Have Edwards or Clinton said anything about "the exchange"

[CarolNYC]

There are way too many threads regarding the overheard conversation between Edwards and Clinton supposedly attempting to cut some of the candidates out of future debates for me to keep up with them so this question may have already been answered somewhere but I haven't seen it.

I'd like to hear what they have to say about the whole exchange.

Has either candidate or campaign released anything or made any comments or statements regarding the incident?

Unless they were discussing something else they don't want anyone to know about, I don't see why someone can't make a simple statement about what was really going on if the conversation as it's being reported was misinterpreted.

[jillan]

1. That is exactly what they should do - the longer they ignore it,

the more people are going to talk about it.

I hope that is a lesson that
Dems have learned well.

[welshTerrier2]

2. Exactly !!!

I think hillary will eventually say something like this:

"Yesterday, during a debate, I was overheard making remarks about excluding certain candidates from future debates. I'm the front runner dammit and I have way more money than those clowns do. Their ideas don't matter. They're dweebs and their supporters are dupes. I have K Street money behind me. Don't you understand what that means. They can't beat me. Bill will see to that. If I say they're done then they're done. Got that???

I'm sick and tired of having to go through this nonsense. I'm the nominee and the rest of them should just get over it. And when I am the nominee, they damned well better vote for me.

This garbage about "democracy" is getting old. Real old. Those lefty clowns are done. Thank you.

Oh, and remember, it takes a village. I mean I voted against the ban on cluster bombs in populated areas. No, I mean I said I trusted bush but I wasn't wrong; he was. OK, that's enough on the issues. Vote for me!!"

[Adelante]

7. My understanding is that Edwards initiated this conversation

I don't see why Clinton should take all the heat, wT2, when they are both in the wrong.

[welshTerrier2]

9. Clinton's people worked on this BEFORE that exchange

and yes, Edwards is wrong too.

added on edit:

and it's about more than that. I see an arrogance of power from the Clinton's. I see the message being sold as "inevitably." I see her minions on DU doing little more than posting poll after poll with no discussions of the issues. I don't see that type of arrogance or the power to back it up from Edwards.

[Adelante]

10. Clinton's people with Edwards' people it sounds to me

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."

http://abclocal.go.com/kfsn/story?section=politics&id=5478092

I hope a transcript will turn up.

About the respective supporter groups, I see not much difference in those ways, but we can disagree on that.

[Cameron27]

16. They both participated in the conversation

but Edwards did initiate it, and he'd benefit the most if the field was narrowed. I'm not sure how this would help Clinton; she's got a strong lead and just looks stronger with a lot of candidates on the podium.

[venable]

30. of course you think it's edwards fault.

everything is edwards fault.

sigh

[jefferson_dem]

3. This is all i've seen so far -

Asked for comment, a Clinton campaign spokesman said, “We’re not discussing it.” We’ve reached out to the Edwards campaign and we’ll post their response when we get it. *** Update *** An Edwards spokesman emails us, "Edwards thought yesterday was a good forum, but wants additional substantive debates over the course of the campaign."

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/07/13/269346.aspx

[Adelante]

4. No answer from either

In other words.

[CarolNYC]

6. Yeah.....two non-answers...interesting...

Maybe they're busy getting their stories straight so they don't contradict each other...hmmmm....

[William769]

8. Two non answerers for a non story. Quite interesting. NT.

[TeamJordan23]

11. Will HRC start picking where and when the Dems can debate next?

[William769]

12. Why should she?

She can debate the the one who stutters anyplace, anywhere, anytime. Just like she has in the last three National debates.

[TeamJordan23]

13. Yep, so you would think she would be blowing him out and outraising him

But I guess not. I guess the stuterring boy didn't do so bad yesterday, huh?

[William769]

14. Have you seen the Michigan polls?

And all that money he has raised so far, this Month he has dropped in polls. Any more comments?

[TeamJordan23]

15. 29% HRC, 24% Obama...Shouldn't she be blowing him OUT??

http://miswingstater.wordpress.com/2007/04/21/new-michigan-poll/


BTW - where was Bill at the polls at this stage in 1992? Or how about John Kerry?

[William769]

17. Thats great, since Obama is and always will be a second fiddle.

ON EDIT: add that to all the other polls and lets not foregt the State where he is a Senator. :rofl:

[TeamJordan23]

22. And where was Bill Clinton at the polls in 1992 and Kerry in 2004 at the same time? nt

[rinsd]

18. New one just came out from Strategic Visions; Hillary 32%, Obama 26%

http://www.strategicvision.biz/political/michigan_poll_071207.htm

[Texas_Kat]

19. Looked at logically, that poll also means that 68% of Dems

DON'T want Hillary as the nominee.

Interesting.

[William769]

20. If you want to use logic.

That also means 74% don't want Obama.

[TeamJordan23]

21. Lets look at more logic: 52% of general population will not vote for her. nt

[William769]

23. When did we have a election?

[rinsd]

24. What kind of "logic" would that be?

The only logic it proves is that 32% want Hillary as the nominee and 68% prefer another candidate or have yet to make a decision. It states very little in terms of not wanting Hillary as the nominee.

Your "logic" is ever further destroyed in polls that include 2nd choices where again Hillary leads.

http://www.galluppoll.com/content/default.aspx?ci=17785

[Texas_Kat]

25. Keep telling yourself "ONLY" 68% want someone else

I'll remind you that 68% of DEMOCRATS want someone else. That doesn't even count true independents.

[William769]

26. That does not jive with any poll out there.

You got something to back that statement up with?

[rinsd]

28. Its bizarro logic that has no basis in reality.

[rinsd]

27. Logic really isn't your strong suit, is it?

"I'll remind you that 68% of DEMOCRATS want someone else. That doesn't even count true independents."

I will leave adequate spacing to alleviate any confusion.

According to polling at this time:

More Democrats in Michigan want Hillary as the nominee than any other Democrat.

More Democrats across the nation want Hillary as the nominee than any other Democrat.

More people across the nation want Hillary as President than any of the GOP candidates.

[TeamJordan23]

5. They are probably working on something that matches up for both campaigns, which will be a denial.nt

[zulchzulu]

29. Clinton will not apologize while Edwards will...

What they said to each other was based on what information was given to them prior to them talking. What they said to each other was not to be preemptive in not allowing other candidates to participate.

:sarcasm:

[Beaverhausen]

31. "Edwards told reporters in Iowa that he wasn't in favor of barring anyone from future gatherings"

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.

Kucinich called Edwards' explanation "disturbing" and said he planned to contact Edwards and Clinton immediately to demand an apology.

"I accept their offer to participate in a debate with just the two of them," Kucinich said. "John should be happy with this, since he wants a small group."

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