Proof that Edwards and Clinton were not conniving against the others

[Catherine Vincent]

I just saw the video clip on Fox Noise and they were discussing this gossip that Fox Noise and others have been talking about all day. As they were talking, Kucinich walked by...paused and headed back to where he was on the stage. Clinton and Edwards never stopped speaking. If they were really planning to have a debate excluding some of the others, they would have changed the topic fearing Kucinich would hear them. All of this is a bunch of bunk.

[mzmolly]

1. Edwards wanted a rotation from what I hear?

:shrug:

[MADem]

2. Tempest in a teapot. I agree with them, the groups need to be smaller.

Put the names in a pot, pull out three names at a crack, and let them go to it. Then divvy up the rest and let them get the same treatment.

Now it's like a beauty contest, only (thankfully) without speedos and bikinis.

But hey, when someone says "Have your people talk to my people" I guess that means they REALLY give a crap AND they are secretly conspiring...in Alternate Reality World, anyway.

[Catherine Vincent]

3. I agree.

A smaller group is much better and every candidate will get more airplay.

[5X]

22. Screw any of you that would deny me my rights.

buncha little cheneys are you?

[krkaufman]

32. Please pay attention.

The previous poster said "rotation", not exclusion. The thought was that the debates/forums simply need to include fewer candidates in order to allow more time for deeper discussion, and one way to do that would be to institute an attendance rotation.

However, the problem I'd have with such a rotation is that each debate/forum appears to be themed, so a candidate may be disadvantaged by being "out of the rotation" for a given event.

Not to worry; nothing's going to change.

edit: p.s. This is in regards to the "rotation" comment. Personally, though, I'm not sure Edwards and Clinton were talking about such an animal. The "they're not serious" comment seems to belie this theory.

[5X]

46. Go be condescending elsewhere.

I have been paying attention, lots of people on this
board are now promoting the idea of limiting the debates.
screw that.

[TeamJordan23]

4. He also said "They're not serious." So are we going to have serious and non-serious goups? nt

[ClassWarrior]

6. Who's not serious? What was the context?

NGU.

[ClassWarrior]

I take it from the lack of an answer that you don't know the context.

Please don't spread the Rovian manure.

NGU.

[MADem]

8. Well, he's right. Some of them aren't serious.

They do, though, prevent the nation from hearing as much from the ones in the first two tiers who might actually end up being the President.

Yep, maybe we should have a debate or three that is run by the polls--do a poll, rank the candidates, and put them in groups according to their poll rankings. Every time you do a debate, do a poll ahead of it, and group the candidates accordingly. A half hour for each tier. That would actually give the nonserious ones MORE air time than they might get when instead they get "the potted plant" treatment, their supporters could watch them, the undecideds could watch them, and the ones who have already made up their mind don't have to sit through the bullshit.

It's a better idea than the snoozefests full of bullshit questions we see now.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

11. He was probably referring to the farces know as debates, not particular candidates

==So are we going to have serious and non-serious goups?==

You know the answer...he is calling for randomly chosen groups.

[John Q. Citizen]

5. Them? Clinton blamed it on Edwards. Which them do you believe again?

[MADem]

14. Oh fachrissake. They had a conversation, that some are trying to call WHISPERING, but they were

speaking normally. Turn on the damn tv, they're running it in heavy rotation.

I didn't hear Hillary "blaming" Edwards for anything. Where is the soundbite of HER blaming him.

He initiated the conversation, but so what? He was right. And so was she.

Only the partisan supporters of the Fuggedaboutit Candidates and the people who will do fucking anything to shit on Clinton or Edwards are grabbing on to this. Those who love to take inconsequential bullshit and make a big deal out of it--yep, let's not talk about healthcare and the war, let us talk about Hillary and Edwards being MEEEEEEAN to the poor bottom feeders who aren't gonna win--and let's use ambiguous quotes from spokespeople to make a big deal out of nothing. How dare the frontrunners have opinions!! How DARE they not try to have their voices heard without having to stand on stage for an extra hour with people who are NOT gonna win?

Sheesh. The only person using this FAUX SNOOZE "bombshell" to get some free publicity is Kucinich. Anything to get some free airtime, I guess. Certainly easier than fundraising in earnest and getting his "fan base" up above a few percent.

The Kucinich campaign issued a press release saying it is "outraged” and "will immediately take steps to address the planned actions of the Clinton and Edwards campaigns."



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

Yeah, spare me your OUTRAGE, Dennis. You're overjoyed. This is good for a full hour of free airtime on all the major networks--at a minimum. If the news cycle stays slow, he might be able to milk this for a week.

http://www.newsroomamerica.com/politics/story.php?id=382617

"We should try to have a more serious and smaller group," Edwards, a former U.S. senator from North Carolina, was heard saying as his comments were picked up by a Fox News microphone.

Agreeing, Clinton, D-N.Y., responded, "We've got to cut the number . . . They're not serious."

At that point, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois and Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio walked by, with Clinton thanking them for attending. The, turning back to Edwards, she said she believed their campaigns had already attempted to limit candidates in the debate and "we've gotta get back to that."

Kucinich did not respond well to the comments. "Imperial candidates are as repugnant to the American people and to our democracy as an imperial president," he said.

:eyes:

[iamjoy]

23. Speaking of Kucinich

in this thread, I have another post about how he could have handled this much more gracefully, and with a bit of humor, too. I think his outrage shows he is a wee bit defensive about his standing in the primary.

[MADem]

27. He's milking this like a mooing cow, though. His written statements are 180 out from his

interviews on TV.

Here's how ya do it: You issue a written press release that says you are OUTRAGED!!! It reads like a Fist Pounding Diatribe.

Sensing red meat and a great, screaming interview, the bookers at all the networks RACE to get Dennis on their programs, to give them an angry and dramatic dissertation (that matches his press release, they assume) about how PISSED he is.

Then, when he shows up, he acts like a cross between Ghandi and Hubert Humphrey. A "Happy Warrior" with a big smile, reasonable tones, and even when the interviewer says "Say, I thought you were, uh, pissed off" Dennis doesn't play ball. He's sweet and smiling throughout as he plays the VICTIM. Aww, they're being mean to me, the "little" candidate, who didn't raise any money--it does help to ASK, Dennis!!! But then, you have to do those awful FUNDRAISERS in order to ask....!

It's free airtime he was after. Faux went over their tape, found that little bit of conversation, and exploited it for their purposes. Then DK took it and exploited it for HIS.

I swear, next time, it'll be real "fool me once" on the microphone front for all the candidates. The candidates will probably grab those mikes and clip them surreptitiously to ANYONE heading for the bathroom, to produce a real Anna Maria Alberghetti moment....and it would serve them right!

[PinkTiger]

56. Kucinich is an interesting guy, but he is not going to go the distance.

It's obvious. He's too strident, too left of center, and too, I'll just say it, SCARY, to most middle of the road voters.
He also lacks visual appeal and camera presence. He is funny looking and he has a high-pitched voice.
Like it or not, the American public will never vote for somebody, in this day and age, who doesn't exude photo-op-ability. Never. So he needs to either decide to pitch in and be a helper to the winners so his voice can be heard, or go home.
We need to look out for what will work for the masses here. We don't have time to waste on this argument.

[tired_old_fireman]

26. To me, this hurts Kucinich.

It makes Kucinich look like a baby. He was at every major debate in 2004 even after he had no mathematical chance of winning the nomination. He's been at every major debate this year. He hasn't been excluded, so why the outrage over two candidates saying they wished the debates were smaller? It's like crying if you get picked last for dodge ball. Big deal.

MADem is right. Fox news runs this to attack Edwards and Clinton. Cheerleaders for other candidates jump on the bandwagon. Memo to all of you, Fox will be attacking your candidate soon.

I doubt Kucinich would want everyone who is running for the Democratic nomination on the stage with him. If he's so outraged, why doesn't he start demanding ALL of the candidates who filed to run as democrats participate. He'll have fifty people on stage with him and have his time cut to two seconds. Will that make it any more democratic?

[MADem]

28. You'd think it would--but he's a canny politician. He played it just the way I

noted upthread. His written release conned the TV bookers into booking him, because it was very angry--and that's why they were booking him, they wanted him to do a "wet hen" on TV--but his actual appearances on TV were "charming." He played the smiling, sweet, schoolboyish idealist. Nothing like his written statement at all.

He conned them. Did a great job of it, too. And got all the airtime he couldn't afford to buy.

He better watch it, though--a bit early in the game to go to the well that way. He might get the Chicken Little Treatment if he keeps pulling that crap.

[ima_sinnic]

50. fundraising "in earnest"--you mean like taking corporate bribes, like

Shillary and the other "serious" ones?

She, Edwards (whom I now dislike intensely), and Obama (who just seems ordinary, and his health care plan is a big insurance co. handout) are all beholden to corporate interests--we will see even more egregious and blatant exploitation and abuse by the globalists if any of them become president.

[MADem]

55. Awww, boo hoo hooo....like ALL of the top tier candidates get ALL their money from

corporate interests? Like they have NO supporters?

Just cut the crap. DK is polling at ONE PERCENT because only Fringe Quixotes are following him.

If he were polling at twenty or thirty, he'd be taking that corporate cash too. But no corporations are going to OFFER any money to him, because he has NO following!

Corporations aren't stupid--they don't back candidates who have no shot at winning. They may hedge their bets, but they don't go with "Haven't A Prayer" choices.

And what's with the immature, right-wingish "Shillary" shit? What, that's supposed to be a cut or something? It doesn't advance your argument, FWIW, lashing out like that without aiming first. It doesn't hurt my feelings, either, at any rate--I'm still undecided, except I've decided DK is a Two Note Loser.

How many more "Fight The Power" words can you come up with? "Blatant Exploitation!" "Abuse!!!" and the ever popular "GLOBALISTS!!!!!!"

:eyes:

Have fun tilting at windmills.....!

[ima_sinnic]

57. whatever--where did I say they ONLY get money from corporations?

there will always be people stupid enough to contribute to the campaigns of * enablers and follow like sheep to the pre-arranged winners.

and your other trite, conformist nonsense is not worth responding to. enjoy your ordinary, unimaginative life.

[MADem]

58. Ahh, now they're BUSH enablers, because the majority of the party is backing them!

Amazing how ALL of those top tier candidate supporters are REALLY "Secret Republicans!" You'd think the GOP wouldn't have that hard a time picking a candidate if that were the case.

And gee, how did I just KNOW it was only a matter of time before that childish, standard, tired old "enabler" accusation gets thrown down! No good pout is complete without it!

But the "trite, conformist" label--ah, now there's the slightly more creative Unkindest Cut!!! Woe, what a great shame, to be labeled as SHEEP, ORDINARY, and dear me, UNIMAGINATIVE...but you forgot one: "Reality Based."

:rofl:

I swear, there's a convention from the Land of Lame, Cliched Lefty Phrases up in here! I've never seen so many old, sixty-esque fist-in-the-air rhetoric since, well...the sixties!

[mzteris]

16. Hey - could you give me some info on that?

I hadn't heard Clinton had made statement on that (i've been out) and now can't find a reference. Could you provide it please?

[Vincardog]

10. This whole fake debate thing is the issue, Give us your 90 seconds on subject x is not a debate

If they do not have enough time, (Wait for it) give them enough time.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

12. Exactly. Some might say "they're not serious"

;)

[MADem]

17. If three people have a conversation, we'll have some back and forth.

Right now, the formats suck. That's exactly what they are--FAKE debates.

I say shave it down to manageable groups, let three people sit down and have a conversation with each other. And then, in the next half hour, three more. And then, in the next half hour, three--or four, more.

It's hard as hell to get that time for debates from networks or CABLES. The Ka-ching, Ka-ching factor prevents the networks from being generous with their time. I'd say CSPAN oughta step up and give them all the time they need, but get this--people who get BASIC cable (not expanded basic--bare bones BASIC, which is over the air channels and shopping channels, and maybe a religious channel or two--not even Comedy Central) don't get CSPAN. It's an issue that's a real bug up my ass, frankly, and one I gripe to Congess about periodically --I think they should find a way to give people CSPAN over the damned air. It IS our government at work, really. And who's excluded? The poor, the elderly on fixed incomes who can't afford the expanded fees....it sucks.

TV time is money, on every other outlet save CSPAN--PBS included.

[John Q. Citizen]

7. You call that proof? Kind of a stretch,,,,, Why would Edwards and Clinton give conflicting

versions.

Edwards said it was some wierd plan to break up the debates into random groups (that's a winner) and Clinton blamed the whole thing on Edwards as if she wasn't there.

Naw, you are rationalizing, which is often mistaken for proof by the rationalizer.

[Catherine Vincent]

18. Okay, well it's proof enough for me.

I'm going by the video.

[maximusveritas]

34. Exactly. All the OP proves is that the Edwards/Clinton folks are desperate

They're spinning themselves in circles. First, they said Hillary was talking about poverty (yeah right). Then they said the microphones were biased against their candidates. Then they said Edwards was talking about cutting down on the number of debates. Then Edwards himself said he was just talking about forming smaller, random groups (as though that would make the candidates more "serious"). Finally, they resort to this silly diversion.

[Moochy]

48. Its amazing to see

Shifting explanations and all of them were 100% true!

[John Q. Citizen]

53. The ability of the faithful to delude themselves is as strong as it ever was,

and it certainly is very democratic.

This ability isn't particular to the fans of any candidate, political party or ideology as this event clearly illustrates.

[Alexander]

9. Aww, your preferred candidates got bad publicity! Cry about it somewhere else.

They were caught. You're rationalizing.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

13. Great response to the valid points made in the OP

:eyes:

[Alexander]

30. That's because there were no valid points in the OP

Explain "we've got to get back to that", which I heard with my own to ears.

If it's a two-debate four-candidate split forum, they wouldn't be getting back to anything, since no presidential candidate has ever participated in such a debate format.

Clinton's and Edwards' responses don't match up. Spin that.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

33. How about "getting back to" serious debates?

You can't assume the worst interpretation promoted by people with a vested interest in promoting it is the only possible one. Like the OP said, if they really were talking about excluding candidates who are not "serious" (Kucinich thinks this included him) why would they continue talking as Kucinich walked by? Are they stupid?

[MADem]

41. Why would they say anything at all, at a Faux event, wearing Faux mikes....

And why didn't they WHISPER, like "BABY SECRET" (a doll from the dark ages that everyone's little sister had) if they were truly conspiring???

And like I said, you don't conspire by suggesting "Your people call my people..." That's the kind of thing you say when you want to say, make sure you're not wearing the same outfit to a grip and grin picnic with the Iowa caucuses or something.




"I like to WHISPER...psssst, psssst, pssst!!"

[draft_mario_cuomo]

43. Exactly nt

[Catherine Vincent]

19. Please!

I am not crying.

[Alexander]

31. You're rationalizing, which is worse.

I almost prefer that you would cry, so we could get over it.

Clinton and Edwards got caught. The video speaks for itself.

There is no way they were talking about what Edwards claims, and Clinton was clearly a willing accomplice.

[rodeodance]

15. this certainly deserves a REC

[iamjoy]

20. Well, Why Is Kucinich Outraged?

I mean, if he considers himself a serious candidate, why does he take it so personally?

In fact, if Kucinich had a better sense of humor and more savvy he would have come back with something along the lines of how much he would miss not having Senator Edwards in the debates, but he was looking forward to discussing the issues with a smaller group, with the serious candidates. You know, right back at you, Edwards! :D

Now, lets say Kucinich really believes this stuff about "imperialism." Well then, I have to assume that if he gets the nomination, he will insist upon ALL presidential candidates being invited to the debates. I mean, why should we exclude the Reform, the Green, the Libertarian, the Socialist, the Socialist Workers, the Natural Law, etc party candidates? In fact, I think the Congressman should call for that RIGHT now. He should hold the feet of his fellow Democrats to the fire to get them to make that pledge in the Primary. Let's not be imperialistic here.

[snowbear]

25. I am outraged too....

.
.
.
.

I never would have thought of cat_girl as a FAUX news viewer!

Dammitall.

[Catherine Vincent]

35. Well I change the channel to Faux every now and then, especially if I want

to see if Hannity is still playing Monica to Bush. He never disappoints. :)

[MADem]

29. Because "outrage" got him booked on a half dozen news shows.

Where he didn't act outraged at all.

Publicity is best when it is FREE.

[jsamuel]

37. ding ding ding

Kucinich was smiling all the way to the political bank. He is the one that misrepresented what happened for political gain.

[freesqueeze]

21. If they think it's too crowded on stage...

they don't have to show up. I don't see a problem, unless they're referring to the fact that this crowded format tends to perpetuate the status quo.

The size of the group isn't the biggest problem, that would be that only one or two of the so called also-rans are willing to answer a tough question.

Top-tier status makes them lilly livered.


"Shine that spot-
light over here."

[maximusveritas]

24. Why would they care if just Kucinich heard them?

The only reason he said anything and the only reason it's getting played in the press is because the mike picked them up saying it as well. This is nothing new. You can get away with alot if it's in secret; but once it's on videotape in public, you're in trouble.

[Catherine Vincent]

36. Because of two people were conniving against other people in the group,

more than likely they would either change the topic real quick or hush up. That didn't happen.

[Soulshine]

39. i'm not sure that's a good argument

Only if you want to draw attention to what you're saying would you do something like that. They were finishing their convo by the time others came up to them also, all the incriminating stuff had already been said.

Maybe it was a clip taking out of context. I guess that would be up to some diligent truth seeker to find out. What is it that their campaigns tried to do before and what stances or actions have they've taken toward that end. I don't know.

Maybe someone will find out, and then we can truly tell if this is a story or not!

[Soulshine]

38. A link to the piece in question

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-WsvQhVmhc


I must say I didn't find it surprising they'd want to trim down the group. It's politically savvy (especially since he's fighting for 4th now and she'd just like to skip to the general). It might be smart to have an actual discussion on how to make Debates both FAIR and PRODUCTIVE for all involved. I hope in the future we have as full and diverse primaries as we have this year. I DO think it's insulting to marginalize these candidates or to dismiss their seriousness, and dangerous to our democracy. This country encompasses such a wide range of views it's important that they all have place in our political process. They have a right to try to convince you they're the just as qualified as the "top tier". The only reason these people WON'T get elected is cause not enough of YOU vote for them. I think in the primaries we shouldn't ask "can he win?" we should ask "Do I want him to win?" and vote based on that. We shouldn't assume the rest of America is too dense or bigoted or brainwashed to see what we can see.

IF we went by the logic that these candidates are incapable of winning, we wouldn't have nominated Bill Clinton, or John Kerry. Not to mention this is also a good vetting ground for future VP's and Cabinet members. Considering how much power we've learned they can have, it might be nice to get to know them before they're appointed.

[MADem]

40. In order to be treated as "serious" though, you have to ACT 'serious'

I am sorry, but the bottom ranks aren't acting "serious." If Kucinich got his ass out there on the fundraising circuit, and worked the long, hard, slogging, miserable hours -- like EVERY other candidate, save Gravel --- to fill the warchest, to pay a decent staff, to have an effective organization, that would put his message out there, well, maybe then I might believe he is "serious."

But he's NOT serious. I wouldn't care if he started every rubber chicken dinner speech with "I hate this fundraising crap, but this is the system and I want you to know I am participating in earnest, and when I am elected, I'm going to push for full public financing of elections." He's being LAZY, and using the "Oh, I have a small campaign and I don't think it's right to take money from this one and that one...blah, blah, bullshit." You take anyone's money, and then tell them, like Cheney, Fuck You Very Much.

See, that's why he's not Top Tier. Because he doesn't get out there and SELL himself, show people, many with money, that he WANTS it, he MEANS it, and he's got a real AGENDA. Sure, it's not glamorous, it's not high minded or high falutin', but it is how the system works. And his "Oh, I'm somehow too PURE for that" attitude is, as I said, a mask for sheer laziness. Or insincerity.

The stakes are too high. There's no TIME for Symbolic Bullshit. We need real people with real plans, not dreamers with wishes. Show people you want it and you mean it, or step the hell aside.

IMO.

[Soulshine]

59. What about Richardson?

He's been working his ass off and it's showing as he's competing for 3rd with Edwards in some primary polls and he only raised 2 million less than Edwards this quarter? If you cut these guys out now they have to now work HARDER than the other candidates with already assembled machines in power. If you want more substantial debates have them more often. Have a 1 hour debate once a week till we know all we need to know. But I agree with a post above, most primary voters don't base their opinions just on debates. How do you explain Al Gore? There are many productive outlets to get your message out in the primary. Edwards is slipping from 3rd and he wants to cut out the second tier before they usurp him in the upper one.

WHY THE HELL ARE YOU SAYING ANYTHING BUT TALKING POINTS AROUND MICROPHONES ANYWAYS!!!

Rookie mistake, you just hate to see it.

:wtf:

[w4rma]

42. Why did Kucinich avoid showing up to debate Edwards at the Cuomo-Gingrich Cooper Union Challenge?

There is a lot of talk about the audacity of Edwards calling for a better debate format. The implication is that this is a crass political move for political gain, given the intense damage to the Edwards candidacy the campaigns of certain candidates are doing. :crazy: The truth is John Edwards actually cares about improving the state of the political debate in America. He was the only candidate who accepted an invitation from Democratic icon Mario Cuomo, a three term governor of New York, for a real debate in the Cooper Union Dialogue Series. What is this? It is an idea devised by Governor Cuomo and Newt Gingrich and modeled on Abraham Lincoln's famous 1860 address at New York City's Cooper Union. The purpose of this is to force candidates to truly discuss the issues and their views, not merely recite 30 second rehearsed sound-bites. Only John Edwards stepped up to the plate to accept this challenge among Democrats. On the Republican side Rudy Ghouliani has stated he is willing to engage in an actual discussion of issues (hey, there is a first time for everything!). Cuomo and Gingrich also have proposed that there be nine debates leading up to the general election next year with each debate focusing on a single topic.

==This was not a fundraiser or a stump speech for the former North Carolina senator and 2004 vice presidential nominee. Edwards came to talk policy.

Outside the confines of sound bite-driven national debates, he took the opportunity to introduce policies he would implement as president to protect low- and middle-income families.

This was the spirit of the event. Like presidents from Abraham Lincoln to Bill Clinton, Edwards took the stage to engage in serious discourse about the policy behind the rhetoric.

Cuomo and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Georgia) kicked off the Cooper Union Dialogue Series in February and sent an open invitation to every presidential contender to speak or debate. Edwards was the first to RSVP. Cuomo noted that other candidates were welcome to debate Edwards, but nobody had taken the challenge.==
http://www.cityhallnews.com/news/128/ARTICLE/1200/2007-06-28.html
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3376264&mesg_id=3376264

I'm very very disappointed to understand now that Kucinich has shown himself to be a hypocrite over this faux outrage.

And for that matter (this particular outrage of mine has been building up for some time about Kucinich) when then heck is he going to do something about investigating the Katrina failures? He's head of the committee, in the House, that is supposed to be handling this. LIEberman is head of the committee in the Senate and we know LIEberman won't do it. But Kucinich hasn't done any more than LIEberman has on this issue.

[5X]

47. I don't see Kucinich's name here:

<http://katrina.house.gov/members.html>

And, it looks like a report has been generated.
I haven't read it yet, but is this false outrage?

<http://katrina.house.gov/full_katrina_report.htm>

[radfringe]

44. the problem as I see it

regarding the debates for both parties - too many candidates on stage and not enough time for anything more than soundbites

extending the debate time won't improve the format, but smaller groups of them would - or at least allow the opportunity for candidates to talk about an issue

beyond the debates - the other problem I'm seeing is "campaign fatigue" -- too many candidates too early and the election is still approx 16 months away

essentially the 2008 presidential campaign was underway right after the 2006 midterms and immediately followed by the moving of primary dates so everyone could be first in the nation... give me a freakin' break

at this rate we'll be having the 2012 campaigns and primaries starting next week :sarcasm:

[rodeodance]

49. bingo

[5X]

51. Not enough time because we have to watch survivor and

attack of the desperate housewives.

Or, this country could get off its collective ass and
do something right for a change, like have real debates
and elect someone that speaks truth to power.

[Alamom]

45. Edwards blamed?

For what? Does anyone know exactly what was going on? NO.

He approached her and they talked on a public stage with all the others within listening distance, but it appears the music was so loud, they couldn't even hear each other well.....

He said, "It's about changing the debate format or something close.


He went to her podium &

She said, "I think he has some ideas about what he'd like to do."



Could it be she didn't hear everything he was saying and would like to know before making it public.


I love Faux News and those who believe them, :sarcasm:
when it suits their purpose.



edgr

[plantwomyn]

52. What's scary about this to me is this.

If they were talking about reducing the # of candidates on stage because they find it hard to get their views across of the to answer questions they way they want. As President they're gonna hafta speak up in crowd don't cha think? I'm all for being polite and blah blah blah but if you can't get your point across with 10 people how the hell are you going to represent us on the WORLD stage?

[zulchzulu]

54. Why didn't Edwards and Clinton include Obama in their neato idea whe he walked up?

Edwards didn't even acknowledge him and Clinton gave a motherly "Hi Barack..." all while never mentioning anything about their little plan. And to be inclusive, Clinton told Edwards that her people will talk to his people...no mention about Obama's people...

Your "proof" is quite subjective in my view.