Edwards wants a 3-person debate....without Obama.

[calteacherguy]

Gee, I wonder why? :sarcasm:

"Edwards, frustrated by the time restrictions forced on the candidates when so many are on the stage together, has offered to participate in a smaller, three-person event with Clinton and Kucinich, if the other candidates will accept similar events."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19905093/

[venable]

1. no fear, if that's what you imply

read it in the english language and you'll understand this is suggested as but one of an long series of intimate debates.

for anyone who reads the news, it's obvious why he chose these three to start with.

[Jane Austin]

2. It's not obvious to me.

Would you explain it please?

Thanks.

[venable]

7. the HRC/Edwards chat most offended Dennis

so he is proposing that Dennis have a go at the two who offended him.

Thats the way it seems to me, anyway,

[calteacherguy]

3. He chose "these three" because it's most advantageous to Edwards

To look like the moderate between Billary and Kucinich.

I can't see how anyone would agree to this kind of blatant manipulation of the debates.

[William769]

4. Speaking of "blatant manipulation"

"Billary" :eyes:

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

6. Hilliam?

:shrug:

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

29. Is that a personal attack?

Siren




Mods!!!!!

[Dawgs]

12. Sounds about right to me.

She is the one that pretends she was co-President during Bill's time in office.

[Inspired]

8. That is crap and your thread is misleading.

He said this because Kucinich was busting his gut over the discussion that Edwards and Clinton had. Don't make more out of this than there really is. Kucinich already tried that tactic and ended up looking silly.

This has nothing to do with Obama so you can start backing away from the edge of the cliff.

Edwards is not afraid to have a debate with Obama. The format of the debates provides little chance for any of the candidates to stand out. 30 second sound bites and that is about all there is. Getting substance out of the debates is what this is all about. I think Edwards would be thrilled to participate in a forum (lets stop calling these debates because they aren't) with both Clinton and Obama.

Good Lord. This is old news by the way.

[EV_Ares]

10. Absolutely, Inspired, you are correct. Edwards fears no one in a

debate as does Kucinich and Obama.

Edwards is addressing Kucinich's concerns about being shutout.

He would also be in a debate with Obama, he is just saying the debates would be better debates with less people where you could address an issue more effectively. Probably would require more debates to do this.

[JANdad]

17. Better be careful what you wish for...

Edwards would clean Obamas clock in a debate on the issues...

[Maribelle]

18. Edwards debated Cheney, he can successfully debate anyone

Looking back on the Edwards-Cheney debate:

Everything Cheney said has been totally disproved, and everything Edwards said rang of truth. Of course the MSM back then did everything to make it look like Cheney won the debate, but history has vindicated Edwards and made Cheney and the MSM look exactly like what they are, liars and fools

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/7/11/232646/562

[karynnj]

20. Cheney was not the strongest person Edwards debated

Edwards did not do that well in the debates against the other DEMOCRATS in 2004, especially near the end when it was Kuchinich, Kerry and Edwards. I do not remember a single debate where he came out the strongest when there were 8 or 9 candidates. (He did get a big sound bite when he played the Southern card to demonize Dean's comment that he wanted the people with confederate flags to vote for him (or Democratic).)

Of course Cheney lied - that's what he always does. In Edwards' favor, at least Edwards did far better than Leiberman did.

In the 2007 debates, Edwards has been uneven at best - having a few inexplicable points where he was unable to smoothly answer. He is also far more likely to pick the closest soundbite from a campaign speech than the others.

[trueblue2007]

28. pick - pick - pick - pick. ---pick!!

I'm sick and tired of people tearing our DEMS apart. Get a grip and GET SOME PARTY LOYALTY FOR GOD'S SAKE!!!!

Some of the comments in this thread appear to be written by REPUKES instead of Democrats! Fight amoung yourselves and you weaken ALL OF US.

jmo

[w13rd0]

5. I thought the suggestion...

...was that they be broken up into groups of four, selected at random? If he means what he said regarding his explanation of their (Clinton and Edwards) conversation, he needs to demonstrate that, not by catering to Kucinich and then handpicking a panel "at random", but by allowing the selection to actually be random. If he's not talking about 3 groups (3, 3 and 2), who might he suggest for the other two groups? I say this as someone who likes Edwards and could certainly support him, but this idea really isn't going to fly, any more than his challenge to Kerry in 2004 for a "one on one" debate. The frontrunner, in this case Clinton, and in 2004, Kerry, has absolutely no motivation to capitulate. Clinton could just as easily respond that she wants to do a three person event with Obama and Gravel, or Biden and Dodd, or Kucinich and Gravel. If the selection isn't random, or four persons, it looks like a bit of desperation in addition to making his prior explanation ring untrue.

[earthlover]

9. you could have a better format and still keep all the candidates

one way would be to scrap the idea that every candidate answer all the questions....you could pose a question, and have 2-3 candidates answer it...then move on to another question, and of course rotate so everyone gets an equal number of questions, etc. You could even within this format have rebuttals, which are pretty hard to do when you have a zillion candidates.

[Inspired]

11. Let's hope they do. Edwards was offering up a suggested way.

Maybe they'll find another way. One subject forums would be good.

[Totally Committed]

14. This is the debate I'd like to see:

Clinton, Obama, and Edwards, with Kucinich there to keep dragging them left -- just to see what is said and/or promised.

TC

[William769]

16. Who is Kucinich?

I keep hearing that name but never see him. Is he a actual person?

[Clark2008]

25. More of a person than HRC, Obama or Edwards.

Who all seem to be corporations.

[William769]

27. Who also seem to be the Next President of the United States. NT

[Clark2008]

40. Doubtful.

But, if so, very similar, if slightly smarter, than the one we currently have.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

32. Who is William769?

I keep hearing that name but never see him. Is he a<sic> actual person?

[More Than A Feeling]

15. Um, because he'll face him later?

:shrug:

I'd love to see a one-on-one between Obama and Edwards, and hopefully they'll oblige.

[zulchzulu]

19. That's part of the "smaller groups" strategy...

When Edwards was whispering sweet nothings into Senator Clinton's ear about making the debates smaller, he did chessycat smile at Obama when he came by as a gentleman to congratulate them for their participation. No mention to Obama about how he might want Obama to be in the smaller "group".

That's Edwards for you. And Clinton went right for the bait too. I hope Kucinich skewers them and exposes their phoniness when he gets the chance.

[Inspired]

21. Good Lord, get a grip on reality why don't you?

Your support of Obama is clouding your judgement on this issue.

[zulchzulu]

22. Answer this simple question...

Why didn't Edwards include Obama in the conversation with Clinton about smaller debates?

It has nothing to do with my support for Obama. If Obama was an asshole like that, I'd be pissed.

[leez34]

23. -

Wait...so you're implying that instead of just having a short, off-the-cuff conversation with Hillary, he should have called over Obama for a conference? That is patently ridiculous. The only reason anything is happening now is because the mics picked it up. And I think it's good. There will be several smaller debates in which everyone is involved. To say he's afraid of Obama or whatever has no basis in reality. And why is Edwards being blamed for all this anyway?

[zulchzulu]

24. Again...why didn't Edwards include Obama in the conversation?

I know the answer.

Kerry knew he was a phoney back in 2004 when Edwards pulled him aside and said he never told anyone the story about how he laid on his son's grave and decided to run for President. Kerry had heard the same story from Edwards two years before that time...

It's no wonder Edwards' campaign is like a bad hair day.

[Inspired]

42. You must be joking, right?

The encounter with Clinton had nothing to do with Obama, or Kucinich even. Kucinich got his 15 minutes with this. Now you want Obama to get his 15 minutes? Did this hurt Obama's feelings or something? You think Edwards is afraid of Obama? The same Obama who said - more than once by the way - that he agreed with Edwards during the last debate?

This whole thread is nothing more than flame bait.

Oh, and the Kerry bit? You've got Shrum's fairly tale wrong. He didn't lay on his son's grave. He laid on his body in the morgue. And this is fodder for you?

[jsamuel]

26. This is an untrue post. Edwards said he would do it as long as no one was excluded. Go back and

watch the video.

Besides Kucinich was the one asking for this, not Edwards or Clinton. Edwards was asked off the cuff by Matthews if he would debate Kucinich and Clinton. Edwards responded "only if no one is excluded".

[jenmito]

31. That's Edwards' spin on it...

"Only if no one is excluded" was a clear attempt to try to pretend he and Hillary were talking about separate groups in the first place.

[jsamuel]

35. NO!!! That is what he said about the "Clinton-Edwards-Kucinich" stupid debate thing

It was the only time he said anything about that and he said that DURING THAT INTERVIEW.

[jenmito]

36. I know that.

He said it during that interview in order to sound consistent with the spin he put on it when FIRST asked about it.

[jsamuel]

37. Whatever you may call it, the op is false.

[jenmito]

38. Not really...and YOUR assertion that Edwards really wants separate groups

ia false, too.

[jsamuel]

39. HAHAHAHA. The op is false.

you can keep trying to spin all you want

[jenmito]

43. HAHAHAHAHA! No it's not...

and YOU can spin what Edwards himself originally said to Hillary, but he did NOT say they should have smaller GROUPS. He said they should have A smaller GROUP. You're spinning just like he did.

[jenmito]

30. He only wants smaller groupS because he was caught

talking with Hillary about wanting a smaller GROUP-singular. Nice spin attempt on his part but I don't buy it at all that he wants separate groups so the debates can be more serious. If that was true, why would his and Hillary's people contact each other and why wouldn't they have involved Kucinich and Obama in the discussion when they came up to shake their hands after the debate?

[bpeale]

33. hell, i even want a smaller group!

there is no time for these folks to expound on their ideas. 30 seconds is just not long enough. multiple smaller debates would allow them to expound on health care, poverty, etc. your animosity and hatred of edwards is clouding your judgment and I am sick of the edwards bashing.

[jenmito]

34. Again-he didn't SAY he wanted smaller groupS...

He and Hillary got together and discussed A smaller GROUP. When Kucinich and Obama came up to them why didn't they include them in the conversation? Why didn't they say A:: their "people" should talk? Nothing's clouding my judgement. I read the conversation above mine AFTER I posted my comments and that other poster had the same thoughts and questions I have.

[Clark2008]

41. Why do you think jenmito hates Edwards?

I saw nothing in her posts to indicate this. She was expressing her opinion based on what Edwards most clearly said.

[jenmito]

44. Thanks, Clark2008, but I guess it's because s/he can't answer my question.

:hi:

[bpeale]

46. some people are so hate-filled they can't see straight. what a turnoff.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

45. calteachguy promotes a lie about a Democrat yet again and uses the right-wing term "Billary"

When are people going to wake up and see through his shtick? Who benefits from his "work" at DU...

[Beaverhausen]

47. I've alerted on this shithead

I suggest that lots of us do it until pizza is delivered. His is transparant as glass.