Had Obama been caught saying anything suspicious in front of an open mic

[Colobo]

I wonder how many of the people around here that are calling the Edwards-Clinton-Kucinich controversy a "non-story" would be defending Obama...

Just saying...

[stray cat]

1. Has Obama ever said anything he wouldn't want to be heard by others?

I know I have....

[emulatorloo]

2. Fox Mics, Fox Feeds, Fox Story -- Sorry I don't trust fox

As you know Fox has a history of presenting democrats in the WORST POSSIBLE LIGHT>

And they certainly tried to do a number on OBAMA/

====

I have seen the video of the report and to me it is unclear what the hell they are talking about.

VID HERE:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x40560

Read the subtitles -- totally unclear what the conversation is about.

But fox reporter immediately jumps to the conclusion that they are "plotting" to exclude Dennis Kucinich et al.

IMHO Fox Lied and Distorted

Fox has a history of misreporting things to put Democrats in the worst light possible. My feeling is that they do it to pit democrat activists against one another -- Divide and Conquer is the oldest RNC GOP ROVE strategy in the book.

DU thread re edwards explanation:

What the "secret conversation" was really about:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1328351&mesg_id=1328351

[zulchzulu]

45. Fox MADE Edwards and Clinton talk to each other with special air freshener device

It's so unfair... (insert weeping sound here)

:crazy:

[qazplm]

3. sure why not?

If Obama had done what they did? Sure.

It is a non-story that the front-runners want to stop wasting time with the folks that have no chance.

[ccpup]

4. and Dennis,

in my eyes, has come out looking anything but Presidential. I mean, do President's whine about being left out in what is understood to be one of the most difficult things to do (run for President)? He should be using this Face Time on TV to further introduce himself to the American People and show what he stands for OTHER than the Impeachment of * and getting out of Iraq. Two important things, to be sure, but what else might America want to know about him? He's blowing his chance to move out of the single digits by complaining/whining/being irritating.

Just my two cents.

[NYCGirl]

5. Obviously, what some find "being irritating," others find being brave, judging

by the opposite reaction on this board.

[MADem]

7. Brave, my ass. That's called a STUNT, and he won't be able to pull that again.

Here's how it works:

--Issue an OUTRAGED press release.

--Get called by TV News bookers to comment on the OUTRAGE.

--Go on a half dozen shows, spend two seconds smiling and saying, Aww, that wasn't nice...and spend the REST of the time talking about your platform. EVEN when the news anchor wants to return to the topic that they invited him on the show to discuss.

He bullshitted the media. The overworked phrase "Jumped The Shark" comes to mind.

If he were "serious," he'd fundraise like everyone else, do the hard work, eat the rubber chicken (or tofu), meet the overweight, everyday people who drive thirty miles to GO to the rubber chicken dinner and meet the candidate...he'd actually ENGAGE his "base." Like everyone else is doing. He'd have an event or ten scheduled every day, so he could meet, greet, and listen. But no, he's too good to do that, and because he doesn't like "the system," well, he's not gonna play.

Fine. He doesn't HAVE to play. But he doesn't have to be taken seriously either. He can grab his ball and just go home.

[5X]

11. Give me a fucking break, what do you think Clinton or Edwards would do,

They are all politicians and will all turn the debate
to their platform every chance they get.

[MADem]

13. I know what MOST of them ARE doing. They have an event scheduled, EVERY DAY

to meet, greet and talk to voters. They do rubber chicken fundraisers, they give speeches, talk to voters, LISTEN TO voters...

They don't sit on their asses and say "I don't LIKE the system. But I WANT to be taken SEEEEEriously. So look at me, me, MEEEEE!!! Even though I have no money, I don't campaign or fundraise, and I have just a few kooky supporters who are too cheap to even give me any cash!!!!"

DK and Gravel are like the Flight of the Conchords of the political arena.

I hate to tell you, but even in a discussion between TWO Candidates, they'll "turn the debate to their platforms every chance they get"--that's the fucking IDEA, see? So we can HEAR those platforms in DETAIL, not suffer through sixty second sound bites so losers like Gravel and DK get a "chance" to waste our time.

So you give ME a break. I want to hear what the politicians who are doing the hard work have to say, and the grandstanders who won't even bother to connect with voters are in the way of that.

[5X]

15. I have been to DK fundraisers, and I have given of my money.

I also know lots of people that do take him seriously
and want to hear his message. You and Edwards and no one
else have a right to tell me my candidate can't be heard.
Unless of course you wanna take your place next to cheney
and his kind.

[MADem]

17. Well, aren't YOU the rare bird!!!!! Pat yourself on the back, now, there!!

All engines STOP, now--that changes EVERYTHING...

:sarcasm:

And cut the 'take your place next to Cheney' shit.

First, calling me a Cheney cohort is against DU rules (why don't you take a moment to read them), and second, that kind of shitty "Ewwwwwww--you're a REPUBLICAN because you don't agree with MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!" footstomping-type of argument shows exactly the maturity level of the average DK supporter. Couldn't come up with a reasonable argument in rebuttal, so you tossed a really lame insult instead? Heckuva job there!!!

Your candidate can't be heard until he gets off his ass and has more than three supporters. Apparently you know ALL of them--I haven't met any.

This election is too fucking serious for us to waste time with dilettantes.

I got news for you--I have EVERY RIGHT to tell you that I feel your candidate should be eliminated from the debates. This is America. It's my view, and you and those other three DK supporters can't muzzle me. Your arguments are rather rich--if it's not "You're a Republican" it's "You can't tell me!!!"

Pat Paulson had a greater following, and they didn't let HIM in on the debates. But hey--he at least CAMPAIGNED.

[5X]

31. You belong with cheney because he also would like to dictate all the rules.

You also said DK has no fund raisers and doesn't campaign,
all I did was point out how you are wrong.

DK has every right to campaign and have his voice heard
any way he likes too, if you feel he is wasting your time,
don't listen.

I know I am wasting my time with you, bubye.

[MADem]

32. No, you didn't point out anything. You made a few vague statements, with no "proof" of anything

attached.

"You are wrong" isn't proof. Cheney bombs don't advance your argument, either.

It sure sounds to me like you want to dictate a few rules, yourself--like telling the rest of us, who would like to hear from the candidates who are likely to WIN, that we have to sit through the whines of the One Percent Club, after several debates have taken place.

If you're polling at one percent in March, and you're STILL polling at one percent in July, you aren't "resonating" with the voters. DK has TWO issues--Impeach and Iraq. He's not UNIQUE in that regard. Most people are on board with that. What's he gonna do AFTERWARDS? That Department of Peace stuff? Please. We still live in the real world. We need canddiates who don't live on love and moonlight, but who can handle a crisis and make tough decisions.

But, hey, "bubye" back at ya. You ARE wasting your time.

:hi:

[5X]

10. whining sounds more like what you are doing than what Dennis is doing.

I watched the hardball interview, he was nothing but
reasonable and even joking about it all.

[MADem]

14. Now go read his "outraged" press release--the one that got him booked on that show.

They were looking for FIREWORKS when they booked him. The same kind of fireworks they saw in his press release.

Instead, they got "reasonable" and "pleasant." And precious little discussion of the reason that he was booked.

They were conned. No doubt they'll adopt the BushCo "Fooled me once, won't git fooled agin" routine when dealing with Dennis the Bullshitter.

That was a publicity stunt. A shortcut to get his name and face on the TV. Transparent, too.

[MADem]

6. If that was 'conspiring' they need lessons. I have JUST the teacher for them!!!

My Name is BABY SECRET....I like to WHISPER...in the dark!!!

What a nonstory. But it will be beaten to death one way or another. The Faux Assholes must be thrilled. It's quite the trick to get Dennis Kucinich to be their craven little water carrier!

[rodeodance]

8. Elizabeth Edwards: How about believing me?:

Forum Name General Discussion: Politics
Topic subject Elizabeth Edwards: How about believing me?
Topic URL http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3376325#3376325
3376325, Elizabeth Edwards: How about believing me?
Posted by jsamuel on Fri Jul-13-07 11:56 PM

John meant what he said in Iowa: he wants smaller groups (or longer debates) so that there can be an end to the notion that a candidate can skate through the debates with sound bite answers. Everyone has sixty seconds to explain their health care plan and John's truly universal plan ends up sounding just like a "plan" to talk about health care. It does a disservice to the voters. Since no one (maybe not even the candidates' spouses!) would watch a three hour debate, it seems more sensible to have a series of randomly constituted smaller groups. Listen, John wants to talk about substance; that should be no surprise. And the format with this many candidates doesn't allow that to happen. If you have an idea that would work, let us know. Or better yet, let MSNBC and CNN know.

http://www.mydd.com/comments/2007/7/13/215314/314/14#14

[rodeodance]

9. and she offers some constructive adise for all of us

[MADem]

12. I'm still an Up For Grabs Voter. I'd like to HEAR all of the credible candidates.

Not play that sound bite game. I'd like round table discussions between three or four at a crack, with the top tier candidates first going head-to-head. They can mix it up randomly, too, that's fine--but the sixty second format came about because dilettantes like DK and Gravel get in and stay in for their own egos.

If they were serious, they'd fundraise, organize a decent campaign staff, and actually CAMPAIGN. Fuck these jerks who say "Ewwwww, the SYSTEM is unfair, so I don't want to ParTIciPATE, because I'm too GOOD to do all that nasty hard work that everyone else is doing!!!"

Fuck 'em--if they were serious, they'd do the ugly work, win, and change the system. But hey, it's easier to NOT EVEN TRY. Get the perks of candidacy to advertise a Cult of Personality amongst a teeny percentage of the population, without actually doing any work.

I've seen bullshitting in my day, and those two take the cake.

[5X]

16. Why don't you go tell Will Pitt that they don't hire a real staff. n/t

[MADem]

20. He's a nice enough fellow, but he's not the SUN or the MOON dear.

And if he's on DK's 'staff,' well, he has my sympathies. And you've just made my point.

And why would his presence on said 'staff' change my mind, anyway? Why would you toss that remark out like it's apropos of anything?

DK does NOT have any kind of a machine. A few people slogging away isn't a 'campaign staff.' It's a few people slogging away.

How much is he getting paid? He'd best not quit his day job. You can't pay rent, light or grocery bills, or bar tabs with campaign buttons and bumper stickers.

Here's a humorous look at DK's "staff"--it is probably closer to the truth than most realize: http://ristocrats.blogspot.com/2007/02/breaking-kucinich-replaces-entire.html

It may be humorous, but it's close to the truth.

The Kucinich campaign is all about DENNIS. It certainly isn't generating any momentum, unless these figures are complete fantasy: http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08dem.htm

One percent in March, April, May, June and July. Whooopeee.

He needs to stop wasting our time, and serving as a divisive tool for Faux Snooze and the GOP.

[AndreaCG]

26. Be fair. In some of those polls, Kucinich is polling the same as Richardson

At 2%. I don't hear you saying Richardson should pull out. Nor are you saying Gravel should pull out, even though he polls lower than Kucinich and his main campaign point is eliminating the income tax, a very UnDemocratic Party stance, mostly because it is even less fair to poor, working and middle class taxpayers to have a national sales tax, which he advocates. In the debate I watched, Gravel answered nearly every question with a tax reform answer, even when it had no relevancy to the question. By contrast, Kucinich had relevant and innovative answers to the questions, especially how his energy reforms differed from the other candidates. He said he would make every Cabinet post follow a green agenda. That is a brilliant and progressive answer.

People here bash candidates, especially Hillary, for not being progressive enough. Kucinich is a genuine progressive and you say he shouldn't run to air his ideas. If it wasn't for progressive, even radical ideas, we'd still be singing God Save the Queen.

I have no illusions that Kucinich will win the nomination. I doubt I will even vote for him. But I will bet that if the Democratic Party takes a turn to the left, as most people on this board want, many of Kucinich's ideas will be integrated into those reforms.

While it's a good idea to have fewer candidates per debate, to allow for more than soundbite answers, it ought to be done on a rotating basis, where each candidate gets an equal number of appearances against all the other challengers.

[MADem]

28. Forgive me for laughing.

I actually do think Richardson should take a powder if he can't bring it.

But he's not the subject of this discussion, is he? It's not RICHARDSON who issued the "I'm OUTRAGED!!!" press release, is it? It's not Biden, or Dood, either. They didn't throw a tantrum, did they? They weren't the ones who pointed the wagging finger at the Evil Edwards and the Conniving Clinton, were they? They weren't the one glomming onto TV interviews, and trying to turn a Q and A about this particular issue into a campaign appearance, were they?

This is an attention seeking STUNT. It played poorly, IMO. It hurt DK, not helped. Made him look like a petulant whiner who tried to use the media. He'll have trouble going to THAT well again.

I also don't say that "Kucinich .....shouldn't run to air his ideas." But way to put words in my mouth. What I do say is that he should get the same amount of ATTENTION as he has SUPPORTERS.

So that means he gets about ONE PERCENT--or TWO, if you want to use the Rosiest Scenario Polling Data--of the airtime at a debate. That seems "fair" to me. If he wants more ATTENTION, he needs to get himself more than a crowd that could fit in a small men's room.

He'd rather sit back on his ass and rely on Federal Matching Funds, rather than do any serious fundraising and campaigning. It's way easier to issue a press release and have the TV bookers come to him, instead of doing the hard work of the grip and grin/rubber chicken circuit like the rest of the crowd does.

But he needs fools who find his lazy and Quixotic grandstanding to be "impressed" with his laziness, and to write checks to keep that gravy train on the track so he CAN have more matching funds. Ergo, this stunt--all of the Dennis groupies, go grab your checkbooks!!!

:eyes:

The fool-money saying applies.

[AndreaCG]

42. Since when is discussion "limited" to the narrow parameters YOU or anyone who starts a topic decrees

My post was not off topic. I don't think Kucinich or any of the candidates should be told not to respond to something that the other candidates do that they disagree with. Especially when it affects his or her ability to have a level playing field at this stage of the game. We get pissed off when Democratic politicians act like sheep. If the rest of the field wasn't bothered by the Clinton/Edwards exchange then they don't have to respond. Kucinich has every right to do so though. If it turns out to hurt him more than help he'll have to live with it. And if he doesn't raise campaign contributions he'll get a smaller amount of matching funds compared to the other candidates.

And if he wants to run a "quixotic" campaign that's his business. Richardson, Dodd, Biden probably are too. Gravel certainly is. I stand by my opinion that Kucinich's progressive ideas are an asset to the debates.

And I made it clear that I am not a "Dennis groupie", that I probably won't even vote for him. So don't go putting words in MY mouth either.

[MADem]

43. You are equating Richardson to Kucinich, and they aren't the same.

Kucinich didn't 'respond'--he was the one who picked up and ran with the story. Richardson didn't run to Faux and everyone else with an "outraged" press release that made it sound like his hair was on fire. He didn't fan "conspiracy" stories that appeal to flakes who love the idea of candidates conspiring while surrounded by a dozen or more people on a public stage paid for by Faux Snooze, wearing Faux mikes. And then show up for interviews about his so-called outrage and decide he wanted to give happy, grinning stump speeches, instead of talking about the "controversy."

So in that context, Richardson isn't the same as Kucinich at all. He didn't game the media with a bait-n-switch story to get free airtime.

DK and the rest of one percent crowd have had more than a few opportunities at several debates over the last few months to "break out." They haven't done it. How many more chances should they get? Let's get serious--yes, SERIOUS--for a change and start seeing some actual discussion of ISSUES amongst small clusters of candidates, in order to really compare and contrast--with the ones that have the largest following talking FIRST--instead of this ASK HALFASSED QUESTION/PROVIDE SIXTY SECOND CANNED RESPONSE crap we have to suffer.

The current debate practices are NOT working. And it's the FRINGE candidates who are gumming it up. Four or five candidates polling at one percent do not deserve to take up almost HALF the time in a debate. They don't have the constituency to support having that much of the pie. They do a disservice to the candidates who actually have worked hard, convinced large numbers to follow them, developed nuanced, wide ranging platforms, as well as doing a disservice to the undecided voters who can't learn much from canned responses because these marginal candidates, who aren't going up in the polls at ALL, and who, face it, are NOT gonna win, are preventing us from hearing substantive discussions.

They've had several shots. They're not moving up. They need to step aside, and let the frontrunners duke it out by themselves at least a couple of times. If they want to fight it out in amongst themselves to try to move up a tier, fine--but let them do it in a different and smaller venue as well.

And on EDIT--I never called YOU a Dennis Groupie. For the record. To be clear. The sentence I wrote was as follows:

Ergo, this stunt--all of the Dennis groupies, go grab your checkbooks!!!

If you want to make yourself a member of that group, that's on you. I didn't say 'all of YOUR Dennis groupies,' or even 'YOU and the rest of YOUR Dennis groupies.' The sentence was deliberately generic, an exhortation directed at THE groupies, not YOU, the groupie--and you apparently read into it more than was there.

[bling bling]

36. ...

LOL.

Have I told you lately how much I enjoy your posts? Even if I don't necessarily agree with them (which is rare), I still love your wise and knowledgeable yet spunky style.


:yourock:

[MADem]

49. I really appreciate the sentiment

I realize we all can't agree on everything, and I don't expect us to. I do like a good discussion, though!

[Always AskWhy]

19. Looks like the story is gaining

momentum, it was all over CNN this morning, video and all.
Dennis talking to a reporter seemed really pissed off and NOT taking it as a joke at all.

[MADem]

21. Exactly. That's what he WANTED, see? He's doing the work of Rupert Murdoch!

On the sit-down shows, he wasn't pissed at all. He was SMILING. Saying how he campaigned for Edwards last go round. And then trying like hell to change the subject to other issues.

He's carrying water for the GOP even if he doesn't realize it. It won't boost his lousy ONE percent standing in the polls; what it will do, though, is provide the GOP goons with one of those Divide and Conquer talking points. Conspiracy on a PUBLIC Stage!!! Ooooooh!

[draft_mario_cuomo]

18. Obama supporters are the ones constantly pushing this on DU

That is a fact. The question should be what would happen if Obama was included--or is later proven to be part of the HRC/JE efforts to improve debates? Would BO supporters be pushing this so zealously (I guess they have learned what Howard Dean learned in 2004: the IWR and money can only get you so far...)? One BO fan alone has posted 3-5 threads to promote this.

[Alamom]

22. Obama/Kuch 08 ? If you can't beat them fairly, do it anyway you can.

Sounds like Faux. Murdoch supported Obama in his Senate run. This could turn out to be a huge story.

[MADem]

23. Well, so are the DK crowd. But the truth is, a limited debate would HELP Obama.

He's a top tier candidate. I haven't heard enough from him, or Clinton, or Edwards, because all the damned one percenters are getting equal time without garnering equal support. They aren't working to increase their base, yet they're preventing the supporters of Obama, Edwards, and Clinton from hearing their candidates views in any detail, simply because they're crowding the field. They're also preventing undecided voters like me from being able to hear meaningful dialogue from one of the primary winners--because we know who ISN'T going to win the primary races.

Maybe they should run these debates with polling numbers as their guide. Obama polling at thirty percent? He gets thirty percent of the on-air time. Kucinich gets ONE question out of every hundred asked, because that's where he's polling. Boy, would that make people scream, but it's more fair than forcing people who just aren't impressed with his lazy attitude towards this contest to have to listen to his "I'm too good to campaign like everyone else" bullshit, and receive more attention than his support levels warrant.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

25. Yes, but the DK crowd is very small. BO has a large contigent here

As to BO being helped by more focus on issues I am not sure. Obama had a chance for a real debate that went beyond sound bites and he did not show up... See http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3376264&mesg_id=3376264

Obama has a unique problem imo. The expectations are so high, the hype so great that the real Obama has a hard time meeting the media creation Obama's lofty standards. This is especially the case in debates. People were introduced him with a soaring speech at the DNC. Contrast that speech to his performance in the debates. It is not hard to see why he has lost some ground since the debates imo. Conversely, HRC benefits from low expectations and years of right-wing attacks on her. When people see her for themselves their views of her change. I know. I am one of those people. :)

[MADem]

27. Well, my mileage varies. And I am an undecided voter.

I think it helps Obama to be able to expound, in contrast to other top tier candidates, just as it helps Edwards and Clinton. It solidifies their own bases, and it helps bring others to their campaigns. There is no downside to it, for any of them.

So long as they PERFORM well, of course. If they fall on their asses, they do it in a bigger way, to a more focused audience. There hasn't been a genuine opportunity to "compare and contrast" at all. It's just a twenty questions, disconnected, exercise.

I really want to see the lead dogs get down to scrapping. Enough with the one percenters.

[Alamom]

29. Several good points. I think there is more to this than we know now,

Hopefully, the truth will prevail. I don't like stunts. I don't believe two seasoned politicians said anything on a stage full of people that means anything and I am wondering if this is DK taking advantage of a Faux attack or if there is more going on.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

33. DK is doing this to get his 15 minutes

I agree. HRC and JE are not dumb enough to do something like that in such a setting.

[BeyondGeography]

24. That's about 40 or 50 fewer threads than you launched after D-Punjab

Your hypocrisy is showing (again), Cujo.

[Adelante]

30. You've posted at least that many related threads yourself

Edwards supporters have posted twice as many threads in GDP related to this issue as either Obama or Kucinich supporters. THAT is a fact.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

34. And? Edwards supporters will defend against attacks against him, like Clarkies or Obama fans would

What is your point? You are equating defending a Democrat from lies with promotion of smears...We are not going to unilaterally disarm. The lesson of the Swift Boat fiasco in 2004 was that you have to fight back against smears.

[Adelante]

35. We certainly would defend, but we'd do it in one thread, maybe two

Rather than 10 or 15 threads. And we wouldn't be accusing other people of what we ourselves are doing.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

38. You are equating defending against baseless accusations against a candidate with promoting smears

If there are going to be multiple threads promoting a smear there will be a response. Plain and simple. Why don't you call on there to be only one thread, or one thread for each side, to discuss this if you are so concerned about this? There is a band of Obama supporters who consistently promote whatever talking point against his rivals that is the flavor of the week. Surely you have noticed. When they set their guns on Edwards, as they have this week, there will naturally be a response from Edwards supporters.

[Adelante]

40. Bullshit

You just want to drown out any discussion, bury it in an endless number of new threads, smother it in spin spin spin. As in other times, this will die a natural death - if you just let it. Personally, to me, none of it was baseless smearing. It's something that really happened and people had genuine feelings about, no matter how much the spin machine whirrs and spits out thread after thread after thread saying the same things.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

41. Nice spin from someone who claims to oppose spin

;)

==You just want to drown out any discussion, bury it in an endless number of new threads, smother it in spin spin spi==

So why aren't you calling for there to be one thread, or one thread for each side, to discuss the issue?

==Personally, to me, none of it was baseless smearing. It's something that really happened ==

It (the conspiracy) did not happen, based on what we know thus far. It is a baseless smear because we simply do not know if the facts are as those attacking Edwards and HRC (primarily Obama supporters) allege they are. Surely you, who claim to oppose the "spin machine", would call them out on that...There is no evidence that they were plotting to exclude any candidate from debates. If there is, how about you or someone else actually presenting it for once? Even Kucinich has not presented a shred of evidence.

[illinoisprogressive]

37. I agree Katz. Most of them would be skewering him for days.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

39. What do you think the reaction will be if it is discovered that BO has worked with JE and HRC...

...to improve debates? Will those who claim to be outraged by this criticize BO or suddenly become silent on the matter?

[jefferson_dem]

47. To "improve debates"...

LOL! Dude.

That's a whirling dirvish-like spin-a-rama routine you got going on there.

[zulchzulu]

44. Of course, it wouldn't be an issue. He would have just been talking and stuff...

:sarcasm:

[jefferson_dem]

46. Move along...Nothing to see here. Just a couple of good-natured "democrats" chatting...

about how to cut off their rivals at the pass.

[rinsd]

48. Well I certainly would.

[bling bling]

50. You can always be counted on for an objective opinion.

I value opinions of people based not on the candidate they support, but based on the integrity of their posts. I got so tired of fact checking all the garbage. It was much easier to just start paying less attention to the nonsense and focus more on the opinions of those who care about credibility. Of course...that narrowed the field a lot. But it's better for my blood pressure.