Clinton's first misstep?

[Bullet1987]

Is this a misstep for Clinton? I don't see how you can't say it's not...though I doubt it's going to end up badly for her. Mainly because I don't see the media taking the side of Kucinich against Clinton. Not gonna happen...but misstep nonetheless.

[applegrove]

1. As CNN pointed out in their panel on the issue - cutting the number of debators in

the races for Presidential candidates is always, always talked about. So this is not new. There is always a discussion of how many people should make it to the stage.

[Bullet1987]

2. CNN is full of sh*t and didn't even mention what Kucinich said

MSNBC just now did a much better job.

[ccpup]

3. that's true

in the 10 years I've been following politics and Presidential Debates, there's always discussion about how many to include and what, exactly, just the percentage be -- as in the latest polling numbers -- to determine who can take part. At some point, honestly, you do need to cut the number because some of the candidates -- no matter how much we personally enjoy them and support their policy plans -- just don't have the support or interest of the American People. The more people on stage -- and the limited response time that engenders --, the more it becomes a challenge to get complete answers on important questions. I mean, who wants to watch a 4 hour debate?!

[John Q. Citizen]

23. I think the Dems should cede the big tent to the Repos. The quicker the Dems cut,

the better the larger field on the Repo side will look like diversity.

But who cares about that, as long as the cuts help our top tier feel more secure.

The issue shouldn't be the issues after all. The earlier the so called "not serious" candidates are cut before the first vote is ever cast by a voter,the better off the voters will be, because our top tier is looking out for you!

Also, since there seems to be no definative policy differences between any of the top tier on any issue, it will result in far less embarrassment for the top tier to do it as fast as possible.

[Colobo]

4. CNN is pro-Hillary.

[jgraz]

5. Her FIRST misstep???

What campaign have you been watching?

[rodeodance]

6. we do not evern know what the 'misstep" is----do we?---Is there one?

[wavesofeuphoria]

7. what about this ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1328351

[Adelante]

8. She didn't misstep, Edwards did

He started talking to her. He walked over and started whispering in her ear. This was his discussion initiated by him. I don't get how Edwards slithers off the hook. But I thought the Geffen thing was a legitimate Clinton campaign misstep.

[Bullet1987]

9. She agreed and supported his ideas...so yes it is a misstep for her

And if it wasn't a misstep, the campaign wouldn't be trying to distance themselves from it in the way they are.

[jefferson_dem]

"We've got to cut the number" ... "they're not serious."

Straight and audibly, right out of Hillary's mouth.

She's busted. The question is whether she will publicly own up to her "private" position.

[jefferson_dem]

11. Self delete. Sorry.

[jefferson_dem]

10. Besides. Everyone already knows she's a ruthless political cut-thoat artist.

Not so much with Edwards.

[Adelante]

12. "Not so much with Edwards."

Well, I hope everyone knows now.

[Ethelk2044]

22. She screwed up

[hedgehog]

13. Going by what happened last year in the New York State Primary,

Hillary won't willingly debate anyone who is posting 9% or less in the polls, especially when they are calling her out on her stand on the war, health care or gay marriage! That worked out pretty good for her last year in the 2006 NYS Primary. By refusing to debate Jonathan Tasini, she made sure most New Yorkers didn't know he existed even though he represented the opinions of most New York Democrats more than she did. BTW, he ended up with 17% on election day.



http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0911-30.htm

[rodeodance]

14. We do not even know the story yet----so keep cool

[TeamJordan23]

15. Well she basically blamed Edwards. Edwards said he wants to reduce number of debators

into two groups.

[paulk]

16. if it's even what they were talking about

she and Edwards have alienated, what? Kucinich and Gravel supporters? Together, I doubt those two make up 2% of the Dem. electorate. And if DU is any indicator, half of those people have already promised to vote for a 3rd party candidate next year anyway. I don't see how this can hurt either of them.

[hijinx87]

17. if there are fewer debaters

there is more camera time for those that remain.

this is media management 101.

[ShortnFiery]

18. PRIDE GOES BEFORE A FALL?

IMO, it seemed as if HRC & Edwards were - in the moment - as their own independent and exclusive club? :shrug:

[cui bono]

19. And we needed another thread on this because...

why?

:eyes:

[rinsd]

20. Well its a non story that a few have themselves whipped up into a frenzy over

As soon as statements come out about it (Edwards already has one) it will be a non issue.

Dennis will get his five minutes as he willfully is used once again to bash other Democrats.

[hijinx87]

24. an outstanding point

giving national air time to someone to bash other democrats, one
of whom WILL be our nominee, is unproductive relative to the big
picture.

[TeamJordan23]

21. I think its worse that she puts blame on Edwards IMO. nt.