Kucinich Camp Overheard Clinton/Edwards Plan to Eliminate Candidates from Future Debates

[WilliamPitt]

Kucinich Camp Outraged by 'Overheard' Plans of Clinton and Edwards to Eliminate Candidates from Future Presidential Debates, Forums

DETROIT, July 13 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Top campaign officials for Ohio Congressman and Democratic Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich tonight expressed outrage that rival candidates Hillary Clinton and John Edwards were overheard collaborating on a strategy to eliminate other Democratic candidates from future debates and forums.

According to the Associated Press, Fox News Channel microphones picked up Clinton and Edwards on stage discussing their desire to limit future joint appearances to exclude some rivals lower in the crowded field. "We should try to have a more serious and a smaller group," Edwards said into Clinton's ear following a Presidential Forum in Detroit hosted by the NAACP on Thursday.

Clinton agreed with Edwards, according to print reports and video footage of the exchange. "We've got to cut the number. ... They're not serious," she said. Clinton added that she thought representatives of her campaign and Edwards' had already tried to limit the debates, and "we've gotta get back to it," according to the AP.

"Candidates, no matter how important or influential they perceive themselves to be, do not have and should not have the power to determine who is allowed to speak to the American public and who is not," said Kucinich. "Imperial candidates are as repugnant to the American people and to our Democracy as an imperial President."

More: http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/20070713/pl_usnw/kucinich_camp_outraged_by__overheard__plans_of_clinton_and_edwards_to_eliminate_candidates_from_future_presidential_debates__fo

[GreenPartyVoter]

1. Go Dennis!

[Nikki Stone1]

85. Go Dennis (#2). I am voting for this guy in the primaries, Hill and John. :)

:)

[NotGivingUp]

2. Clinton...Edwards...wait, I'll put it a nice way...you will NEVER EVER get my vote. nt

[shadowknows69]

17. If this is true then Edwards just lost mine too

It was coming down to him and Dennis for me. Fuck the doubters with a chainsaw KUCINICH FOR PRESIDENT. WE CAN MAKE IT HAPPEN. WE ARE STILL WE THE PEOPLE!!!

[RFKJr4PRES]

80. yes- We need to take back OUR power from the Corporate media

If only there were real qualifications for president, like having the intelligence to see through obvious lies of the most corrupt administration ever, not enabling evildoers to attack innocent nations, actually reading legislation such as the patriot act and not giving the evildoers permission to ignore our constitution...actually having solutions to our problems such as real health care for all, ending the big lie of the drug war, ending the "free" trade lie which has cost so many jobs...

[shadowknows69]

82. Welcome to DU

Sounds like you might be right at home here.

[mdmc]

87. God Bless RFKjr.!

I wish he would run for veep under Bloomberg.

RFKjr. or Andrew Cuomo (recently called for Indian Point to be shut down) for Senate! (once Hillary becomes President, of course).

Welcome to DU and God Bless Dennis Kucinich too!

WELCOME TO DU MY FRIEND!

[leftchick]

it is true and I am disgusted

any doubt who owns these politicians? It is the Corporations and they can't handle truth tellers like Dennis and Mike.

here they are in all of their corporate glory on youtube....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-WsvQhVmhc

[Alexander]

129. Any chance this will sink Clinton and/or Edwards?

I wonder what the Hillary fans must be saying now. :eyes:

[William769]

3. Actually Kucinich Camp is using FAUX news.

I would have thought better of you Mr. Pitt of buying into this tripe. You can't hear anything on the audio, Only thing I saw is what FAUX news scrolled on the screen, and we all know how accurate Faux news is at this.

[John Q. Citizen]

60. FAUX News is owned by Clinton supporter Rupert Murdock, isn't it? Why would

he host fundraisers for Clinton and then set her up?

Has Clinton and Edwards denied the exchange?

[William769]

86. whats to deny?

It's a non Bullshit story.

[Strawman]

4. What's up with Edwards?

He didn't even want to shake Dennis' hand. Did Dennis go after him specifically in the debate? I didn't see it.

[slipslidingaway]

131. As if Kucinich did not exist to Edwards, I noticed that as well. At

least Hillary had the courtesy of acknowledging Dennis, it seems Edwards did so only after Dennis extended his hand?

[helderheid]

5. Edwards???

I can see Clinton but Edwards?? :wow:

[Elidor]

118. You're surprised?

A lot of people genuinely believe that Edwards is on the side of the angels. I find him marginally less phony than Hillary and Obama, but he's not what he pretends to be, and it pains me to see so many people fall for his act. Our top three contenders are all about the status quo. They mouth progressive platitudes, but they're as middle-of-the-road, as bought-and-paid-for as corporate america could hope for.

I still love Dennis, but his campaign is going nowhere. I'm so frustrated, I'd like to dig up Eugene Victor Debs and run him.

[Clark2008]

135. Bless your hard head, Hardhead.

I am so tired of people falling for Edwards peachy keen act, it makes me ill.

The guy has flipped more flops than a beat cop on skid row.

[helderheid]

139. Yes, I am - because of all the candidates in 2004, Edwards was the one Kucinich liked the most.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

6. "a more serious and smaller group" aka - only the well heeled need apply.

The aristocracy has spoken.

[formercia]

12. Brought to you by the CFR

Using their hard-earned money more effectively. Why waste money on candidates that can't win and just dilute the message of your favorite lackey.

[lonestarnot]

7. Oh yeah, corral the debate. I like the sound of that.

:sarcasm:

[helderheid]

8. another Link USA Today:

http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2007/07/ap-clinton-edwa.html

[jsamuel]

9. Note: Edwards said maybe "sometime in the Fall" which would be at most 3 months before the primary

Gravel gets up there and just attacks the whole stage. He isn't even campaigning, just showing up for debates. His campaign ad consists of him staring into the camera and throwing a rock into a pond.

That doesn't seem serious to me.

How many other candidates are currently running and are bared from the debates?

And when Clinton said this "We've got to cut the number. ... They're not serious," she was refering to the debates themselves, not the candidates.

[Kadie]

10. Aha! So that is what they were talking about - pics

I saw these last night and wondered what they were up to...


Democratic U.S. presidential candidates Senator Hillary Clinton (L) and Senator James Edwards talk to each other after a candidates' forum at the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) annual convention in Detroit, Michigan July 12, 2007. REUTERS/Rebecca Cook (UNITED STATES)


Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y. left, talks with John Edwards after a forum of Democratic presidential hopefuls speaking before delegates at the annual NAACP convention in Detroit, Thursday, July 12, 2007. (AP Photo/Paul Sancya)


Democratic presidential hopefuls Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y. and John Edwards talk after participating in a forum at the NAACP convention in Detroit, Thursday, July 12, 2007. (AP Photo/Carlos Osorio)

[OnceUponTimeOnTheNet]

I can see Hillary saying this, but Edwards!? I feel ill. Edwards?

Kucinich ought to put that second pic on his campaign site. Caption it DLC Buddies or something like.

[Cameron27]

70. Actually cutting the field down benefits Edwards

more than Clinton and apparently he initiated the conversation.

[cui bono]

110. I think Edwards was saying:

"Wow, that was money well spent. Your hair looks great! Ooh... and it smells nice too!"

[Alexander]

127. "James" Edwards?

The first picture got his name wrong.

The second picture would provide lots of ammo to Kucinich.

[King Coal]

11. I want to hear the audio before I believe it.

[William769]

13. there is nothing of substance to hear.

But Faux news has done a great job of scrolling what is supose to be said. :eyes.

[Strawman]

14. Please. Kucinich walked right up behind Edwards and heard it himself

As distasteful as it is watching a Faux/Townhall video, it's clear that's what the conversation was about. ABC News is reporting it too.

[William769]

16. Then why doesn't Kucinich say so?

Everything I have read os far keeps referencing Faux news. :eyes:

[Strawman]

20. I don't think Dennis was taping it himself

I mean come on. ABC news also.

Why don't you just say you think he should be excluded instead of denying what is as plain as day? At least you could make a case for that that wasn't so ridiculous at face value.

:eyes: Right back atcha

[William769]

31. They are reporting what FAUX news said. Is that so hard to understand?

No one with any credibility heard this conversation. Whats up with that?

[Texas_Kat]

61. I have a tape of it

it's very clear what they said.

This once, Fox is being accurate. (somebody write it down.... it may be a first).

[William769]

63. Then please post it.

The one that has been posted is not good.

[durrrty libby]

71. What is wrong with people?

Of course candidates want to eliminate other candidates.

This is one of the dumbest discussions I have seen on DU,

and that is saying a lot. It is called political strategy

:silly: :dunce: :scared:

[Texas_Kat]

106. Until you get caught at it

Then it's called shameful.

[durrrty libby]

107. No, it's called people making a mountain out of an anthill. It's

called feigned outrage

It's called a boatload of bullshit

[Texas_Kat]

117. There's nothing feigned about my outrage, I'll guarantee you about that.

With so many outrages to choose from, having our own candidates act like Republicans is enough to put this right at the top of my **it list.

[leftwing9]

114. Limiting candidates is against the spirit of democracy

The voters, not the donors, not the DLC, are supposed to choose the candidates. As far as possible, we should cling to that truism.

Also I take umbrage with the notion that Dennis is not a serious candidate. Neither Edwards nor Clinton has been the mayor of a major city. Kucinich's tenure in Congress is longer than Edwards' or Clinton's. Kucinich is serious as a heart attack. Plus you know that Bill Richardson would be on the "bump" list and he's held more than enough important public offices to qualify him as serious.

[John Q. Citizen]

65. Is it your claim that this didn't happen, William769? Are you claiming Clinton and

Edwards didn't have this discussion?

[William769]

94. It is my claim that the audio is no good and everyone is taking FAUX news on face value.

And we all know how Faux is "fair and balanced". :eyes:

[WilliamPitt]

21. Um...

The link is to a Kucinich press release.

[William769]

29. And the link doesn't say Kucinich heard it.

It's just repeating what FAUX news said.

[NavyDavy]

19. some people hear what they want to hear....selective hearing

[William769]

32. It would be nice if we could hear it.

And not just the FAUX news scroll that they are so famous for.

[rinsd]

56. Show me one reference that shows Kucinich heard this himself.

He is grandstanding and once again using Fox News to attack other Democrats.

[Strawman]

69. Fair enough. It doesn't say DK heard it, but I think it's obvious what they are talking about

And Faux isn't the only outlet reporting it, Kucinich also links to ABC News. TPM Cafe believes it also. http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/jul/13/election_central_morning_roundup

Until I hear Dennis say he caught the gist of the conversation, I take your point that it is not fair for me to say that he heard something. But it sure looks like he did. He stood there for a few seconds right behind Edwards while Edwards was talking then left with a look on his face that suggests he may have heard it himself also.

But DK might not have heard any of it himself. Even so, in my opinion the mikes picked up enough to verify that what he posed on his blog accurately describes the tenor of that conversation.

[rinsd]

73. I am awaiting statements fromt he candidates.

Until then the whole premise because of the FoxNews taint is suspect.

[Strawman]

77. I just called the Kucinich campaign

To ask. The person who answered could not comment but said there would be a statement on this. I asked if Dennis overheard anything himself and mentioned that HRC and Edwards supporters were using the Faux News angle to discredit their post on this.

So we'll see what else DK has to say.

[mzteris]

88. oh well, if ABC says it - it must be so.

:eyes:


People, people, people. Two things:


1. CRITICAL READING SKILLS.

2. CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS.

[Strawman]

100. Yeah, the knee-jerk response of jumping on the weak Faux connection

in order to discredit a clear faux-pas demonstrates nice "critical thinking" on display there. Elites like HRC and John Edwards aren't supposed to drop their masks like that in public. They fucked up. On tape. Normally, I probably wouldn't even wade into a thread about the case for or against limiting the debates, but I'll be damned if I'm going to allow people to make denials about what was said that are totally unreasonable interpretations of reality.

I suppose the fact that multiple credible news sources besides Fox believe it or that I can hear enough of the conversation with my own ears to know Dennis' interpretation is true demonstrates a lack of critical thinking on my part. Gee, I'm so foolish.

If you want to get really nuanced, read Edwards and Clinton's body language toward Dennis Kucinich in that clip. Does that seem to provide more support for the claim that it may have been a conversation about limiting the number of debates or the number of candidates?

Or just say "I won't believe it. Fox News microphone baaahhhd. Clinton goooood. Nuu duu reck shun gooood."

Fox News's context and spin on stories are regularly and intentionally biased. For sure. Their mikes and cameras aren't. There's not even a cut in the tape that's rolling during their presentation of that exchange between HRC and John Edwards. Would it be beyond Fox's m.o. to manufacture controversy? No. But this time they didn't have to. This nugget fell into their laps.

The Obama angle at the end of that story. That's a clear hit piece. My media literacy skills are just fine, thanks.

Give me a break.

[mzteris]

102. I listened - I didn't hear what everyone CLAIMS -

what did you REALLY hear. Don't read the words. Just listen.

It could mean just about ANYTHING.

Of course some people will believe just about anything if it suits their purpose, eh?

[wavesofeuphoria]

96. I agree .. an original untampered source would be nice to hear ..

context is important too .. what exactly were they talking about? candidates? questions? debates?

[SaveElmer]

15. Kucinich is an idiot...

This is not a free speech issue...candidates are free to attend whatever forum they wish...

Like the candidates he decries, Kucinich is pandering for support here...he knows perfectly well his right to speak to the American public is not being infringed because he may not be invited to every candidate forum that is scheduled...

If Edwards and Hillary...and whoever else are getting sick of attending forums where at best they get 1 minute to speak on an issues, they are free to do so...and groups sponsoring forums are not obligated to invite every announced candidate no matter how fringe they are...

I for one hope we get some smaller debates with different combinations of candidates, two or three at a time...

However, having said that, I am hearing now that they were talking about limiting the number of debates, not eliminating candidates

[NavyDavy]

18. I agree 100%........gather the circular firing squad

[King Coal]

23. Kucinich is not an idiot.

If anyone should be left out, and I don't think they should, it should be Hillary. Kucinich is as honest as they come.

edit for word placement

[SaveElmer]

26. Really?

How honest was he when he conveniently switthed from a pro-life to pro-choice position right before running for President...

How honest was he when he conveniently switched from an ant-stem cell research to a pro-stem cell research position right before running for President...

How honest was he when he conveniently switched from supporting a flag desecration amendment to opposing one right before running for President...

How honest is a guy who says he wants to get us out of Iraq, but refuses to actually support any measure that would get us to that goal...

Kucinich is a panderer and a gadfly...nothing more....some in his district are beginning to see this as he is generating a primary challenge from the left...

[lonestarnot]

36. You better look again before you spout untruths.

[SaveElmer]

42. Care to elaborate?...nt

[lonestarnot]

43. Where's your links to all those lies?

[SaveElmer]

46. Here you go...

Flag Desecration:

H J RES 4 2/3 YEA-AND-NAY 3-Jun-2003 5:54 PM
QUESTION: On Passage
BILL TITLE: Proposing an Amendment to the Constitution of the United States Authorizing the Congress to Prohibit the Physical Desecration of the Flag of the United States

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2003/roll234.xml


H J RES 36 2/3 YEA-AND-NAY 17-Jul-2001 4:14 PM
QUESTION: On Passage
BILL TITLE: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States authorizing the Congress to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2001/roll232.xml


H J RES 33 2/3 RECORDED VOTE 24-Jun-1999 12:21 PM
QUESTION: On Passage
BILL TITLE: Constitutional Amendment to Prohibit the Physical Desecration of the United States Flag

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1999/roll252.xml

Pro-Life position

"I believe life begins at conception and that our priority should be to make abortions obsolete, by preventing unwanted pregnancy, promoting abstinence, and promote life affirming programs after birth"

Source: 1996 Congressional National Political Awareness Test Jul 2, 1996


Vote to adopt an amendment that would remove language reversing President Bush's restrictions on funding to family planning groups that provide abortion services, counseling or advocacy.


H R 1646 RECORDED VOTE 16-May-2001 12:40 PM
AUTHOR(S): Hyde of Illinois Amendment
QUESTION: On Agreeing to the Amendment

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2001/roll115.xml

Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions.

HR 3660 would ban doctors from performing the abortion procedure called "dilation and extraction" . The measure would allow the procedure only if the life of the woman is at risk.
Reference: Bill sponsored by Canady, R-FL; Bill HR 3660 ; vote number 2000-104 on Apr 5, 2000

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2000/roll104.xml

[lonestarnot]

48. You offer two limp burnt offerings re abortion and flag burning. OMG

Get a fucking life!

[SaveElmer]

53. Typical...

You call me a liar...I provide proof...and you deny it anyway...

Pathetic... You ought to work for Kucinich...you'd fit right in...

[iamjoy]

134. Now Just A Cotton Pickin' Minute!

I think Kucinich is okay - I kind of admire the scrappy little guy, but I don't think he has any chance of being elected president. Maybe he knows it and is running to bring issues dear to his heart to the national debate. I know he has a lot of dedicated and idealistic supporters.

But, please don't act like abortion and flag burning are limp and unimportant. Some of us care very much about these issues - they matter as much or more to us than Iraq. Maybe that is why it is possible for some of us to get past Hillary's and Edwards's votes for the war and not forgive Kucinich's "Pro-Life" and "Flag Protection" past.

Obviously some people feel differently and will not back Edwards or Hillary because of it. Fine.

That being said, I don't support calling Kucinich an idiot.

[lonestarnot]

140. Thank more than one issue voter!

:applause: :patriot:

[King Coal]

50. I say that would make him a dynamic thinker, if true.

[Beelzebud]

52. I suppose they'll take one from the right-wing playbook and call him a flip flopper too.

Meanwhile supporting a candidate that voted YES to war in Iraq, more than once....

[SaveElmer]

54. Right...

And if Hillary had shifted her position 180 degrees on choice, stem cell, and Flag burning right befoore running foor President...I wonder what the reaction would be...

Fact is Kucinich is a panderer...he is given a pass here cause he panders to the left...

[King Coal]

57. You don't think Hillary has ever changed a position?

[SaveElmer]

58. She has never made a gear stripping switch...

On such a fundamental issue as choice...no...

[King Coal]

62. Well I have. I used to be anti-abortion and I have changed my view.

So I can understand completely how Kucinich could have done the same thing. Hillary has licked her finger and stuck it up into the wind many times.

[SaveElmer]

66. Right before running for President...?

Funny how the three issues that would have killed him with progressives...abortion, stem cell, and flag burning...are the exact three things he switched on...

Again, if Hillary Clinton had made the exact same switch on these issues, what do you think the reaction would be here?

[King Coal]

83. Better than her switching to pandering to the right.

[SaveElmer]

84. What issues does she pander to the right on...?

eom

[mdmc]

91. WAR - huh, Good God y'all

HRC parroted the GOP meme - Saddam is a threat, is not contained, and needs to be removed by force.

This is her war too.

You are lucky - Hillary will be the next President and you are okay with that. I just hopes she stays out of Iran.

The next President will be better than Bush. Ghouliani will be better, Thompson will be better, Hillary will be better. Edwards would be better.

The question becomes how much better. Just a little better or a great deal better.

My bet - the next president will support the drug war and the Iraq war.

[SaveElmer]

92. Wrong...go back and read the actual statements...

Of both supporters and opponents of the IWR...

This is George Bush's war!!

[mdmc]

95. our troops are fighting... some of us thought invasion was a mistake

Most stated that it is unpatriotic to oppose a war "when our troops are overseas".

Most were quiet about opposing this war.

Hillary was lock step with W. Saddam was a threat, Saddam was not contained.

Hillary now says she will withdraw if W. does not.

Question - Did she think that the war would be over by 2009? Did she think that a stable, unified, democratic, pro-west Iraq government would be in place by 2009?

If she did, then she is a neo-con idiot.

I opposed this war because I knew that a stable, pro-west, democratic, unified Iraq was at least 50 years of hard work and sacrifice away.
I took to the streets after 9-11-01 to try to stop the rush to war as I knew it would make America less safe.
Hillary didn't stand with the anti-war movement. She stood with Bush. She stood with the troops :eyes:

But, again, be happy. Hillary will be the next president. Hillary will be better then Bush.

And I too should be happy. While the left (anti-war activists / radicals / nader supports / Cindy supporters) might dislike Hillary, the neo-cons hate her. So while I am not thrilled that Hillary will be president, I know that the right wing will be far more upset. That is a very pleasing thought.

Peace and low stress. God bless the triangulators and the DLC. They are much better then the far right conservatives.

[vote 4 democracy]

138. Neither Giuliani or Thompson would be better

Just as power hungry, lazy, arrogant and stupid without concern for the needs of the people.

[lonestarnot]

49. King Coal consider the outsourcing here. LOL

The source has been outsourced.

[King Coal]

59. LOL!

How Indian.

[EFerrari]

39. Well, I'm going to send that idiot a contribution today because

I agree with him.

[Beelzebud]

47. Coming from someone with a Hillary avatar, that is a compliment...

[mmonk]

67. Hillary is an ass.

Well, as long as we're calling candidates names, how's that?. And here's a hint: it will be a sub degree temperature in hell before I vote for Hillary Clinton.

[John Q. Citizen]

72. Colluding to limit Democrat's choices is foul. Why won't they be out front about it?

Tell you what. You vote for the conspirators if you want.

But don't come here and tell me it's democratic or legit, cause it's not.

It stinks.

[SaveElmer]

74. Let me ask you this...

Exactly what criteria would you use to decide who you would invite to a debate...if you were in charge of planning one....

[John Q. Citizen]

76. My first criteria would be to exclude candidates in favor of excluding candidates.

Perhaps Clinton and Edwards should start the Clinton/Edwards Party.

Then they could be the only two candidates that get to debate for the nomination of thier party.

When the Repos can get up on stage with what, 19 or so choices, and we have Edwards and Clinton colluding to limit our choices
it becomes obvious why people of integrity would want to distance themselves from these people.

And then you whine because someone runs as an idependent or a thrid party. Well figure it out. When so-called Democrats try to fix the debates to favor themselves something is very wrong.

Clinton and Edwards are afraid of choices for Democrats. Disgusting.

[SaveElmer]

79. Answer the question...

What would be your criteria for deciding who to include in debates...would you include all Democrats that have spent more than the $5000 necessary to file with the FEC...

Would you use polls, fundraising...

What if David Duke declared as a Democrat...would you include him?

[John Q. Citizen]

90. Not if he favored colluding to fix debates, that's for sure!

[cui bono]

111. Candidates are not always free to participate in any forum/debate they wish.

Nader was excluded when he was running because the organizers decided to change the requirement from polling at 5% to polling at 15% in order to exclude him. The didn't want real issues being brought up, they only wanted the mainstream candidates to debate what they determined to be the issues.

You're probably right that they are free to attend any forum they wish, but they'd have to sit in the audience and keep quiet.

[madrchsod]

22. "According to the Associated Press, Fox News Channel microphones"

if this story is based on those two sources, i really want to hear the conversation before i pass judgement

[buddhamama]

24. i would need to hear the audio

and comments in context, and the responses of the candidates before making any judgments.

[bigwillq]

25. This bothers me

I have read (and even replied to a few) threads here on this board saying it is just crazy and counterproductive to invite every one who files or declares their bid for presidency (which yes, if there are 40 "candidates" yes I agree all 40 shouldn't be on stage.)

But it's different if it's someone say like the people on this list

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3373721&mesg_id=3373746

They have, so far, failed to show they can organize a competitive campaign, which includes proper funding to run a national campaign, support on a national level, etc....

I agree, at this point, those people should not be allowed to debate.

But Kucinich , Gravel, even people like Dodd, who is not polling well, they have proved their campaign is organized, they have funding and support from national organizations.

Until a primary is held and the PUBLIC decides officially that those candidates will not be a factor in the race, then they should be allowed to debate.

I don't want the media or sponsors or even some of the top candidates, i.e. Edwards and Clinton, to dictate who is or who is not a major candidate based soley on opinion polls at this point.

[buddhamama]

27. i could not agree more

stifling debate is unDemocratic.

[tammywammy]

30. Indeed, you've summed up how I feel as well. n/t

[Strawman]

75. Well stated

The field will narrow itself naturally. Obviously there have to be limits, but I think your suggestion is reasonable, inclusive, and fair. For the media to exclude candidates like Dodd, Gravel and Kucinich now is premature even if they are extreme longshots. If Kucinich is still campaigning next spring or summer and has no mathematical chance to get enough delegates for the nomination and there are two candidates that still do, then I think a one-on-one forum would be appropriate.

And shit, they should be glad Gravel is there. He makes those debates watchable.

[madrchsod]

28. "This is how things should be. Demeocrats working together to solv problems."

"She then shared a quick handshake with her No.1 rival, chirping “Thanks, Barack!” and then another “Thanks Dennis!” to Kucinich."


"Here’s the kicker for the pundits and conspiracy theorists: Clinton turned back to Edwards and concluded, “So, our guys should talk.”


interesting take from the folks at--> http://hillaryis44.com/

[WI_DEM]

33. The funny thing is that DK has more experience in office than either Hillary or Edwards!

[lonestarnot]

38. :applause:

:applause: :applause:

[EFerrari]

34. Amy Goodman reported it on her show this a.m. n/t

[G_j]

35. no surprise at all n/t

[ieoeja]

37. It doesn't say Kucinich camp overheard the comments.

It says the microphones picked it up. And if you see the FAUX clip about this, even the transcripts they provide show no mention of other candidates. The FAUX report includes what little can be heard from HRC and Edwards, then FAUX just makes up shit to fill in the blanks.

This is just FAUX doing their usual thing: lying. And Dennis is falling for it.

[SIMPLYB1980]

51. Yep don't be sheeple people!

"It says the microphones picked it up. And if you see the FAUX clip about this, even the transcripts they provide show no mention of other candidates. The FAUX report includes what little can be heard from HRC and Edwards, then FAUX just makes up shit to fill in the blanks.

This is just FAUX doing their usual thing: lying. And Dennis is falling for it."

Come on people don't fall for Fox Noises
Don't be sheeple people!

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

40. Edwards' contingency plan?

Is he sucking up to be second on the ticket in case he loses the nomination?

Clinton/Edwards '08?

just a guess

[Individualist]

41. ...no matter how important or influential they PERCEIVE themselves to be,

Good for DK!

[EFerrari]

55. This is Clinton's MO but I'm disappointed in Edwards.

Very disappointed. Isn't he running on the idea of spreading resources to more Americans? This faux pas casts doubt on his platform (and his sincerity).

[durrrty libby]

44. Candidates hoping to eliminate other candidates. Wow what

an outrageous concept

What a bunch of ridiculous crap for people to feign outrage over.:nopity:

[John Q. Citizen]

78. True. That's why the DRE machines are good. Just another tool in the box of

eliminating other candidates.

Fixing debates, fixing elections, it's all good people.

[durrrty libby]

81. So sad that you can't seperate the wheat from the shaff

[John Q. Citizen]

89. Targeting specific groups of voters is another great way to eliminate other candidates.

Like the felon lists in Florida and such.

There's just too damn much democracy in this country, and any way we can cut back on it is fabulous! I'm glad to see both Edwards and Clinton working hard to do just that.

[durrrty libby]

104. Sorry, but your interpretation is way off the mark, but you already

knew that

[John Q. Citizen]

132. Knew what, that Clinton and Edwards colluded to restrict our choice and alternative voices?

Yeah, i knew that.

The funniest part is that they didn't get their stories straight.

Edwards tells a whopper and Clinton blames it all on Edwards, freaking, hillarious, Hillary.


"I did not have a mutual discussion with that man!

Course it's all on tape, so only a koolaid drinker would buy it. Did you buy it? Do you expect anyone else to buy it?

[robcon]

45. I would try to do the same if I were they.

Not a surprising conversation - but a chilling one nonetheless.

[Lex]

64. OMG! They want to run against less candidates than there are now?!1

How dare they?

(Isn't that what candidates usually want--less and less in the field to run against over time?)

[The Count]

68. Good for DK for speaking up. Both Hillary and Edwards sense of entitlement is only consistent

with their prior behavior.
Hillary was asking voters in NY to vote for her in November - way before the primaries took place.
Edwards pretends he is for the little people - but we know his voting record belies everything he says now (take for instance the bankruptcy law vote in 2001) - so this is only natural.
Anyway, I didn't vote for Hillary either.

[philosophie_en_rose]

93. Um. They want a smaller group to have discussions with more depth. So what?

There are dozens and dozens of people that are running as Democrats. Not everyone is going to fit into every debate, lest each person have ten seconds to speak.

Personally, I'd like to see candidates face off against each other. Let's see Edwards v. Clinton or Kucinich v. Obama or whatever combinations. A smaller group of 4-5 is not bad.

[cui bono]

113. Yeah, more depth... Dennis adds depth to every debate he is in.

[madinmaryland]

97. "Fox News Channel microphones.."

:wtf:

Is this reliable??

[benny05]

98. Much ado about nothing

And too much speculation from DK. He should ask the campaigns for clarification instead of jumping to conclusions.

[nashville_brook]

99. it's a candidate's JOB to eliminate other candidates -- it's the PEOPLE'S job to keep the field open

you can't fault the candidates for trying to win -- it's what they're there to do.

[bdamomma]

101. Thom Hartman just referred to this and to DU

it was a bunch of hooey. That reply was not to limit candidates.

[durrrty libby]

105. You mean dozens of people jumped to idiotic conclusions,and look foolish

while feigning outrage before getting the facts?

Shocking!

[Hamlette]

103. Good for Clinton and Edwards!

a 90 minute or 2 hour debate with 9-10 people turns into a "raise your hand if you like Jello" affair.

I wanna see Clinton and Obama go toe to toe and Edwards and Obama and Clinton and Edwards. I'm not all that interested in a guy who stares at the camera for 5 minutes and throws a rock in the pond.

Honestly. We need to focus here.

(If you want me to argue the other side I can: We need Ron Paul and the other nut cases in the GOP debate to show how out of touch the party is. What we won't see, in a GOP debate, is how out of touch Rudy, Romney and McCain are because they look sane next to the others (except Paul who while he is certifiable is the most sane guy in that debate. Actually, Huckabee might be sane except for his theocratic tendencies.) See, keeping them in makes the party look loopy (Tancedo? Really?) and getting them out makes the front runners stand on the own.)

[cui bono]

112. Why would you want to limit ideas and debate? That will only hurt the country.

Why would you want to let top money makers that the corporate media loves frame the issues and the debate? Don't you want to hear the progressive's ideas?

Did you watch the NAACP forum on PBS? It was not like that. They asked good questions and everyone was able to respond to every question.

[Clark2008]

136. I think we see entirely too much of Edwards, Hillary and Obama

People need to see who the choices for the little guy are - and they aren't those three.

[David Zephyr]

108. I have to hear for myself the audio of Fox's "tapes" since they say they exist.

I will reserve any judgment whatsoever until then.

[cui bono]

109. Kucinich for president! He's the only one who ALWAYS puts the people first.

He does what is right even if it means he gets voted out. And then he is vindicated when he is proved right, that he did what was best for the people.

[bvar22]

115. If I were Hillary, I would want DK OFF the STAGE too.

It is soooo embarrassing for the "serious" candidates to have someone who is CLEAR & Consistent on the stage with them while they triangulate and weasel.

If DK is eliminated from the debates, who will tell America that:

*Single Payer Universal HealthCare is not only possible, but cheaper.

*that "For Profit" HealthCare is obscene

*that Mandatory Health Insurance is NOT REALLY Universal HealthCare

*that the Democratic Party and American taxpayers really should NOT be forced to subsidize some of the richest CEOs in history by supporting the HealthCare Insurance Corps and HMOs.

*that the Us SHOULD give the Imperial Palace (Green Zone) back to the Iraqis, close the permanent bases, expel all Corporate Consultants, withdraw ALL US Troops, and begin paying reparations NOW.

*that redeploying some troops at some future date is a PRO-WAR position.

*that The Democratic Party supported "Oil Law Benchmark" is a War Crime

*That we can have election accountability with "Paper Ballots publicly hand counted at the precinct".

*that we CAN cut $Billions$ from the Defense Budget, and they will do just fine.

*that the RICHEST Corporations in history do NOT need $Billions$ in welfare subsidies

*that NAFTA (Free Trade) has not been a good thing for Americans who have to work for a living

Who will tell the truth to America if DK is kicked off the Democratic stage? :shrug:
Dennis Kucinich's Truth to Power voice is one of the few reasons I am still in the Democratic Party.
Kicking DK off the stage IS kicking ME off the stage.


The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

[Nunyabiz]

124. Of course they want DK off stage

because both he and Gravel make all the rest look like Rethuglican idiots.

[blues90]

116. I saw that one Any Goodmans show today

The nerve and underhanded high profile attitude of Hillary and Edwards . I really lost alot of respect for both of them , not that I had much before . This is not a highschool baseball game where you pick out the winning team and set the others aside .

[JNelson6563]

119. Re-elect Gore 2008!

:woohoo: :party: :toast: :woohoo: :party: :toast: :woohoo: :party: :toast:

[Holly_Hobby]

120. How democratic of Hillary and John

:sarcasm:

[Catchawave]

121. WELL, that does it, I'm voting for Fred Thompson !

:sarcasm:

[Vidar]

122. Dennis speaks for freedom & democracy, Clinton & Edwards for

graft & plutocracy.

[LittleClarkie]

123. Considering Dennis' whole reason for being there is likely to effect the debate

I could see why he'd be pissed. I'm sure he knows he doesn't have a chance, but his pov has a right to be heard just the same as Hillary and Edwards.

That's a strike agin ya Mr. Edwards, and one step closer for me to Obama.

[joe_sixpack]

125. Why the surprise?

The media has decreed that only the big three are viable candidates. Why postpone the inevitable. I keep hoping that some fresh, bold new thinking will come forth from some of the others, but if it does, no one will be listening. Whoever can raise the most money will be the nominee in most elections from now on. We can debate qualifications or ideas but they ain't going to mean jack. The good news is I feel relatively certain that a Dem will win the next presidential election. The bad news is that there's not going to be a lot of say in who that person is. DU will get what it wants, democrats elected, but it infuriates me that the process has fallen to this. When was the last time total sums of money raised by campaigns was more prevalent than poll numbers? What happened to campaign finance reform and the influence of big money on our political system?

[goodgd_yall]

126. Link to video

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Watch and listen and decide what YOU hear. Remember, those who are telling us what the conversation between Clinton and Edwards was about are reporting for the corporate media.

[Alexander]

128. Well Kucinich walked up to them as they were discussing this...

So I'm not surprised he overheard what they were saying.

Trying to exclude candidates is despicable.

Edwards and Clinton won't be getting my vote in the primary, that's for sure.

[redqueen]

130. Can't have people expecting MEDICARE FOR ALL

Not just cause SICKO came out and made it PLAIN that these WHORES are selling us out.

Oh, no... can't have that.

:puke:

[Warren DeMontague]

133. Wow. Edwards is just DETERMINED to drive me to vote for Kooch, isn't he?

Every time I'm like, "Hey, Edwards isn't so bad".. he'll do something like the Gay Marriage crack, or this.

The way things stand now, if it's not Gore, it's Kooch.

[lonestarnot]

141. Yeah!

:applause:

[Beausoir]

137. She's a witch! Burn her!

Jesus. What a tempest in a tea pot.

:eyes:

[uppityperson]

142. Have you seen THIS thread with THE REST OF THE STORY?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1328351

[Scout1071]

143. I kind of agree....at some point....we need a smaller pool.

I mean, let's be serious....as of now...there are only 3 candidates. The rest raise some interesting questions, but the race - right now - is between 3 people.

Having said that.....fuck that. The others have just as much right to be there.

And having said ALL of that.....Al Gore is 120% my man. Check out my GOREGANIC LINE of all organic, all natural line of Al Gore gear at www.goreganic.com or myspace page at www.myspace.com/goreganic. The only line that supports Al the All Natural way.

[lovuian]

144. Dennis is picking up momentum in the poles thats why this

debate is taking on now... if the Dems go with this limiting freedom of speech well its just a sign on why we are not having impeachment hearings now and still in Iraq

[WilliamPitt]

145. "momentum in the poles"

:rofl: