• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Clinton/Edwards conspire to trim down debate participants

Whoozyerdaddy

Whoozyerdaddy

Lifer
http://www.wluctv6.com/Global/story.asp?S=6784011

Clinton, Edwards talk of limiting debate




Associated Press - July 13, 2007 2:23 AM ET

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.

One Republican, Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo, also participated.
Click to expand...


Dennis Kucinich is not happy...
http://www.breitbart.com/artic....CLF025&show_article=1

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

Jul 13 12:16 AM US/Eastern
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.


According to the Associated Press, Fox News Channel microphones picked up
Clinton and Edwards on stage discussing their desire to limit future joint
appearances to exclude some rivals lower in the crowded field. "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.


"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.
Click to expand...

Two things hit me here... First, it's way too early to start paring down the field (on both sides of the aisle). Second, why do the candidates get to set the debate roster? I thought that was up to whoever was hosting the debate. If Clinton and Edwards are going lean on groups sponsoring debates to exclude certain candidates... I don't know, theres something wrong with that.




 
Their arrogance is out of control, even for a politician. Also, I've considered Edwards out of it for a while.
 
I think that Dennis is right to be peeved. The anointed front-runners don't get to dictate who is still in it or not. If that were the case the leader of the first poll could declare everyone else is "not serious enough" to really have a chance and then just hold press conferences.
 
In the corporate world, this would smell like anti-trust.

In the political world, it may indicate the lack of confidence in themselves.

the more one is challenged, the increased chance of making a slip up.

And a slip, no matter how small will be exploded by rivals and the media.
 
Originally posted by: dyna

That is more arrogant than Bush and co.
Click to expand...

Please.

But, topic-wise, Clinton is a leader of the dem party and its current front-runner. So there's a few observations. From her perspective, it's better for her to have fewer distractions to deal with and fewer charges from fellow noms to deal with. And it's not completely ridiculous that she would support a paring down of the fringe candidates to strengthen party unity.

That said, while she has the right to her opinion, I don't think she should have the final say on the matter, given her slight conflict of interest. I don't think we will be hearing the no-chancers echoing her calls for consolidation.

PS. Have you seen Kucinich speak? The dude couldn't act "outraged" if you nailed his foot to the floor. Colbert calls him "a woodland sprite" 🙂
 
Ugh...Edwards and Clinton. They're both so annoying...Edwards is just swarmy, I get a huge 'smooth talking con man' vibe from him and Clinton is just a robot that reads a poll and says she supports whatever is currently popular. No clear attitude or plan, just pandering to the ignorant by telling them what they want to hear. The sad part is it'll probably work.

 
Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
In the corporate world, this would smell like anti-trust.

In the political world, it may indicate the lack of confidence in themselves.

the more one is challenged, the increased chance of making a slip up.

And a slip, no matter how small will be exploded by rivals and the media.
Click to expand...

Hillary has yet to be challenged in a tough interview. She's been able to avoid them up until this point by tightly controlling her access to the media, but I dont think people will stand for it in a presidential election. It will catch up with her.
 
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
I think that Dennis is right to be peeved. The anointed front-runners don't get to dictate who is still in it or not. If that were the case the leader of the first poll could declare everyone else is "not serious enough" to really have a chance and then just hold press conferences.
Click to expand...

Originally posted by: dyna

That is more arrogant than Bush and co.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't go that far but it does clearly show those with the most money are the only ones that get to play in the game.

 
Its not like Democrats are really getting to choose who will be their next candidate anyway.


Its events like this that show America just how contrived the system really is.


The BIG question, will the networks, to include CNN and FOX, play the tape?
 
in fairness, is it really possible to have any type of meaningful debate when you've got 20 candidates, most of whom are polling at like 0-1% and aren't even "in it to win it," on the stage?
 
Originally posted by: loki8481
in fairness, is it really possible to have any type of meaningful debate when you've got 20 candidates, most of whom are polling at like 0-1% and aren't even "in it to win it," on the stage?
Click to expand...

Well, I think it's more like 10 than 20.

But in a way I have to say at this point, Yes, you can have a meaningful debate. Some of these 1-2%'ers are just here to influence the debate. And I think they can do that.

I recall Kucinich making (what I thought) a d@mn good point about Universal Health Care. After everyone else spoke in rather vague terms about geting everbody enrolled this-way-or-that and outlining nebulous plans topay for it all, Kucinich stod up said they were all WRONG. Then made a great argument for a single payer system.

I lived under the French health care system for about 6 years. I remember it being a single payer system (just the government). I liked it, no bils, just a social securtiy number was all I ever needed. (Disclaimer, I recently heard someone quoting stat that said 80% of the French augment their national health care with private insurance. I don't remember taht at all when I lived there in the late 80's and early 90's).

So, yeah, at this early point they can move the debate and inject ideas.

Fern
 
I thought the Democratic Party was the party of inclusion?

I see two ways to par the field down.
1. Set a bottom limit someone must poll is X number of national polls. (Newweeks, ABC etc)
2. Limit the number of people to the five highest polling candidates etc.

I do question why Hillary wants less people on stage. She is the front runner and everyone is just dying for her to make a mistake. So the best thing for her at this point is to have to talk as little as possible that way she is less likely to screw up and give them a good sound bite. (Of course if everyone is just attacking Hillary then I can see her point. I have not watched any debates yet so I don?t know if that is happening.)
 
Originally posted by: Tipsy Turtle
Someone needs to clue hillary in to the fact that this is not the U.S.S.A.

yet
Click to expand...

Hey, come on. Hillary knows that we're all equal in this country. She also thinks (knows) that people like herself are MORE equal than most of us! :roll:
 
Time to cut Kucinich, Dodd, Gravel, and Biden. I want more time to hear from people who have a chance at the nomination.
 
Originally posted by: senseamp
Time to cut Kucinich, Dodd, Gravel, and Biden. I want more time to hear from people who have a chance at the nomination.
Click to expand...

Bah, you mean for the most bribable to remain. Why let only the big money candidates have their say? It is dangerous to cave in to the mindset that only the "big officially approved" candidates should have their say. It is about democracy not corpocracy.


 
Originally posted by: marvdmartian
Originally posted by: Tipsy Turtle
Someone needs to clue hillary in to the fact that this is not the U.S.S.A.

yet
Click to expand...

Hey, come on. Hillary knows that we're all equal in this country. She also thinks (knows) that people like herself are MORE equal than most of us! :roll:
Click to expand...

Four legs good, two legs baaad! Four legs good, two legs baaad!
 
Originally posted by: senseamp
Time to cut Kucinich, Dodd, Gravel, and Biden. I want more time to hear from people who have a chance at the nomination.
Click to expand...

Oh come on... we're still six months away from the first primaries. Nothing is a given right now. This time last election, Howard Dean had it all sewn up. He was raising more money than anyone and was killing in the polls. As things got closer to the election John Kerry's campaign was flagging and running out of cash. He had to borrow money against his house just to keep his campaign afloat. This far out in the '92 elections, Bill Clinton was an also ran. Nobody knew who that guy was. By your standards, Clinton should have been cut from the debates in the '92 elections.

We all know how things turned out. Dean imploded and Kerry went on to win the nomination. Clinton wound up being the first two term Democrat president in 50 years.

It's absolutely foolish to start eliminating people from the debates now. You never know who is going to strike a nerve and make a move or who is going to step all over themselves.

The debates this far out are not about helping people make up their minds. They are there for the people to get acquainted with the candidates and their positions. It's speed dating, Washington style. As things go along campaigns will shut down. Running for president is an expensive business (ask John McCain) and the long campaign season is very effective at weeding out the weaker candidates. Through attrition, you will see the debate field shrink down to more manageable numbers.

It doesn't/shouldn't take Clinton and Edwards locking people out to alter the process.



 
Originally posted by: GrGr
Originally posted by: senseamp
Time to cut Kucinich, Dodd, Gravel, and Biden. I want more time to hear from people who have a chance at the nomination.
Click to expand...

Bah, you mean for the most bribable to remain. Why let only the big money candidates have their say? It is dangerous to cave in to the mindset that only the "big officially approved" candidates should have their say. It is about democracy not corpocracy.
Click to expand...

senseamp is Clinton's biggest fan around here. He'd just as soon call off the whole election and just crown her queen. I mean president.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top