I just don't want to believe the "They're not serious" quips were about fellow candidates

[ecstatic]

I don't want to believe it.

I'm wracking my brain trying to figure out any other possible explanation for the "They're not serious" comments.

There has to be another explanation besides the one proposed by Fox News. One that doesn't make Edwards and Clinton look like the most pompous, elitist, arrogant assholes in the party.

[ClassWarrior]

1. The debates aren't serious... the assclowns at Fox Noise aren't serious...

:shrug:

I haven't heard it myself, and no one I've asked knows the context.

NGU.

[EFerrari]

3. Well, there is that. And they wouldn't mind stirring up troublr

with their pinky, would they?

[ClassWarrior]

18. Nice mental picture.

Ailes with pinky extended... like Dr. Evil...

NGU.

[ClassWarrior]

19. .

[pnwmom]

2. I took it to mean: "They (the debates) are not serious discussions

of issues that warrant serious discussion."

Which they are not. I'm leaning toward Obama, but I don't have any problem with what Clinton and Edwards were reported to have said.

[calteacherguy]

4. They were. Be brave, face the truth even when it hurts. nt

[zalinda]

5. I was about the debates

and if you would take for truth what Fox news printed on the screen as what was said, and look at from the point of view of debates and not candidates, it makes sense.

Let's put it this way.................8 candidates, 1 hour debate, at most each candidate would have 6 minutes to speak. Now, 4 candidates, 1 hour debate, 12 minutes to speak. What Edwards explained makes sense, trying to rotate the candidates and debates so only 4 candidates at a time attend gives each candidate more time to state his/her position and less time having to depend on sound bites. Every candidate has, or should have, a web site, each and every debate could then be available on their sites. If Dodd wowwed them at a debate, you don't think that Dodd supporters would post that debate on every available forum? How would he ever get to wow anyone with speaking only for 6 minutes? This would actually help the lesser moneyed candidates, as they can let their words at the debates put them on equal ground as those with the most money.

zalinda

[penguin7]

7. Edward's rationalization does not square with his not serious comment

His explanation makes no sense.

Why debate candidates that are not serious, and why mention that they are not serious?

He should just have left well enough alone. He did not show good judgement with this silly rationalization. It does not pass the smell test.

[zalinda]

10. Okay, let's check it out

"at some point.........maybe in the fall, we should try to have a more serious and smaller group."

"well, we've got to cut the number because they are just being trivialized."

"and, and they're not serious. They're not serious."

"No, I think there was an effort by our campaigns to do that. It got some how detoured."

"We've got get back to it....because all we're going to do between now and then is that."


Above is from the Fox tape, where in these words does it say they are trying to get rid of candidates? If you think about it from the debate view point, it works.

We have to have a smaller and more serious group in the fall (his 4 person debates, as he explained).

And they're not serious, ie the debates ( if you have to depend on sound bites, how can it be serious).

We've got to cut the number, because they are being trivialized. Now, who or what is being trivialized? If it's a who, are they are talking about the lower tier candidates, and are concerned about them being trivialized. If it's about the debates being trivialized because of the number of people, then it fits into Edwards explanation.

I think there was an effort by our campaigns to do that. What, marginalize people or try to work out debate details.

all we're going to do between now and then is that. Which is having to talk in sound bites, because there is so little time. Again, works for Edwards explanation.

Because they are being trivialized, is the key here. That explains they were talking about the debates, and not the candidates. But, go ahead and believe what Fox news tells you to believe. That's your right.

zalinda

[ClassWarrior]

17. .

[penguin7]

20. Group does not mean groups

And really if he meant groups why is he whispering in Clinton's ear. He meant group. Again it does not pass the smell test for him to be talking about groups instead of group.

He wants a smaller group, not groups, which actually makes sense for him. His rationalization the next day was a distortion, or at best certainly appeared to any reasonable person to be a distortion.

[zalinda]

21. I'm guessing he's not your candidate

I will not put down any candidate with out knowing the real facts, sorry. This video clip AND it's "translation" comes from Fox news. That should be all you need to know, to "pass the smell test".

zalinda

[dweller]

6. it's times like this i miss NSMA ...

for you needn't look any further than the username to understand.

try it.
dp

[DemBones DemBones]

8. It's true. See my thread with transcript. I worked on it for hours.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3378514

Truth Hurts A Lot, for sure. My cynicism can't keep up with reality.

[ClassWarrior]

13. Karl Rove would be proud.

NGU.

[seriousstan]

9. It's a hard pill to swallow but it is the truth.

[w13rd0]

11. Considering the excerpts...

...and Edwards explanation, I tend to agree, and the "they are being trivialized" could be a reference to the debates themselves, or to the 2nd tier candidates (Edwards being one who at times is put into that category). The only person on stage who would not benefit from a smaller, more serious debate format (potentially), is Sen Clinton. And she has the potential to benefit (I'm not a supporter, but I'll grant that she's damn good in a debate format) as well.

As it stands, what we are left with is 6 minutes max from each candidate, with the media feeding us sound bites and telling us who won.

[David__77]

12. I agree.

I don't know what you're talking about with Fox, Clinton, and Edwards, but in general, I think that more voices are better and that criticisms should be focused on politics and ideology, not on "popularity."

[sendero]

14. I have no problem believing it...

.. front runner candidates always think of the low-pollers as nothing more than a nuisance. Human nature. I don't find it shocking or even surprising.

[ClassWarrior]

15. No problem believing Faux?

That says a lot.

NGU.

[illinoisprogressive]

16. the candidates are human beings. They act just like anyone else.