Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Why??? First 2008 debates (New Hampshire) could lack top-named candidates

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Flabbergasted Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-12-07 05:47 PM
Original message
Why??? First 2008 debates (New Hampshire) could lack top-named candidates
Edited on Mon Mar-12-07 06:09 PM by Flabbergasted
(Could it be "some candidates...would rather run and hide than defend their records and their positions on the war." Kucinich)

http://www.citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070309/NEWS0201/70309011/-1/CITIZEN

PHILIP ELLIOTT
Associated Press Writer


CONCORD, N.H. (AP) _ The first debate in the first-in-the-nation primary state is likely to be without the candidates polling in first place _ or maybe even second or third places.

Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani says he can't make next month's debates because of an undisclosed scheduling conflict; aides to the Republican won't give specifics or locations. Sen. John McCain will be in Iraq on a ''long-planned'' visit. And former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney's spokeswoman says he hasn't yet made a decision.

Among the Democrats, Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton's aides say she is considering it; aides to Sen. Barack Obama say he hasn't decided yet.

''If you have a debate and Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama don't show up, is it really a debate?'' said Fergus Cullen, the state GOP chairman.

So far, few of the high-buzz candidates have committed to the WMUR-TV-New Hampshire Union Leader-CNN debates set to air nationally. Some top candidates are staying away from the April 4 and 5 debates, recognizing a potential gaffe could plague them for the 10 months before New Hampshire voters cast their ballots. Others say simply appearing beside thus-far-non-factor candidates only elevates them.

''If you goof, it's going to be a lot more of a goof than normal. Any gaffe will be augmented by the fact it's just one or two of 'the names' with several of the lower-tier candidates,'' said Mark Wrighton, a University of New Hampshire political science professor.

Wrighton said these are strategic decisions facing each campaign. ''That's going to help lower-tier candidates. Those folks should jump in and be there. Several of them will make hay and that will help them.''

Giuliani and McCain, however, have committed to appearing at a May debate at the Reagan Library in California.

Some campaign and party officials say they expect the New Hampshire debates will be postponed or rescheduled, given the low level and low wattage of participants. Those involved in the discussions said a decision is expected by the end of this week.

WMUR's news director Andrew Vrees said Thursday the debates are still planned and any talk of cancellation is premature. New Hampshire Union Leader Executive Editor Charlie Perkins said discussions are ongoing and no decision to cancel, postpone or nix has been made. A message was left with a CNN spokeswoman.

''You never have to do all the debates. If you think everyone is going to be ganging up on you, it might make sense to skip,'' said Sam Popkin, who helped President Carter prepare for his debates against Ronald Reagan. ''If you're not ready, you're not ready.''

Campaign aides have been offering variations on the ''under consideration,'' ''we're mulling it,'' and ''we look forward to debating in New Hampshire.'' Others say wrangling over format and participants has been the subject of numerous phone calls between the station, the newspaper and the campaigns.

''They have not contacted us formally in regards to any changes,'' said Katie Roberts, a spokeswoman for New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson and a confirmed participant.

Still, no one wants to the first to blink, and no one wants to be the only top name sharing the stage with marginal candidates.

''If it's not too early in the campaign season for candidates to host million dollar fundraisers,'' Sen. Chris Dodd said last week, ''it's not too early to debate the issues.''

Dodd, like many of the candidates with lower poll positions, have the most to gain, experts said.

''If you're a Mike Huckabee, a Dennis Kucinich _ if you're any of those folks, it becomes very attractive,'' Wrighton said. ''It's very attractive if the big boys don't come. A win goes down to just showing up.''

Those candidates are coming, along with former Sen. John Edwards, Sen. Sam Brownback and Sen. Joe Biden.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
rocktivity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-12-07 05:55 PM
Response to Original message
1. Obama, Clinton, McCain, Romney and Huckabee have the luxury
of citing conflicts with their governmental duties. But what's Rudy's excuse--what is HE doing that's more important than becoming president?

:headbang:
rocknation
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flabbergasted Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-12-07 05:57 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. They've been campaigning all over for weeks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TwilightGardener Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-13-07 01:12 PM
Response to Reply #1
8. Romney and Huckabee have governmental duties? Anyway,
it's too early for debates. Who wants a Howard Dean moment played so often for so long it becomes part of the collective wisdom by election time? Too much of a risk, IMO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hippo_Tron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-14-07 01:23 AM
Response to Reply #1
36. Hey, give Rudy a break, he's probably busy exploiting a crisis somewhere
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hughee99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-12-07 06:12 PM
Response to Original message
3. ''If you're not ready, you're not ready.'' WTF??
Though I'd like to see all the candidates at the debates, there are certainly reasons that some candidates can't make it, and I understand that. However, if a candidate can't even get ready for a debate that's a month away, I wouldn't feel good about voting for them to become president.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hav Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-12-07 06:15 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. .
On the other side, it's still so early, don't you think? We just had the midterm elections and apparently everybody wants to go full speed ahead to the next presidential elections.
I can gladly do without debates and campaigning around 1 and half years before the election.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hughee99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-12-07 06:24 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. I don't really see a problem if there were no debate...
The only issue I see would be a candidate publicly saying "I'm not ready for the debate". IMHO, if a candidate has other commitments, that's fine, but if a politician isn't up to speed enough on the issues, not solid enough in what they believe, and/or without the ability to articulate their platform while their already there out there campaigning for president, then it doesn't inspire a whole lot of confidence in me about their candidacy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveElmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-12-07 06:25 PM
Response to Original message
6. Candidates are under no obligation to attend every debate...
There are going to be many debates between now and next year...

This is a non-story except for people like Kucinich, Biden and Dodd who are trying to get on stage with the big boys/girls to help jumpstart their campaigns!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flabbergasted Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-13-07 01:08 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. It's also a problem for "we the people" who deserve to hear candidates
actually make stands on issues.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveElmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-13-07 01:15 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. Turn on the news, browse the internet...
If you can't find out where candidates stand on the issues you aren't paying attention...

There are going to be dozens of debates between now and the primaries....


This is just Dennis Kucinich's little "Sister Souljah" moment...gets him facteime on the news, and a little dissing of the left won't hurt him with moderates...or so he hopes!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flabbergasted Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-13-07 01:18 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. Most Candidates for President have done a great job thus far not making statements,
avoiding issues, and providing answers that are meaningless.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveElmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-13-07 01:42 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. Well if y ou believe that...
Which I do not btw...what makes you think some joint news conference will provide you with what you need?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flabbergasted Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-13-07 05:37 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. The country needs candidates that are willing to make clear statements,
instead of candidates who refuse debates because it shows their lack of candidness.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveElmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-13-07 05:51 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. You are talking in circles...nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flabbergasted Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-13-07 06:04 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. Meaningless statement. Try explaining to me why Hillary would rather
not answer "difficult" questions?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveElmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-13-07 06:09 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. Jee...changing the topic...
A golden oldie here at DU...

Hillary has answered the tough questions...perhaps you don't like the answers, but they are there...

Exactly what do you believe you will find out at one additional joint press conference that you don't already know...?


And here is one for you...

What is Dennis Kucinich's explanation for his blatant wind sockery shifting from an anti-choice to pro-choice position, an anti-stem cell research to pro stem-cell research position, and what did he learn about the constitution between his first couple terms in Congress that made him decide a flag-burning amendment was a bad idea after all....all positions he changed right before he decided to run for President...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flabbergasted Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-13-07 06:16 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. Elmer Come on. The entire topic and every thread I've written has
been about lack of transparency of most politicians. I'm doubtful you can find any emphatic clear statements by Hill that are not laced with doublespeak.


I realize he shifted positions, however if you're going to bring that up, "Why has Hillary never apologized for her support of the war?"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveElmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-13-07 06:21 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. "Why has Hillary never apologized for her support of the war?"
Very simple...

One is not warranted...


Are you going to explain these "shifted positions," flip-flops of a a far greater magnitude than anyone has even accused Hillary of making...which is saying something?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flabbergasted Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-13-07 06:23 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. Dear lord Elmer. Why did we invade Iraq? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveElmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-13-07 06:33 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. Her reasoning was very simple...
And laid out quite clearly in her floor statement...and it mirrored those in the statements of Max Cleland, John Kerry, John Edwards, and Tom Harkin...among others...

I suggest you read it...I have included a link...

http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html

Has Kucinich apologized for aiding and abetting a movement that has sought to restrict women's access to health care, harassed those that were raped and the victims of incest as they sought reproductive care, driven hundreds of physicians away from providing such care, and is on the verge of writing their religious beliefs into the Constitution of the U.S.?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flabbergasted Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-13-07 06:40 PM
Response to Reply #20
21. I wasn't trying to avoid your question. I don't think Kucinich was malicious
then or now. I think the decision is forgivable.




Floor Speech of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton
on S.J. Res. 45, A Resolution to Authorize the Use of
United States Armed Forces Against Iraq



"Today we are asked whether to give the President of the United States authority to use force in Iraq should diplomatic efforts fail to dismantle Saddam Hussein's chemical and biological weapons and his nuclear program."

(What a surprise: she authorized, was wrong (unless you're a corporatist), and never looked back.)



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveElmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-13-07 07:02 PM
Response to Reply #21
23. Ah the other favored tactic...
After changing the topic...the selective quote...

Well here you go...from the same speech


If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us. In recent days, Russia has talked of an invasion of Georgia to attack Chechen rebels. India has mentioned the possibility of a pre-emptive strike on Pakistan. And what if China were to perceive a threat from Taiwan?

So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option.



Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely, and therefore, war less likely, and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause, I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation.


And then of course after changing the topic and the selective quote...we have the broad brush insult...


Provide me one shred of evidence that Hillary Clinton, or Max CLeland, or Tom Harkin, voted for the IWR for any reason other than what they said...

And again...what can be the explanation for Dennis Kucinich's stunning flip-flop on abortion, stem-cell and flag burning, and has he yet apologized for the damage his support of those seeking to deny women reproductive health caused? And to the delay his opposition to stem-cell research caused toward the goal of curing the many diseases that such research may aid?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flabbergasted Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-13-07 07:05 PM
Response to Reply #23
24. Ah the other favored tactic...
Complaining about tactics and then changing the subject that proves that Hillary is one hell of a politician.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveElmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-13-07 07:24 PM
Response to Reply #24
25. She is a hell of a politician...
That's a compliment as far as I am concerned...

And you are the one who changed the topic...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flabbergasted Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-13-07 07:27 PM
Response to Reply #25
26. I prefer people who mean what they say. I never changed the subject.,
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveElmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-13-07 07:27 PM
Response to Reply #26
27. So do I...
And of course you did...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flabbergasted Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-13-07 07:33 PM
Response to Reply #27
28. No I've been on the same subject the entire time. Hillary says nothing of substance.
she avoids anything controversial by making statements that are really meaningless in substance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveElmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-13-07 07:34 PM
Response to Reply #28
29. Absolutely false...
You just don't like what she says...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flabbergasted Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-13-07 07:40 PM
Response to Reply #29
30. Absolutely True. Ok Lets hear what she has to say? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveElmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-13-07 07:41 PM
Response to Reply #30
31. ...
www.hillaryclinton.org

I recommend listening to the Hillcasts for starters
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flabbergasted Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-13-07 07:44 PM
Response to Reply #31
32. Come on Elmer. I've listened to her. I want some statements from you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveElmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-13-07 07:45 PM
Response to Reply #32
33. I'm not running for President...
She can speak for herself...and does so effectively...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flabbergasted Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-13-07 07:47 PM
Response to Reply #33
34. Prove YOUR case for her Elmer?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveElmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-13-07 07:48 PM
Response to Reply #34
35. I have given you the tools my friend...
If you are truly interested (which I doubt) the answer is only a few clicks away!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flabbergasted Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-14-07 05:15 PM
Response to Reply #35
38. In other words you can't prove your case? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-13-07 02:16 PM
Response to Original message
12. Amazing how GOP Chairman asks,
''If you have a debate and Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama don't show up, is it really a debate?'' said Fergus Cullen, the state GOP chairman.

Yes, it would really be a debate, Mr. Cullen, GOP Chairman, ........even if those two didn't show up.
But thank you for asking! :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
goodhue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-13-07 06:44 PM
Response to Original message
22. great post
but assuming you are not phillip elliot, you probably should keep the copyright rules in mind . . .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html

Copyrights: Do not copy-and-paste entire articles onto this discussion forum. When referencing copyrighted work, post a short excerpt (not exceeding 4 paragraphs) with a link back to the original.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clarkie1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-14-07 01:26 AM
Response to Original message
37. Isn't it a little (to say the least) early for debatin'?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
high density Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-14-07 05:19 PM
Response to Reply #37
39. No kidding...
Who is going to watch this crap? It's painful enough to watch these things during "campaign season."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun May 05th 2024, 01:22 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC