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

[seriousstan]

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_camp_outraged_by__overheard__plans_of_clinton_and_edwards_to_eliminate_candidates_from_future_presidential_debates__fo

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

[merwin]

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.

[mikelgb]

3. Dennis is finding a way.

he is speaking out.

[stressfulreality]

61. which is a good thing, but...

until he starts supporting to protect our 2nd ammendment - Dennis is ____ in my book.

[grahamhgreen]

14. Why don't we just have you decide on who should debate and what issues should be discussed?

[merwin]

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.

[harun]

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.

[november3rd]

48. Uhh....

Thanks, anyway, but I prefer to let the people decide who we want to represent us, not some other candidates.

[Honeycombe8]

103. It used to be that debate was limited to those with at least 15% public support.

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.

[marshall]

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.

[Javaman]

2. Yeah can't have candidates there that tell the truth after all. nt

[1monster]

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.

[qazplm]

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.

[frazzled]

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.

[emulatorloo]

11. I agree, the more the merrier for a while -- realistically though it is gonna come down to Clinton,

Edwards, Obama.

[go west young man]

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.

[qazplm]

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.

[iamjoy]

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.

[asthmaticeog]

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."

[qazplm]

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.

[asthmaticeog]

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.

[redqueen]

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:

[asthmaticeog]

32. Somehow, I always think of the candidates with "bad" hair as being MORE serious.

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...

[EFerrari]

43. Yeah, Lincoln had bad hair,too.

:)

[truedelphi]

50. Yep after all, how can we keep our government a government

Of the Corporations if we have free wielding candidates?

[5X]

27. cheney? that you?

[Zhade]

68. Thank goodness YOU don't run the democratic process.

NT!

[silverojo]

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.

[lyonn]

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!

[silverojo]

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.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

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.

[Zhade]

67. Popularity doesn't run the democratic process.

THAT'S called "mob rule".

[ProudDad]

112. Yep

We've got "Corporate Rule"...

[1monster]

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.

[Honeycombe8]

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.

[frazzled]

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.

[Bucky]

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.

[Dogmudgeon]

6. "They were caught by Fox News microphones ..."

Don't that just say it all.

--p!

[seriousstan]

9. Bad microphones, bad, bad microphones. They made them say those things.

Talk about shooting the messenger.

[NavyDavy]

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....

[seriousstan]

16. And haters of Fox don't believe their own eyes and ears. Did you see the video?

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

[Justyce]

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...

[The Count]

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

[Zhade]

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?

[go west young man]

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.

[Freddie Stubbs]

19. Why did Kucinich assume he was one of the non-'serious' candidates they were talking about?

:shrug:

[JTFrog]

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.

[redqueen]

25. he was being snarky

*sigh*

i can see such a shiny, bright future ahead for our oh-so-progressive party

[Zhade]

71. That's the main problem - it's not progressive.

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.

[redqueen]

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*

[Bucky]

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.

[frylock]

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.

[EFerrari]

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.

[redqueen]

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*

[EFerrari]

31. I'm signing up with DK's campaign today. You're right. n/t

[Psephos]

33. Well said n/t

[frylock]

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.

[EFerrari]

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.

[sellitman]

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:

[frylock]

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.

[sellitman]

63. Issues?

Since when is a haircut an issue?

You need to pay attention.

[frylock]

76. hypocrisy is the issue

¿comprende?

[sellitman]

94. So...

Only poor people can workto help the poor according to your logic.

[frylock]

95. so...

long.

[ProudDad]

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...

[sellitman]

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.

[Occulus]

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.

[BigDDem]

35. Funny that

Dennis, the king of 1% put himself in the category of "not serious."

[lyonn]

38. This is the Primary season, no one has been annointed, yet - nt

[Fovea]

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.

[bvar22]

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.

[Zhade]

73. Hear, hear.

NT!

[Dhalgren]

110. I wish that I could "recommend" an individual post, because I would

recommend yours! Excellent points and dead fucking on!

:yourock: :applause:

[ProudDad]

114. HEAR, HEAR! (n/t)

[NastyDiaper]

41. They should just crown themselves and have a tea party already. nt

[ima_sinnic]

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!!!

[Bucky]

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.

[MilesColtrane]

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 Español. 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.

[goodgd_yall]

47. I'd go for eliminating Gravel

He doesn't add solutions, only attacks on his fellow candidates.

[The Count]

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!

[goodgd_yall]

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.

[Seabiscuit]

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".

[clixtox]

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?

[hedgehog]

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

[Lydia Leftcoast]

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.

[MilesColtrane]

62. Realistically the average American will never see a primary debate.

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/debatenumbers.html

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.

[ProudDad]

115. That's why OUR AIRWAVES

must be taken back for frequent, full candidates statements and real debates on issues...

[The Count]

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...

[SIMPLYB1980]

59. Wow lots of Republicans posting on DU now?

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.

[redqueen]

64. That's funny.

You're funny.

[John Q. Citizen]

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?

[redqueen]

72. ahahahahahah

:thumbsup:

[Zhade]

75. PWNED!

Nice.

[rinsd]

81. FoxNews considers Kucinich to be one of their favorite pets.

They love having him on.

He's like a mini-Colmes.

[John Q. Citizen]

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?

[rinsd]

84. Naaahhhh Kucinich just takes his money from taxpayers in the form of matching funds

http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politicalticker/2007/03/kucinich-forced-to-repay-fec-135000.html

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.

[John Q. Citizen]

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.

[ProudDad]

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/

[Alamom]

91. Murdoch "has" supported Dem Noms, Gore, Kerry, + Obama. D. Feinstien, T Kennedy

and many others in senate races.


Source: Newsmeat


edgr

[Zhade]

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.

[Bucky]

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...

[Psephos]

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.

[surfermaw]

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.

[ProudDad]

117. Why the hell not?

Where else should a person who happens to be registered "republican" give their money?

One of these assholes???

[Zhade]

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.

[pitohui]

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!

[obxhead]

86. The next election is rigged anyway....

so ho much does it matter :sarcasm:

[BenDavid]

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

[Alamom]

90. I agree completely. Shady and underhanded deals are not made in public a few feet away from the

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

[humbled_opinion]

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.

[Bucky]

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.

[Orsino]

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?

[Honeycombe8]

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)

[Orsino]

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.

[Honeycombe8]

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.

[Dhalgren]

111. That rule, I believe is for the general election - not the primary elections...

[Orsino]

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.

[clixtox]

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.

[ProudDad]

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:

[yurbud]

100. My comment posted on edwards blog:

http://blog.johnedwards.com/story/2007/7/14/10589/6500#3


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

[Neshanic]

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?

[SKKY]

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.