AP: Kucinich angrily reacts to Clinton-Edwards exchange in Detroit

[rhombus]

AP picks up the story. I heard a blurb on this on my local radio.

NEW YORK – Democrat Dennis Kucinich responded angrily Friday to a conversation overheard between Hillary Rodham Clinton and John Edwards, in which the two spoke of limiting the number of candidates invited to participate in presidential forums.

“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,” Kucinich said in a statement released by his campaign.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/20070713-0813-onthe2008trail.html




The thing is Howard Dean would have been excluded from the debates in 2003 by the standards Edwards and Hillary are trying to impose this early in the campaign cycle. Boy, am I glad Howard Dean stayed on.

[Orrex]

1. Is there a limit?

If I can find 100 friends willing to claim to be running on the Democratic ticket, will Dennis let us all sit next to him at the next debate?

[John Q. Citizen]

106. Clinton and Edward's collusion to deny choice is shameful. Iwant to hear what they

all have too say.

I don't want my choices limited.

[Orrex]

108. That doesn't really answer it, though

What's the threshold? Kucinich pulled in somewhere under 10% in his own state's 2004 Prez Primary; how many times does he get to leap on the soapbox without real result?

And if he gets to go as often as he wants to, what about my hundred friends and me?

[John Q. Citizen]

109. Certainly the threshold shouldn't be to make the Repos look like the big tent party.

Colluding to deny choice is just wrong, it's stupid, and it's stupid that they got caught.

It certainly doesn't suggest either Clinton or Edwards has strong democratic values or good judgement.

[Orrex]

111. Wait a minute--maybe I missed something

Were Clinton and Edwards speaking of some effort that they themselves might make to box out certain contenders? I would agree that that's out of line.

But I thought the issue was whether a given debate can choose to exclude candidates or must include anyone and everyone who wants a place at the microphone.

Sorry for the mix up.

[Swamp Rat]

115. Amen

That's all I have to say.

[SaveElmer]

2. Crocodile tears...

A fringe candidate upset he might not be able to ride the backs of serious candidates for the publicity...

[kwolf68]

4. No...

He wouldn't have ridden on the backs of anything had Clinton and Edwards not made such elitist pompous remarks.

[SaveElmer]

7. This is no different than his whining when the Fox debate was cancelled...

He knows he cannot generate the publicity on his own...he can only get it by being included with serious candidates in these debates...so he whines like a spoiled child....even to the point of making sure we know he believes Fox is a "legitimate news organization..."

[rinsd]

9. Even better is that Dennis doesn't do primary debates for Congress.

Another example of his campaign team just not being competent.

They want to run with this issue and are doing so hard right now but Dennis looks like a hypocrite.

[kwolf68]

13. Forget Dennis for a moment...

What Clinton and Edwards said was repulsive. Hide behind things Dennis has done in the past, but the general perspective of Hillary Clinton is one of being an elitist snob, exactly what she has been called for 20 years now. And she probably has STILL never baked any cookies.

As far as Edwards, this smacks against all his populist appeal. I expected it from HRC, but not Edwards.

And if Kucinich is a hypocrite, it won't matter anyway, he's not going to get the nomination, but those other two clowns may.

[rinsd]

23. Repulsive? Mountians out fo molehills.

"Hide behind things Dennis has done in the past"

Who's hiding? This doesn't even hurt my candidate. But for all his bluster Dennis is a baldfaced hypocrite on this.

[kwolf68]

27. No, the only thing hurting your candidate

Is the candidate herself.

[Moochy]

38. Well

Beyond her there are these folks who spit venom regularly on her behalf.

[Cha]

129. Moochy Bo Boochy!

I like your avatar, dude!

[rinsd]

46. Yeah she's really hurting right now sitting on a huge war chest and leading in every single poll.

[John Q. Citizen]

110. Just like Leiberman in 04 at this point. A shoe in.

[rinsd]

118. Yes at least Dennis has found his comfort zone at 3%!

:thumbsup:

[John Q. Citizen]

127. An he who is first will later be last, for the times they are a changing.

[ProudDad]

30. We already handled your flame bait post, rinsie... (n/t)

[rinsd]

44. We?

And did Dennis show up for those debates or not?

On edit: Here's one he missed in 1998

http://clevxi.cpl.org/CLENIX/ACW-2894

[Texas_Kat]

63. Neither did Hillary in 06

[kwolf68]

10. What is a serious candidate?

...Someone who has a lot of support? How do you know someone without much support now won't have it later?

No, I don't think DK will make any headway into this, but unlike Clinton his principles are pretty much rock solid.

[SaveElmer]

16. "unlike Clinton his principles are pretty much rock solid. "

Really...

Point me to an instance of Hillary making as gear stripping switch on a fundamental issue as DK did on abortion, flag burning and stem cell research...

What criteria would you use if you were in charge of putting on a debate? You do know there are more than the 9 candidates running for the nomination right?

[kwolf68]

25. Yea Hillary has NEVER

changed her opinion on anything.

[SaveElmer]

33. Didn't say that...

But on issues of that fundamental importance...particularly abortion...no she has not...

How about this...

What do you think the DU reaction would have been had Hillary made this exact switch right before deciding to run for President?

[RaleighNCDUer]

72. So your big objection to DK is that he agrees with your candidate?

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

[SaveElmer]

78. My objection to DK has nothing to do with these particular issues...

I bring them up as an example of the pandering of St. Dennis...which was the point of the thread..

[RaleighNCDUer]

81. Yes, I have noted a distinct lack of interest in actually arguing

the issues.

[SaveElmer]

83. I argue issues all the time...nt

[jefferson_dem]

85. Do you not consider the war to be an issue of "fundamental importance"?

Her flippity floppities there are very well documented, as i'm sure you are aware.

[SaveElmer]

101. In fact it is the opposite...

She is criticized for not flip flopping...

[RaleighNCDUer]

48. Except for how much help she'd like from the insurance, medical

and pharma industries.

[ProudDad]

34. What are Hillary's take on issues?

I can't find shit about her "health care plan" on her website... What it her Health Care Plan?

What will she do about future wars? The war budget?

How about Public Financing of Elections? Is that in her platform?

How about reigning in the extreme power of corporations? Has she mention whether or how she will do that?

Instead of your knee-jerk insults, flames and lies about other people's candidates why don't you spend some time supporting yours. Until you do, ain't no one gonna read your posts as anything more useful than hot air...

[SaveElmer]

36. Exactly how have I lied about Kucinich's record...?

eom

[Sonicmedusa]

57. I'm still waiting on the answers to the above questions

Add to that:

What is Hillary going to do about the outsourcing of American jobs?

Or about affordable/free college tuition?

And what the hell IS her mystery health plan for Americans?

Hillary supporters just rave about how much $$$$$$$$$ she raises, never anything about her stance on the issues that are killing Americans.

Fat war chest, indeed.

[SaveElmer]

58. Hillary's positions on the issues are readily available to anyone with google...

Capabilities...

And again, exactly how have I lied on Kucinich's record...or are you recanting that statement...

[ProudDad]

65. Don't bother

there are a few hil-fanatics who refuse to answer such stupid, substantive questions.

I've been to her freakin' website and it's another collection of the sound bites she uses at these phony "debates". No substance, all touchy-feely-triangulation...

So, Elmer and the rest of the Hillary-Ubber-Alles Bund, if you want to sell your tarnished goods here, provide some facts FOR your candidate instead of insulting ours... Thanks :hi:

[Alexander]

113. Elmer and the other Hil fans will mysteriously disappear...

Once she is trounced in Iowa and withdraws from the race.

[RaleighNCDUer]

47. At this point in '91, the Big Dawg was polling at 1%.

A fringe candidate.

'Nuff said.

[rinsd]

49. And the year is 2007, not 1991

And you may not have noticed but campaigns have changed a bit since then.

[ProudDad]

67. Really, in what way?

Oh, Yeah, now this group decides even earlier than before...




http://www.deviantart.com/print/9788/

[karynnj]

73. Maybe there is a candidate at 1% that will surface

I don't think so - but there is still time. This time last time, most people never heard the name Clark - yet there was a month or two where he was considered to have an excellent chance of winning. He didn't - but things can happen.

[rinsd]

88. I think Gore is the only one who could come out of nowhere at this point.

And even then he is pulling ok numbers in polls.

Biden did very well in the debates and has alot of experience yet he hasn't budged in the polls.

Richardson has seen some modest gains in IA and NH where he is running TV ads.

[Danieljay]

14. ya, when you refuse to align yourself with corporate whores & elitists its tough to get noticed n/t

[SaveElmer]

19. How clever...

Puked up from the "progressive" playbook

[Forkboy]

119. How true.

[maxanne]

59. great

In other words, it's okay then, for the cool kids to decide who gets to be in the debate?

[SaveElmer]

70. Answer this...

You are the organizer of a Democratic Debate, and it is up to you to decide you gets invited...what criteria do you use?

[maxanne]

76. easy

I include everyone who is running.

Who do you EXCLUDE?

[SaveElmer]

77. So...

The dozen or so Democrats who have registered with the FEC as Democratic candidates...and who have not up to now been included, should be included as well?

Thanks for a straight answer btw!

[maxanne]

79. where's your answer?

Who do you exclude, and who does the excluding?

There are a lot of people here who seem to regard this election as a reality show, where the other candiates
get to vote people off the island/ballot.

I was under the impression that this was still a participatory democracy. Silly me.

[SaveElmer]

82. The process by which parties select candidates...

Is not governed by any set of rules enforced by law...it is by definition an internal party process...which is why some states have primaries, and some have caucuses...

Groups sponsoring the debates decide who to invite, and candidates are free to pick and choose the debates they want to participate in...

There is certainly no one who is going tell the NAACP for example that David Duke would have to be included were he to decide to run as a Democrat...

Personally, at this point, if I were deciding on debate participants I would invite the current group minus Kucinich and Gravel..who have all but admitted themselves they are not serious contenders for the White House...

This one minute time limit on answers is pointless other than determining who is good at quickly organizing their thoughts...

As the campaign went on and it became apparent who was gaining traction, I might decide not to invite others....

But the point is there are no rules governing this, just like there is no rule governing how the local Rotary chooses it officers...it is an internal party process with candidates deciding what is in the best interests of their campaigns...

[maxanne]

86. Interesting

When has either Kucinich or Gravel ever said they weren't serious contenders for the White House?
I seem to have missed those admissions.

I can understand why Clinton and Edwards would like to get rid of some of the others - for without
them, no one would be on stage to point out their dishonesty and hypocrisy.

[SaveElmer]

87. And here I thought you were a straight shooter...

Too bad you fall back to puking up "progressive" talking points...oh well...

In any case then, you would have a requirement that every one of the declared Democratic Candidates be invited to every debate...all 21 or so of them?

Do I understand you correctly?

[maxanne]

90. why

aren't you answering my question?

When did Kucinich or Gravel say they weren't serious candidates?

If I'm puking up progressive talking points, I guess that means you're using regressive talking points?

[rinsd]

8. Kucinich refuses to debate his primary opponents for Congress.

But throws a fit when he may not be included.

[ProudDad]

35. Wow, you're really riding that little hobby horse today!

For the rest of you who haven't seen the latest mindless little Dennis dart:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3374495

Kucinich missed one "debate" with a loose cannon and so he's anti-democratic...to the ones who hate Dennis Kucinich and all Progressives...

[Carolina]

18. FRINGE!

he speaks REAL truth to power and has been consistent in his oppossition this fiasco of a war from the start. He keeps the others real and points out their hypocrisy.

I'm glad he's there and hope he stays like a thorn in the lions paw!

Fuck Edwards and especially HRC. Can't stomach, and won't vote for, either of them. I'm a lifelong Dem, old enough to remember Eisenhower (the last good Republican) so you can flame me all you want but I'm sick and tired of being sick 'n tired (thank you, Fannie Lou Hamer) of thie wimpy, corporatist Dems we have today.

[LoZoccolo]

20. Yes, fringe.

He voted with the Republicans yesterday regarding troop withdrawal.

[ProudDad]

41. He votes his principles

That bill means nothing. It's part of the political game against bush. And it plays right into the republican strategy...

My first thought when I heard about it is big whoop -- too little, too late and gonna get vetoed if it miraculously passes in the Senate.

So the House masturbates again on the war...

I suspect Kucinich felt the same way -- the war machine should being withdrawal NOW, not next year.

Next year would be just in time to help the republicans win some elections..."See, we're ending the war now you can vote gays, guns and abortion again!"

[SaveElmer]

22. Name a single solid accomplishment DK has made...

To end the war?

[kwolf68]

26. Well for starters

He opposed to beginning it.

[SaveElmer]

31. How did you feel about him...

Aligning himself with the Republicans yesterday voting against the bill containing a date certain for troop withdrawls?

[kwolf68]

37. LMAO

Thanks for helping me see the light.

I knew it...Dennis is a power-whore, war mongering Republican.

Dennis took a tough stand, because the bill didn't do enough to end the war. I guess it would have been politically expediate to signon to the Sept2008 date, placate your Liberal base by saying "i've signed a troop withdrawl" ... that clearly could be subverted while keeping the war going full scale.

Put a bill on the table that ends this shit war and Kucnich signs it every day and twice on Sunday. Hillary and her AIPAC buddies would do no such thing.

[SaveElmer]

40. He took a tough stand?

Excatly how is pandering to his liberal supporters "tough." Tough would be manning up for a change and actually working to make a difference rather than talking about making a difference...all the while criticizing those in the trenches...

Fact is, he sided with Republicans to continue the war indefinitely...

[RaleighNCDUer]

50. No, he refused to support a bill that would start a drawdown

of troops just in time to help the republicans win the next election.

[SaveElmer]

51. So it was about politics?

Not about principle?

[RaleighNCDUer]

55. No, it was about principle --

the principle that we need to get out now, not then; sooner, not later.

Republicans may have not supported it because it went too far, for them. DK didn't support it because it did not go far enough.

It is the same, exactly the same, as voting against a bad prescription bill - the big pharma people voted against it because they didn't want ANY prescription bill, while the progressives voted against it because it was a giveaway to the pharma companies - the ones that supported it were the ones who just wanted to have a vote on their resume, regardless of what the bill did.

[SaveElmer]

56. Then why did you mention the election?...nt

[RaleighNCDUer]

71. Please stop being deliberately obtuse --

it makes you look like an ass.

If he is astute enough to recognise that giving the republicans a hand up right before the election is a BAD idea, he should be castigated for it?

The option that is best for the country is getting out now. Not waiting for a year. Not passing it off to the next president.

If we pull out now and the country blows up it is still in the repukes column. If we pull out just before the elections and Iraq goes into freefall, the repukes will point and say 'the Democrats are responsible for this' and we will LOSE the election. If we hang on past the election, as the repukes want, then anything that happens will be owned by the Democrats.

And you know what? No matter when we pull out, Iraq WILL go into freefall. It is up to us to decide when that will happen.

[SaveElmer]

74. If being obtuse is defined as quoting you...

Then guilty..you made the argument that Kucinich voted against a bill that would kick in just in time to help reelect Republicans...did you not? Refusing to recognize the meaning of your own statement makes you look like an ass

Kucincich knows damn well...at least I hope he does...that the option he is holding out for will never happen...the COngress of the United States as currently constituted will never pass an immeidate withdrawal bill...the only way to accelerate the day when that happens is to continue to ratchet up the pressure...which is what sane COngressional Democrats are doing...and making progress at...

So if he was sincere in his beliefs that the war should be stopped as soon as possible, Kucincih should have voted for the bill..rather than side with those who wish to keep the commitment open ended...

If he doesn't realize this, then he is truly either out of touch with reality, or simply playing politics...which he is not above doing

[RaleighNCDUer]

80. So you admit, then, that you want to get the republicans re-elected.

Thank you for the clarification.

True enough, getting out immediately can only be accomplished in one way.

Impeach Cheney, let Bush resign, and apply full pressure to the republican who replaces him to get the troops out. All that can be accomplished by December.

Had the bill passed, the repukes would blame the ensuing chaos on the Democrats, and we would NEVER win the next election, as well as lose control of both houses of congress. The one unforgivable sin to the American public is to lose, and 'losing Iraq' right before the election will throw that election into the repukes' hands.

I suppose if you all want to keep playing politics as if the old rules still apply, I could move to France. I hate to see my country self-destruct, but if it happens I'd rather see it from a distance.

[ProudDad]

42. I support him -- See my post #41 (n/t)

[ProudDad]

68. CHECK-MATE!!! (n/t)

[maxanne]

61. for starters

He actually read the NIE and voted against the war.

He has consistently voted against funding the war.

He sponsored HR 1234, the 12 point plan for peace.

And he's sponsoring HR 333 - to impeach Dick Cheney.

[Adelante]

121. "He actually read the NIE"

Do you have a link for this? I'm making a collection. Thanks.

[maxanne]

124. I don't

have a link, sorry. I heard him say it at an event in NH.

[Adelante]

125. Thanks very much nt

[ProudDad]

29. so YOU agree with limiting free speech, eh?

Can't stand to hear ideas you don't agree with?

Afraid of someone who actually has the right ideas who might steal votes from you precious MSM candidate???

[SaveElmer]

45. Brother...

You should develop an understanding of how this works before making statements like that...

Kucinich is not having his free speech limited in any way...he is free to go anywhere and say anything he likes...no group is obligated to invite someone to a debate just because they say they are running for President...

Lets say you are in charge of organizing a Democratic debate for an organization you woork for...what criteria would you use to decide who to invite?

[RaleighNCDUer]

53. Yes. By all means, the public deserves to hear the top three

DLC candidates debate where the DLC stands.

Let's not pretend, however, that that is a Democratic debate.

[SaveElmer]

54. Why don't you answer the question...

You are put in charge of arranging a Democratic debate...list for us the criteria you would use to decide who to invite to that debate?

[RaleighNCDUer]

60. How about

You're a candidate? Sign in here, sit over there.

This isn't a popularity contest, or a beauty pageant, or fucking American Idol. The criteria is that you are a Democrat and you have some ideas that you want to put before the public.

The entire country is watching 'Sicko' and only the 1%ers, Kucinich and Gravel, are talking realisticly about national health - all the others are saying 'ask not what insurance companies can do for me, ask what I can do for insurance companies.'

So, now that people are starting to hear that message, those two should be cut out of the debate?

Corporate protection is NOT in my criteria.

[SaveElmer]

62. So if...

David Duke registered as a Democrat, spent over 5K to file with the FEC...a requirement that he be invited to every debate should be held too...

How about the dozen or so other candidates that have registered with the FEC as Democratic Presidential candidates and are not included in any of these debates...

Perhaps you could link to the posts where you expressed your outrage over their exclusion...I must have just missed it...

[RaleighNCDUer]

89. Never mind the reality that Duke is a registered repuke, so this is

at best hypothetical...

Well, fuck your hypotheticals. (The proper answer when some MSM debate monitor asks a similar question.)

This is not a hypothetical situation. We are talking about real democrats who are real candidates. And if any of those other dozen candidates who are also real candidates want to show up they should be included. Limiting debate to the 'top tier', or to only those polling over 'x' percent, is not debate, it is propaganda - manufacturing consent.

Take national health, as an example. Before Sicko came out the only candidates that even touched the question (that we heard of) were DK and Gravel - everybody else talked about 'expanding Medicare', and schemes that kept the health insurance companies in control - not talking about everybody being entitled to health care but to health insurance. Now, there may be, among those other dozen candidates that we haven't seen, a consensus for a genuine national health care program, such consensus outnumbering the pro-insurance candidates, but we will never know because their voices are silenced - manufacturing consent for the well-funded pro-insurance candidates. The public may want national health - despite the lack of promotion, as many as 30% before Sicko came out, but what do we see at the debates? By their polling, 2%, DK and Gravel (maybe slightly more - I think Dodd has mentioned it favorably), favoring it with 98%, the other six or seven candidates opposed.

Is that democracy? Or is it corporate propaganda manufacturing consent?

[SaveElmer]

91. Ok..remove Duke from the equation...

What about the dozen or so other Democrats that have registered with the FEC as candidates for the Presidency...why are you not advocating for their inclusion?

[RaleighNCDUer]

97. I am.

"And if any of those other dozen candidates who are also real candidates want to show up they should be included."

By what criteria do YOU exclude legitimate Democratic candidates?

[SaveElmer]

98. So just to quote you accurately...

You believe a debate with 21 or more participants would be worthwhile?

[RaleighNCDUer]

102. Absolutely.

But of course, we wouldn't see that happen. If every candidate was treated as a genuine, legitimate candidate, there would be many more forums available for debates, and the candidates could pick and choose which to participate in - their choice, not other candidates' choice. There could even be multiple debates on the same night - and the candidates would choose which they wish to be a part of - the one sponsord by, say, the ACLU or the one sponsored by AEI. But either would be open to all. We would not see the DLC candidates conspiring to shut out the progressive candidates. If a candidate thinks his or her message is going to be watered down because they aren't getting enough face time, they can always decline to participate and hold a press conference the day after saying "I would have said...", thus hogging the spotlight for that bit.

The reality is that, just as it is now, those who make a splash will persist, and those who do not will fall away. By the time you are in spitting distance of the primaries the field will be reduced to a half-dozen or so.

Is it messy? Yes. But so is democracy.

[maxanne]

64. well, yes

they need to be cut out of the debate so they'll stop pointing out what hypocrites the other candidates are.

[RaleighNCDUer]

84. No kidding.

All the faux outrage when Gravel said 'All these other guys, they scare me."

With nobody questioning him as to WHY they scare him.

[ProudDad]

132. 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...


Think General Strike -- Mike Malloy mentioned that 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

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

Thank goodness I met Mario just months before he died. He was one of the most truly saintly human beings I ever met.

[ProudDad]

69. I KNOW how it works

The big money from the big multi-national corporations decide who's gonna' win...

The rest is just fluff... and you, my friend, appear to be one of their willing tools...

[SaveElmer]

75. Avoiding the question...

What a shock!!!

[mckeown1128]

123. I guess Hillary should be the...

only candidate that we are allowed to coose from :sarcasm:

[paulk]

3. what standards?

Since you don't even know what they (really) said... or are you buying what Fox News said they said?

Is DK buying it? He, after all, wanted to debate on Fox, unlike the rest of the field. Maybe he thinks Fox is an honest arbiter in all this?

Do you trust Fox to tell the truth?

[SoFlaJet]

5. yea good point Paulie

maybe he and Mike Gravel should do the Fox debate all by themselves-you know, since both really like to hear themselves talk and all.

[Double T]

6. NO candidates should be excluded from ANY debates.

Despite what Edwards and Clinton believe, no one has been self-crowned yet.

[Moochy]

11. Go Dennis!

:kick:

Who knew that 90% of the posters in this thread would *already* be on Ignore??

[mzmolly]

12. He has EVERY right to be angry. Kucinich is part of our national dialog.

I know we can't have all 200 Candidates, but we do have some time to narrow the field.

[kwolf68]

15. The field COULD be narrowed

If the man in your avatar would run...

[mzmolly]

17. I hear ya.

Be still my cold cold heart. ;)

[kwolf68]

21. There is time...but

I am afraid President Gore may have another calling right now, but there is a flicker of hope here.

A Gore/Clark ticket would probably make me piss myself. Gore could let Wes straighten out Chimpy's mess in the middle east and Gore could start cleaning up our domestic house.

[mzmolly]

24. That would be a nice ticket. I have hope, but I heard that Gore's daughter

was on AAR dispelling any notion of her Dad running. And, with Hillary doing well in the polls, I fear it's less likely. That said, I think Clark has a great shot at being Hillary's VP, if she gets the nom?

[kwolf68]

32. Yea...but...

I can't find any Democrats here in Northern Virginia blown away with any of these guys. Obama seems to be the one that gets the most excitement, but that is merely lukewarm. I can't find a damn soul who is fired up for Hillary, that is except Republicans who will have their pet cats voting to keep her out of office.

[mzmolly]

52. I can't either. I am astounded at how well she's doing in the polls.

I'm a Gore/Obama/Edwards supporter, in that order. ;)

[RaleighNCDUer]

92. I am frankly disbelieving of the polls -

because I also know almost none for whom Hillary is the first choice. In my own family, Big Sis1 likes DK, Mom likes Biden, Little Sis might, but she's close mouthed about it - she's dating a republican. Big Sis2 is a Bushie - haven't talked politics to her in a couple years so I don't know where she stands. Most my friends like Obama or Richardson. I also note that most my friends also only have cells, they don't have home phones, land lines. Is there a demographic that is being missed by the pollsters?

[Moochy]

28. What helpful, conversation starting replies from all of the

usual suspects! My with supporters that are so positive how can HRC possibly lose? :puke:

[MisterP]

39. sorry, Isabel Perón, but you won't be able to finagle an admissions fee

set at $however many I have-$10,000, unless your buddy Rupert can help

[ripple]

43. He's so cute when he's mad...

Seriously, I agree that it's way too early to talk about excluding candidates. Even though realistically, Kucinich doesn't stand a chance of getting the nod, he brings some refreshing ideas to the debate.

[More Than A Feeling]

66. It's ok. Dennis will always have FOX News. n/t

[TeamJordan23]

93. So convenient for you to rip Dennis. Why don't you rip your candidates for voting to kill thousands

and waste billions of dollars on the Iraq War.

[rinsd]

95. "waste billions of dollars on the Iraq War"

Now I could be wrong but I am fairly sure that Obama (as well as Clinton) voted for every appropriations bill except for the last one.

[TeamJordan23]

96. Who is the one who authorized this war, again? nt

[More Than A Feeling]

103. Kucinich made it convenient.

"Our candidates" listened to us when they dropped out of the FOX News debate. Kucinich did not, so he has FOX news all to himself, Gravel, and Biden.

[rinsd]

94. Zing!

[RaleighNCDUer]

99. Yeah. Imagine that.

A Democratic candidate who is not afraid of venturing into enemy territory to try to get part of his message to an absolutely virgin audience.

What a silly thing to do.

[More Than A Feeling]

100. Let me know when Tom Tancredo live-blogs on Daily Kos. n/t

[RaleighNCDUer]

104. Won't happen.

I suspect he's too busy right here.

[More Than A Feeling]

105. No, neither he nor any other candidate would voluntarily appear in partisan

media. Why? It's a disadvantage. For example, FOX commentators will get to spin Kucinich's message anyway they want. That can only hurt.

[BlueStater]

107. Yawn

He'll do anything for the publicity.

[Alexander]

112. Good. Fuck Clinton and Edwards. They lost my vote.

Anyone trying to exclude other candidates is not interested in democracy.

[Vidar]

114. Mine as well.

[Catchawave]

117. They never had your vote...sigh

:eyes:

[Alexander]

128. You are incorrect. I was considering voting for Edwards.

Now I won't.

But thanks for assuming you can read my mind! :hi:

[Swamp Rat]

116. Geaux Kucinich!!

:kick:

[Forkboy]

120. Hillary says they should reduce the number...

"We should try to have a more serious and a smaller group," Edwards said, and Clinton agreed.

"Our guys should talk," Clinton said, complaining the format had "trivialized" the discussion.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19750182/

It's a funny ole world!

[MontanaMaven]

122. Kucinich got it wrong. Edwards meant split up the candidates.

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.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20070713/kucinich-edwards-debate/

[w4rma]

133. I see. (nt)

[draft_mario_cuomo]

126. Kucinich favors limiting the number of debators?

All 8 "serious" candidates are colluding to exclude these 11 Democratic candidates for president. Where was Kucinich's outrage then? Oh wait...

Warren Ashe (D-Virginia)
Randy Crow (D-North Carolina)
Laura Davis-Aaron (D-Tennessee)
Michael Forrester (D-Colorado)
Dan Francis (D-New York)
Alfonzo Jones (D-California)
John Joseph Kennedy (D-Georgia)
Karl Krueger (D-South Dakota)
Sal Mohamed (D-Iowa)
James Prattas (D-Hawaii)
Ole Savior (D-Minnesota)

http://www.politics1.com/p2008.htm

[Alexander]

130. Rationalize away...

Can those candidates even afford their own plane tickets to the debates? :eyes:

[draft_mario_cuomo]

131. So you think they are not "serious" candidates worthy of being included?

Even though they are within the MoE of "serious" candidates like Kucinich, Biden, Dodd, and Gravel?