the reporters may or may not be true or complete.

:shrug:

My guess is that any or all of the candidates want to eliminate the others.

[Lex]

24. Yeah, can you imagine?!1 They want to eliminate each other . . .

well, duh, right?

[jsamuel]

27. well... that is the point

[Swamp Rat]

32. Now Miles O'Braindead is on CNN trying to turn it into a soap opera.

:eyes:

[Lex]

36. of course . . . anything out of nothing if it's a Dem

nt

[Mythsaje]

105. I think I love your subtle (and not so subtle) "They Live" references the best.

Great graphic.

[be inspired]

20. Great suggestion!

I'd like to see smaller debates too, without excluding anyone. Smaller debates would definitely make for more in-depth discussion. Edwards has the right idea here.

Kucinich has proven himself to be a hypocrite on this issue. He has repeatedly refused to debate his own rivals for his Congressional seat.

[frazzled]

34. I hardly think it would work:

Say CNN wants to host a debate (or NAACP, or NBC, or whomever): Do you think they are going to block out two separate chunks of valuable air time for two equivalent debates? (Which they would have to do, to be fair).

And what about the Republicans? They have even more candidates. So now we have to have FOUR debates everytime someone wants to host one.

Plus, no candidate would agree to it. First of all Edwards: who would scream bloody murder if he were randomly placed with, say, Gravel, Dodd, and Kucinich, leaving Clinton, Obama, Richardson, and Biden to debate separately.

It's ridiculous, and frankly, Edwards's post-gotcha statement is ridiculous. I seriouslly doubt that was what he proposed to Hillary in his few seconds of whispering to her. And it doesn't match her response.

How many times does his campaign have to issue clarifications? First about hiring the naughty-mouthed bloggers. Then about the haricut charges being mistakenly charged to the campaign. Several others I can no longer recall. And now this. There comes a point ...

[Cronopio]

72. "Do you think they are going to block out two separate chunks of valuable air time..."

Why not? They'll get more viewers tuning into the debates than they would get with regular programming, and therefore more expensive ad time following the events. More viewers, more events, more money for the networks. Candidates reach more people in less time with their messages. More debates mean more complete responses from the candidates.

Debates are about the only thing I'll tune into network TV for these days. In fact, each network should have it's own debate. I'd love to be able to crosscheck the responses between the debates - kind of like repeating questions during an interrogation to see if the answers remain the same.

[Frisbee]

87. Or alternatively...

Double the length of the debates. I'd happily sit though a debate that is twice as long, but give each candidate a chance to make meaningful comments, and allows the moderator to ask follow-up questions when the candidate is less than clear in their answer. Sure, the average American has the attention span of a gnat on Red Bull, but those aren't the people who tune in to watch the debates anyhow. But what do I know, I haven't even posted 10 times yet.

[Lex]

21. As far as I'm concerned, NOTHING is wrong with wanting a smaller field

of candidates if you are running.

That's what they are TRYING TO DO--win the primary election.


Maybe they should all hold hands and pledge to vote for each other instead.

[Swamp Rat]

23. Exactly!

;)

[Bucky]

104. I think you're missing the point.

Of course he wants there to be a smaller field of candidates. What he and Clinton suggested involved not winnowing the field but cutting off public exposure to people who are still in the race.

[John Q. Citizen]

29. And Edwards and Clinton were discussing this in private, instead of

publicly? They'd been working on this together for a while and would have to work on it some more? And they were going to go to Obama and the other candidates, to suggest this, but they just never had the chance?

And everyone thought that Iraq was chock full of of WMD and was on the virge of producing nuclear weapons, and the Downing Street Memos were taken out of context?

Sorry if I'm a skeptic, but given the other things we've been asked top believe, I'm not too quick to buy this.

[jsamuel]

30. you can't get more public than on the debate floor with mics on

Edwards just brought it up to her yesterday. I don't know what kind of time sequence your talking about.

[John Q. Citizen]

43. Here's the relevant part. Note the time sequence

"We should try to have a more serious and a smaller group," Edwards said into Clinton's ear following a Presidential Forum in Detroit hosted by the NAACP on Thursday.

Clinton agreed with Edwards, according to print reports and video footage of the exchange. "We've got to cut the number. ... They're not serious," she said. Clinton added that she thought representatives of her campaign and Edwards' had already tried to limit the debates, and "we've gotta get back to it," according to the AP.

[emmadoggy]

88. John Q., you and I agree on so many things, but...

I'm not sure about this one. Frankly, I find this whole episode very disappointing and unfortunate and a major distraction from other more important issues and I think the whole thing is so ambiguous that there is no way we'll ever know for sure what they were talking about. I'm not ready to let anyone completely off the hook here, but at the same time I'm not ready to throw anyone into the fire over it either.

Here's the thing...the actual audio of the two was almost impossible to hear and even the FAUX news interpretation has holes and blanks that they couldn't decipher. How much critical context are we missing during those little unintelligible blanks? For example, what if the quote you mention....."We've got to cut the number.....They're not serious." was actually, "We've got to cut the number of these debates. They're not serious." I never used to pay much attention, but have there always been this many debates before the primaries even start?? It seems like there have already been so many and really, how substantive are they?

You know, I have no idea what they were actually talking about. Maybe it was about eliminating candidates, maybe it was about cutting back on debates or breaking into smaller debate groups. They all seem like plausible explanations when we are missing so much of the context. Maybe I'm just gullible, I don't know. It certainly throws up some red flags, but I'm willing to hold off on the firing squad for now.

:shrug:

[HeraldSquare212]

31. But usually...

it's the voters who eliminate candidates, not other candidates.

[Lex]

35. So all the candidates make it through to the end of the primaries?

I think not.

[frazzled]

38. We're six farkin months away from the first primary

Or rather, caucus. And yes, candidates would be idiots to not continue to get free air time in debates. Of course they will stay in the debates: it costs them nothing and they get their message out, whatever it is. Sharpton was very up front last time in stating that was why he was in.

This "oh, what I really meant was having two debates each time" is laughable, once you start thinking about the logistics of it.

[Lex]

40. I find it laughable that people think Clinton or Edwards can control

who stays in the race or who drops out. Or who debates or doesn't.

Of course they want the field to narrow, nothing's wrong with that.

But why are people running around thinking Clinton or Edwards can control who stays in? The 2 of them don't think they can.

It's starting to sound like a Faux News "something out of nothing" thing to me.

[frazzled]

42. Because they said "our guys should get together" ...

We all heard that part on the video. And it wasn't about getting people to drop out (though that would be the effect)--it was about limiting the participants in the debate to the "serious" ones, whoever those are.

And the two campaigns could be successful in that--the negotiations that go on with the various sponsoring organizations for debates are fierce.

[Lex]

46. Boy, you sure are confident "their guys" can "get together" and

just decide to eliminate other candidates' partipation. Makes no sense.

Are the other candidates just participating because Edwards and Clinton give their permission. I don't think so.

Makes no sense.

[frazzled]

61. It's real easy: here's how it works

Say NBC wants to host a debate in the fall. They have to negotiate with each of the campaigns on a date, format, rules ...

Now say the Clinton and Edwards campaigns say to NBC (by prior agreement, maybe getting another candidate's organization to go in with them on it as well): well, we're not going to participate unless you limit the number of candidates to 4. NBC of course is in a pickle now ... because they can't really host a debate that does not have the top candidates in it. No one would watch. So they have two choices: don't do the debate or accede to the high-and-mightys' demands.

That's how they do it. It makes a lot of sense. If you don't think these things happen then you haven't followed political organizations wheeling and dealing.

It makes a hell of a lot more sense than suggesting that there be two separate debates each time with fewer participants chosen at random. I can tell you what the networks will say to that: big fat chance. There never was such a proposal: it was a cover-up for what was said in those few seconds.

[iamjoy]

78. But That Would Surely Become Public

and there'd be no way for the campaigns to positively spin that sort of blackmail.

So no, I don't think they could make that ultimatum to the networks or debate sponsor.

[John Q. Citizen]

47. You are using bait and switch. Which one of you contridictary arguments are you

using?

It didn't happen?

Edward explaination is right, or the Clinton explaination is right?

Colluding with another candidate to exclude other candidates is as American as apple pie?

Edwards and Clinton have no power to exclude other candidates?



My question to you is Why don't the Clinton and the Edwards versions match? If it didn't happen or if it's nothing?

ANd if there is nothing wrong with colluding to exclude other candidates?

And if they have no ability to exclude other candidates?

[Lex]

50. You see, neither are mutually exclusive.

1. Both Clinton and Edwards have the right to want a smaller field. That's what the candidates are trying to achieve.

2. But they cannot call the shots themselves about who stays in and who continues to participate. They simply don't have that power.

Those things are both true and not mutually exclusive positions.

[John Q. Citizen]

53. They do however have power to collude and try to get other candidates banned

from the debates.

From the overheard conversation, it sounds like they have been trying to do that, and were saying they would renew their efforts.

Clinton tried to blame it all on Edwards, and Edwards made up a phoney excuse.

So that's my take.

[Malidictus Maximus]

110. six farkin months away

And probably about three years past the actual go/no go of every candidate. JMO, but I would bet that nearly everyone who has EVER run for President knew they were going to by the election before. Sun Tzu said something to the effect of best way to fight is to win before the start of hostilities by convincing the other to give up; have to think that that's the wet dream of every campaign manager:-)

[Carolina Voice]

33. It's like the silly game we all played as children, 'gossip'.

If you start something and whisper it 'only once' and to only one person and they do the same. When it gets to the end of the row, it doesn't even resemble the original statement. That is what 'gossip' does and this really amounted to gossip although we like to call it speculation.

[MagickMuffin]

41. What guarantees that the MSM would air ALL these debates???

I think there should be one on one debates.

Wouldn't that really SERVE the voters with more of an informed electorate???

[EFerrari]

44. I'd like to believe that but don't get that from the tape. n/t

[emulatorloo]

45. Fox Lied and Distorted and Jumped to False Conclusions -- SO WHAT ELSE IS NEW??

Fox has a history of misreporting things to put Democrats in the worst light possible. My feeling is that they do it to pit democrat activists against one another -- Divide and Conquer is the oldest RNC GOP ROVE strategy in the book.

[Lex]

. . . and unfornately there are plenty here at DU who push the Faux News

idiotic talking point of the day.

[greenbriar]

49. nice job

thank you

[LittleClarkie]

51. That's the problem with a half heard conversation

And I don't think that's such a bad idea. If there are a ton of candidates, then randomly put them into smaller groups so that a more serious discussion can be had.

I wonder if Dennis will apologize now.

[Throwing Stones]

96. "I wonder if Dennis will apologize now."

That would be nice. What would be nicer is if he returned to the reality-based community. While I agree with Kucinich on many issues, most importantly impeachment, he has about as much chance of becoming president as I do. Why not use his position to further progressive ideals, rather than as fodder for the likes of Faux News?

If you're going to reply to this post with some variation of "having Kucinich in the debates does further progressive ideals", save it, put down the mouse and step away from the computer. That's akin to saying Nader was a positive voice in the 2000 election.

[LittleClarkie]

114. No, not exactly

The best thing I could say is that Dennis knows he won't be president, but thinks this is the best way to affect the debate. It's not bad having that extra voice in there. The more the better.

But not everyone believes Edwards, I'm finding.

[maxanne]

52. right

As if Edwards was going to admit to plotting with Hillary?

If this were really the truth - wouldn't BOTH their campaigns have said so, right away?

It's depressing to see people here are:

a) so gullible

b) so completely unconcerned - and willing to justify the actions of Clinton and Edwards.

I should think that DEMOCRATS would want the voices of all DEMOCRATS to be heard - and not want
the corporate candidates to close the door on the candidates with fewer dollars.

[Clark2008]

56. Ehhhh - sounds like more of Edwards' "Ooops. I'm so sorry.

And I say that sincerely" shit to me.

How many times can the man do this and still have supporters?

[create.peace]

57. serious or trivializing

http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=3368617

i'm sorry, i think that the words they used said a great deal about the attitudes of edwards and clinton. while i am not surprised at clinton, i was surprised at edwards. i support kucinich, think he brings a much needed conscience to the debate, and i am interested in richardson. lots of people support obama. even gravel has something to say. i just don't think it is up to the candidates to decide who should debate!!!

you don't have to go to faux to see the clip, go to abc above.

i saw it first without the editorializing, still appalling.

[DutchLiberal]

60. I ahve a better idea for him:

Hold a REAL debate, instead of question and answer sessions where they all repeat their previously studies sound bites.

[Alexander]

62. The Edwards and Clinton apologists strike again.

I saw the video. That's not what they talked about.

[Octafish]

63. Edwards is a good man.

Interesting to see how so many people making such an effort to say it isn't so.

Thanks for the heads-up, jsamuel.

[mzmolly]

65. And when Clinton said "they're not serious" was she talking about the debates?

That would make sense. :shrug:

[uppityperson]

66. k&r for not jumping to conclusions

[mmonk]

67. I'm still keeping my waders on until I know for sure.

[slipslidingaway]

68. Clinton & Edwards Video from ABC and also youtube (Fox)

Edwards "They're not serious" Who the hell is they???

IMO we should remember what Edwards and Clinton told us about WMD's when they voted for the IWR


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3374688&mesg_id=3374688

http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=3371185

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKbv5Wj_bzM


The youtube audio is clearer, but if you listen close enough you can hear it on the ABC video as well.

And I do not think Clinton and Edwards were talking about limiting the number of debates in their exchange as has been mentioned here on a few threads.

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

Clinton agreed "We've got to cut the number...They're not serious."


And just a reminder of what Kucinich was saying in 2002 and 2003.


Sept. 25, 2002, KUCINICH -- Denounces Pre-Emption
Introduced by anchor Judy Woodfruff on CNN as "one of the most active House opponents to President Bush's proposed resolution on Iraq," Kucinich denounces Bush's policy of pre-emptive war: "Since when do we equate patriotism with going to war? Since when do we equate patriotism with preemptive strikes and with unilateralism?...America's always been a nation that's worked with other nations. And after September 11 of last year, we had the entire world community working with us. Now we're separating ourselves, isolating ourselves from the world community because we want to go it alone."

Sept. 29, 2002, KUCINICH: "There Is No Imminent Threat"
On the same CBS "Face the Nation": "At this point, frankly, the evidence does not suggest that Iraq was connected to 9/11, that there's any connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, that there's any connection between Iraq and the anthrax attacks on this country. We don't hear from the CIA that Iraq has any usable weapons of mass destruction that they could deliver to the United States." Kucinich adds: "There's no imminent threat. If I thought there was an imminent threat to this country, I wouldn't hesitate to vote for action. But I have to tell you, there is no imminent threat."

March 20, 2003: Kucinich: "Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio took his presidential campaign to the same newspaper audiences, but he pulled no punches in assailing the president for starting the war. He urged Bush to bring the troops home and focus on problems in America's cities, including unemployment, pollution and failing schools. 'This is a sad day for America, the world community and the people of Iraq,' he said. 'These are offensive, not defensive attacks, and they are in violation of international law.'"

September 7, 2003, KUCINICH -- Get U.S. Out and U.N. In
"The Bush Administration's arrogant occupation of Iraq has harmed the United States' position in the world community, caused the deaths of 289 American soldiers at last count, and diverted tens of billions of dollars from domestic needs. Now the President is asking for another $87 billion. We must allow the UN to take over peacekeeping operations in the country. The UN must take over management, accounting, and distribution to the Iraqi people of Iraq's oil profits. There must be no privatization of the Iraqi oil industry. The UN must handle the awarding of all contracts for the rebuilding of Iraq so that there can be no more sweetheart contracts for companies like Halliburton."

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/200...

[jsamuel]

69. "They" are probably the debates and their 30 second answers.

They make themselves irrelevant and not serious by asking questions, then only allowing for a short answer that doesn't get into the substantive differences between the plans, policies, and candidates.

[slipslidingaway]

71. I guess the bottom line is that you trust Edwards more than I do,

I'm just a bit more skeptical.

http://www.herzliyaconference.org/Eng/_Articles/Article.asp?ArticleID=1728&CategoryID=223

Question and Answer:

Cheryl Fishbein from NY: When you do learning of Jewish texts, you give credit to ideas of scholars who have helped you ask questions, I would like to give credit to my friends and colleagues who have had this same overriding question of shared a existential threat: Would you be prepared, if diplomacy failed, to take further action against Iran? I think there is cynicism about the ability of diplomacy to work in this situation. Secondly, you as grassroots person, who has an understanding of the American people, is there understanding of this threat across US?

A: My analysis of Iran is if you start with the President of Iran coming to the UN in New York denouncing America and his extraordinary and nasty statements about the Holocaust and goal of wiping Israel off map, married with his attempts to obtain nuclear weapons over a long period of time, they are buying time. They are the foremost state sponsors of terrorism. If they have nuclear weapons, other states in the area will want them, and this is unacceptable.

As to what to do, we should not take anything off the table. More serious sanctions need to be undertaken, which cannot happen unless Russia and China are seriously on board, which has not happened up until now. I would not want to say in advance what we would do, and what I would do as president, but there are other steps that need to be taken. Fore example, we need to support direct engagement with Iranians, we need to be tough. But I think it is a mistake strategically to avoid engagement with Iran.

As to the American people, this is a difficult question. The vast majority of people are concerned about what is going on in Iraq. This will make the American people reticent toward going for Iran. But I think the American people are smart if they are told the truth, and if they trust their president. So Americans can be educated to come along with what needs to be done with Iran.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

112. That Would Make The Most Logical Sense. Thanks For The Thread/Clarity.

[ProudDad]

73. I like my idea better than Edwards'

If we had a democracy...

we could take back our airwaves and force our licensees to broadcast a decently long candidate's statement from EACH candidate every week.

We could demand that the licensees of OUR AIRWAVES broadcast issue debates among some or all of the candidates or EVEN BETTER, REAL DEBATES. You know, the kind where one group takes one side of the issue and the other group the other side -- REAL debating rules. It would even be instructive if some took a side they didn't really agree with - see how their empathic skills measure up.

W.F. Buckley used to do these on PBS and they were wonderful...

-----------------------

Of course the only way we could get shit is an extended General Strike, an end to business as usual. Mike Malloy mentioned General Strike this evening. Taft-Hartley makes it impossible for what's left of the Union Movement to have anything to do with a General Strike so we'll have to do it ourselves.

A great man once said, "There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can't take part; you can't even passively take part, and you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you've got to make it stop. And you've got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it, that unless you're free, the machine will be prevented from working at all!"

Mario Salvio.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcx9BJRadfw

[lakeguy]

91. i think you meant mario savio...

not salvio? anyway, great quote.

[ProudDad]

106. Yep

Too many "L" keys on my keyboard, damn!

I was lucky enough to meet Mario a few months before he died, at the 30th Anniversary of the FSM in Berkeley. I was blown away at what a sane, humane and peaceful man he was. When he talked to you he was completely present, no bullshit, no pretensions. He genuinely cared about you and what you were saying.

He also gave a talk at the FSF Anniversary. AMAZINGLY lucid, intelligent and compassionate. I was again blown away at his sanity and humanity. I expected the firebrand portrayed in the video of the gears of the machine speech but got an amazing, gifted, quiet speaker instead -- and was overjoyed...


I was later honored to be among those asked to play at his Memorial Celebration at U.C. Berkeley. We played a set of songs requested by his widow.

I was also able to attend the first Memorial Mario Savio Lecture at U.C. Howard Zinn gave it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mario_Savio
http://www.savio.org/

If you're going to be near Berkeley, the next lecturer will be Angela Davis on November 1, 2007 · 7:00 PM · Admission Free. Ought to be great, Angela's another great speaker...

[Senator]

74. K&R

[goodgd_yall]

76. Edwards' idea doesn't make any sense

This makes me think maybe he and Clinton WERE talking about conspiring to eliminate some of the other candidates from future debates. I was at first skeptical because I don't see how anyone can tell what they were talking about with half the conversation being inaudible, but this explanation by Edwards sounds pathetic.

[rosesaylavee]

82. Not sure if this has been suggested up thread

but how about we include all the candidates and just add time to the future debates for more indepth answers? If I were spending millions on a candidacy, I sure wouldn't want to be forum 'B'. Who would decide who is in which debate? I can't imagine this NOT have a deleterious effect on someones run.

Bad idea imo.

[Stuckinthebush]

83. Total BS

That story is a good one, though. I'll give it to him. His team worked hard to get that one together. Perhaps it'll stick, but it is doubtful.

I like John anyway, but I wish he wouldn't throw out bull like that. Clearly, he and HRC were talking about how to get the non-viable candidates off the stage because it dilutes the time they have. While I disagree with this, I understand it.

[sallyseven]

85. Someone should bring Andrea

Mitchel, the republican shill up to date, she gave out the repuke line on this today on the morning news. Wasn't that nice. I think Edwards and Hillary are right. Smaller debates and more time to evaluate. I also think that Dennis K should stop whining.

[PATRICK]

86. Reagan and the mike

Reagan's method of breaking out of the dwarfish gaggle situation that is the ludicrous crowded "debate" forum was simply to throw an authoritative tantrum about the microphone. Nothing sensible or substantive, nothing that had anything to do about an issue. But seeing someone finally display some virile decisiveness and throwing aside the strangling format like a confining tutu established the final pissing order for pack leader. Aroooooo-oo-oo-oooooooo!

Edwards has been trying outside the actual debates where he behaves decorously and by the rules to do something about several inbuilt flaws and absurdities such as the black forum using FOX News as its moderator and outlet. Probably because anything he did onstage to display "manly outrage and frustration" would be more correctly regarded as self-serving infantilism- which while a prime requisite for leadership character in the GOP- is merely another opportunity to beat to death a Dem tripping outside the media gauntlet.(Those unfamiliar with the gauntlet should remember that the people with the sticks make the rules and when you wander off the path from their blows they can finish you off.)

Now, my point is all of this from past experience and many savvy candidates should have been taken care of with one simple group question: the people and the candidates must be served by process and process can be changed. Outside mediation by disinterested parties and moderation of debates especially would have been unsatisfying to many private ambitions but of service to all. Furthermore, other types of events, also as liturgically strangling as the annual Pottawatomie Chicken Roast, should have been reined in for the good of all from the candidates point of view. Other special events created by the party(if that organization could stay away from favorites and over programming) could give different exposure than the odd debate forums we now have confined our people to on the major GOP-leaning networks.

Whatever. This year, as in all others, things change on the fly, thinning the focus goes hand in hand with the impatience of top candidates who suddenly realize no one has actually remembered a single word of even the canned speech they would like everyone to hear, much less substantive issue commitments(far more sincere for being the only party offering any). I am sure Hillary is anxious that she will not break out of the mere image to real solid ground to compete with the very fixed sentiments toward her nationwide. So candidates on top negotiate as the burden of really becoming the candidate or watching it all fizzle and evaporate before any democratic discussion really starts. Especially our party- because it matters.

Naturally when the usual over-planning meets campaign chaos the under-planning is revealed too late. I think we should be patient with all individuals in the inevitable mess and worry more about the actual candidate, the positions and the electoral strength. If Edwards grabbed a mike or talked sub voce(friends fill in the blanks, enemies fill in the blanks, networks promulgate the latter) with the Frontrunner he loses points by putting a toe outside the gauntlet. And neither has any real meaning
except to distract from the inbuilt problems of media presentation.

So far Edwards has been the only one strongly and rationally doing something, (albeit belatedly) about the meek trooping of centrist candidates down media lane. I had better posts on why the present debate system reformed and orchestrated by party and campaign advisers is all the more counter productive to their goals for them having made them this way. Every year the obvious goes a begging.

[lonestarnot]

89. Well that's good.

:applause:

[sueh]

94. Look, instead of candidates trying to thin out the field...

why don't they negotiate with the tee-vee stations to have a proper debate forum where all of the candiates are asked the same questions. Yes, a debate may last 4 hours (horrors!!) but isn't that a better method to find out where candidates stand on the issues?

[Malidictus Maximus]

109. At least Youtube everything

I *LOVE* debates the way some people like baseball and football, politics is a PASSION. But I really don't see a three or four hour slot of TV. Youtube, or something like it; asynchronous and accessible by search, in an archival form, would be more 21st century.

[jgraz]

97. One things for sure: somebody's lying

Hillary's said that they were talking about thinning the herd, but she made it sound like it was all Edwards' idea. Either way, one of them is lying through their teeth.

[Botany]

98. So Fox took part of a conversation out of context and tried to sell a lie?

I am shocked .... shocked to find that there is gambling going on here.



Edwards is the one that the corporations and the repugs want to shut down .... file this w/ the $400.00
haircut stories and his 35,000 sq. ft house.

[Mrspeeker]

99. ILL PASS ON the rec'ing

ILL PASS ON JOHN EDWARDS WORD!
ILL PASS ON HILLARY CLINTONS WORD!

ITS ALL A MONEY GAME FOR THESE TWO CANDIDATES, Specially John Edwards, he stands to make or break depending on your health care.

The real problem is that we the people have been fooled and the presidential election is a farce. The new president has already been hand picked to do the bidding of the world banks, by the illuminate. That man is a proud member of the PNAC, and a veteran, he hails from Arizona.

So lets do what they want us to do and celebrate democracy the capitalist way, buy stuff and support the government in any way. "ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country" Cause thats why we established a government for the people by the people..so we could work for it ROFL!

[SoCalDem]

100. Of course he would say that now..

"Clarification" after the fact is a common tactic in politics.

A better one would be to never talk with a microphone nearby, or to expect that everything you say MAY be recorded :eyes:

[Inspired]

102. Why all the fuss?

I, for one, would like to see more meaningful debates. If they can find a way to do this, more power to them.

This whole situation has been blown totally out of proportion.

I have a couple of suggestions for anyone who is 'outraged' over this.

Get a life or feel lucky that the one you have is so dull that something like this can get you 'outraged'. Get off of your ass and do something productive. Find something significant to bitch about.

[Bucky]

103. I admire Edwards but this does not pass the "are you fuckin' kidding me?" test

And yes, there is such a test.