The scum of the earth

[Alamom]

is reading our posts ....I could say let's not give them fuel for the fire, but I'm sure it's useless.


This is in the first list of news articles on a google news search.

Source:Newsb*sters




Time's Washington Bureau Chief Favors Hillary/Edwards Scheme To Limit Debate Participation
Posted by P.J. Gladnick on July 15, 2007

>
>
>
This plotting between Hillary and Edwards has also caused a great deal of consternation in the leftwing blogosphere. This is just the type of scheming they would expect from Hillary but not from their hero, Edwards. These comments from the Democratic Underground reflect that disappointment in Edwards:

"I don't need HR Clinton or Edwards or anyone else deciding who is a "lower level" candidate and who is serious or not. That is up to us, the voters, the decide. "

"I finally looked at the video this morning. Edwards initiates the discussion of cutting out some candidates, going over to Clinton. She agrees and as they turn to leave, Clinton saying "our guys should talk," they both blow off Obama".

"Kucinich has every right to be outraged. And all the others. Where do these two get away with trying to machinate the debates? Edwards gets the main boos here for bringing it up (more me time, please!); Clinton for agreeing and offering to sic her dogs on the issue."

"I'm surprised at Edwards. So much for that "two Americas" stuff. "

"Don't know which is worse, Edwards pretense of inclusivity or the blatant undemocratic behavior that is Clinton's habit."

"edwards is just his usual hypocrite..."

[welshTerrier2]

1. Clinton and Edwards "gave them the fuel" ... not DU

if Clinton and Edwards deny what has been reported, I'll be prepared to hear them out ...

thus far, they have NOT ...

[Mythsaje]

3. Edwards gave a reasonable explanation...

Not that THAT will stop the circular firing squad.

[welshTerrier2]

4. no he did not ...

i heard Edwards talk about what he would like to see relative to the debates. I had no argument at all with what he said.

i have not heard him deny exactly what is being reported about his unfortunate microphone spillage ... has he specifically addressed what was said?

[emilyg]

5. Yes he did

but you're talking to many deaf ears on DU

[welshTerrier2]

7. not deaf ... prove it

just show me what he said about whether what is being reported is truthful or not.

i'm listening ...

[Mythsaje]

2. I think the whole thing is a setup.

It's their modus operandi.

[polichick]

6. Hmm...

Interesting take on it.

[Alamom]

8. Something like that. We could try a little unity for all of our candidates especially

when an incident smells as rotten as this one, but alas, we don't.

It appears being united is a repuke thing. It also appears to work splendidly.

[MH1]

13. Hillary was not at all interested in "unity" right before the '06 elections.

She had no problem publicly embracing the right-wing smear against Kerry. Most people would have thought at that time the 2008 primary campaign wouldn't begin until at least, oh, AFTER the '06 election....but she made it clear that was all she cared about.

Maybe if we want "unity" we should pick leaders who appreciate the concept themselves.

[MGKrebs]

9. More evidence that the media is only interested in drama...

"The problem with the second-tier candidates in the Democratic Party (Biden, Dodd, Richardson) is that they're all running the kind of cautious campaigns you'd expect from a front-runner or real contender. No one's throwing bombs or stirring up the debates the way, say, Al Sharpton used to. Perhaps this is because they're all angling for VP or Secretary of State consideration and therefore don't dare antagonize any of the frontrunners. On the GOP side, Ron Paul has been good value. But Tancredo, Tommy Thompson, Duncan Hunter -- not so much."

http://time-blog.com/swampland/2007/07/are_crowded_debates_useless.html

[Adelante]

10. You know what?

If either of them had turned to Obama and Kucinich and said, "We were just talking about the debates. Let's all sit down a few minutes and go over a couple of ideas." I would bet none of this would have blown up. Who are responsible for this are Edwards and Clinton when they stopped the conversation, shook hands with two other candidates and sent them on their way like children at an adult party. This is what has been missed in the follow-up spin.

[Alamom]

11. So try'em & fry'em with no evidence of any wrongdoing. BTW,

they continue to talk with many people milling around and as Obama & Kucinich walk up, "short break" to thank them and renew their conversation.



Plotting right out there in the open with the intended victims looking over their shoulders.

:sarcasm:

[MadHound]

12. Well it is the truth

The Clinton/Edwards faux paux is a black eye for the two. It is causing consternation on the left. Face it, this is the primaries, and incidents like this happen. You don't get to call a mulligan, and when your candidate is caught saying or doing something stupid, you suck it up, don't whine or blame others, and go on with the campaign.

Upthread you call for unity. Rather hard for you to press for that since Hillary's own comments are in direct contradiction of this. Again, this is the primaries, whom do you wish we unify behind? Hillary? Edwards? Sorry, but it doesn't work like that.

[Alamom]

14. Who's truth.....Faux?

No one knows what they said. John explained it. Many will not believe him.


All of the media got their information from Faux, who we normally unite against.

[MadHound]

15. But hey, isn't Hillary a good friend of ol' Rupert?

:shrug:

Sorry, but denial isn't just a river. It was the AP who did the actual transcipt, and the tape seems fairly clear to me.

It is a political fuck up. Don't waste time on it, don't try to deny it, don't whine, move on with the campaign.

But again, upthread you speak of unity. It is the primary season, just who do you expect us to unite with?

[Alamom]

16. Debating the candidates instead of damning them. Unity within our party. eom

[MadHound]

17. Again, it is Hillary and Edwards who apparently don't want to debate all of the candidates

And again(and again) what sort of unity do you call for? Whom shall we unify behind? Only the "serious" candidates? Screw that sort of undemocratic thinking.

It is the primaries, shit gets rough if you hadn't noticed. You take your lumps and move on. You don't get a mulligan, you don't get to whine, and you certainly don't get to demand unity, especially since you are advocating for a candidate who has shown that the only sort of unity she is interested is the unity of the beaten.

[Mythsaje]

18. Oh, yeah... and the AP has been our friend all along.

I don't trust ANY of these motherfuckers. If they can set us on one another, they will.