Just Curious - If Hillary and Edwards Really Did Want To Limit The Participants.....

[global1]

in future debates - can you still support them?

It strikes me if they really were plotting to get rid of the lesser tiered Dem candidates - then the only one of the top tier candidates that has any integrity is Obama.

[RufusTFirefly]

1. Also discussed here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3375185

Perhaps Obama feels the same way, but is just more discreet.

[leftchick]

2. who made them "top tiers"?

corporate dollars. I want none of that.

[napi21]

3. Be realistic folks! Every candidate would like to see a much smaller field!

To be honest, I would too. When there are 8 or 10 candidates on a panel, NONe of them have enough time to really answer the questions completely, and we're hearing sound bites again.

[tired_old_fireman]

4. I'd still support them. Why not?

What does wanting smaller debates have to do with integrity? Why do you think Obama wouldn't want smaller debates? Hasn't he already participated in forums where only Clinton, Edwards, and Obama were invited? If he seemed opposed to the idea, he wouldn't have participated the same way he didn't participate in the Fox debates.

The same thing happens in the general election. Third party candidates aren't invited. Did Kerry lack integrity for wanting debates without Ralph Nader?

[applegrove]

5. Just saw a discussion on CNN. Apparently it is always discussed during

the Presidential nominations races. They were just being normal for their position. The debate always happens.