Christopher Dodd: Edwards, Clinton Chided for Exchange

[IndianaGreen]

For those trying to minimize the collusion between Hillary and Edwards to deny the American people a full debate on all the issues by all the Democratic candidates, and their latest spin that it is only Kucinich that is squawking about it, here is what Chris Dodd told the AP.

Edwards, Clinton Chided for Exchange
By BROCK VERGAKIS, Associated Press Writer
1 hour ago

SALT LAKE CITY - Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd on Saturday criticized rivals John Edwards and Hillary Rodham Clinton, who were overheard discussing among themselves their hope of limiting the number of Democrats in presidential debates.

The private exchange was picked up by several broadcasters on an open microphone after an NAACP forum in Detroit on Thursday. All the Democratic contenders took part in the program, including Barack Obama, Bill Richardson, Joe Biden, Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich.

"I'd remind them that the mike is always on," Dodd told reporters on Saturday after addressing a state convention of Utah Democrats.

"Celebrity and money are not going to decide this race," he said. "People take some offense at it in these early primary and caucus states."

http://www.comcast.net/news/index.jsp?cat=GENERAL&fn=/2007/07/14/714567.html&cvqh=itn_edwards

[PresidentObama]

1. OH NO, DODD'S FEEDING INTO THE CONSPIRACY THEORY TOO? THAT CONFIRMS IT.....

Get the pitch forks, Edwards and Clinton are working together!!

Seriously this is lame. Probably the most lame attack I've EVER seen in my time at DU. And I've seen some pretty lame political attacks being a former Kerry 08' supporter.

[flpoljunkie]

6. Conspiracy theory? Neither Clinton or Edwards have denied the reported conversation, altho Hillary

tried to lay the whole thing off on Edwards--when she readily agreed to Edwards' suggestion to limit the number of candidates participating in the debates and suggested "their people" needed to get together and talk. I would imagine Edwards is not too happy with Hillary at this point.

[IndianaGreen]

8. Yep, I saw that Hillary thingy of the "Devil Made Me Do It!" with Edwards

even though Hillary told Edwards that her people had tried to do something about the number of candidates before, but had dropped it.

Bush never takes responsibility for his own actions, and apparently neither does Hillary.

[CookCountyResident]

9. Link to ABC Video

http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=3371185

[draft_mario_cuomo]

2. Where did he criticize the alleged collusion in those quotes?

He stated the obvious truth in the post-macaca era and then made the usual statement about voters deciding the race, not money or celebrity. There is nothing in those comments about a conspiracy.

It should be noted Dodd was apparently asked about this. He did not immediately opt to grandstand on this for 15 minutes of fame.

==For those trying to minimize the collusion between Hillary and Edwards to deny the American people a full debate on all the issues by all the Democratic candidates,==

There has been no evidence presented to prove this. Even Kucinich has not presented a single shred of evidence. All we have is speculation by opportunists.

[Alamom]

3. Dodd also said.....

Dodd blasted debate organizers for giving Democratic candidates little opportunity to offer voters more than "bumper sticker answers" on important issues.

"My problem is you're insulting me and the American public when you give 30 seconds to talk about Darfur and Iraq," he said. Sudan's vast western Darfur region has been torn by ethnic conflict for four years, with more than 200,000 people killed and millions displaced.



Many believe this is exactly what John was saying to Hillary.

[iamjoy]

4. Well, Their "Damage Control" Wasn't So Hot

It might have been better for Edwards and Clinton to have been more open after getting caught. Rather than saying stuff that sounds like spin (although it may be true) it could have been better to openly express frustration with the debate process allowing bumper sticker answers and marginalizing candidates the media or debate sponsor does not consider viable. (Much like what Dodd said)

If pressed for specifics on limitations, it might have been better to say something along the lines of the goal not being to exclude anyone, but to find another way to debate. Or to say something along the lines of fall likely being when some of the candidates may drop out out on their own, thus providing smaller groups. The way I see it, like a company reducing its staff through attrition rather than lay offs. If not, an alternative was precisely what they wanted to discuss. They had no plan. If Edwards was asked why he went to Hillary, he could acknowledge her status as current front runner or that he wanted to talk to the others too, but this seemed like the best time to approach her.

I don't totally buy the many smaller groups, but I don't see a big conspiracy either. I see it as Edwards and Hillary expressing frustration with the screwed up process and wishing there were a better way.

And it sounds like Dodd sort of agreed with their sentiments, even though his numbers may indicate he is one who might be excluded if this really were some diabolical conspiracy. It seemed like he was chiding them more for being foolish enough to get caught than a desire for more serious debates. Even though I'm an Edwards supporter, this ups my opinion of Dodd. He is showing himself to be a real statesman, IMHO.

[frazzled]

5. Fewer questions good idea; fewer candidates bad idea

Two minutes is not a bad time limit for (primary) debate questions. (One minute, and especially thirty seconds is ridiculous.) With 8 candidates, that means about twenty minutes per question or 3 per hour. Six well-thought out questions in a two-hour debate would be better than 12-15 redundant ones (or stupid ones). Two on foreign policy, two on domestic policy, two on a topic du jour. Or even one hour of two minute responses, one hour of 90 second responses.

You know, there were TEN candidates in the 2004 Democratic primaries. Some of the debates were frustrating, but I think we all felt we got to hear sufficiently from all of them. This group is two fewer than that. So no one should be talking about limiting the number of candidates.

The thing that has changed is that Iowa and New Hampshire—where candidates get to say way more, one on one and in many forums and town halls and pancake breakfasts and backyard parties—may not count for as much this year. More and more important states every day are moving their primaries up to early February. So many that candidates need to rely on these televised fora more. It's more of a national race. Hillary and Edwards are obviously concerned about that. As should be all the others. But it is not up to them to have "their guys" meet to figure it out. There would be no stink if we had overheard a conversation in which it was suggested that all the candidates "guys" should get together to discuss enhanced debating formats. That indisputably did not happen. Even Obama, one of the front runners, is brushed off by Clinton and Edwards as he approaches them after the debate, and they walk off together. That image was one of the most telling when I viewed the video. When he approached them, they didn't say--"Hey, Barack, we were discussing this. What do you think?" They left him standing there.

Think about it again. What if the tape we saw had gone like this: Edwards approaches Clinton and says "We need to do something about these debates. How can we all work together?" Clinton: "Yeah, let's see if we can get everyone's campaign directors together to see if we can jointly find a way to make these things more workable and serious?" That would have been great. But no one, or no two, should be having delusions of controlling the situation alone.

[CookCountyResident]

10. The body language

The body language as you describe, is very telling, isn't it?!

[illinoisprogressive]

7. he has a right to chide them as he is not a top tier candidate.