Why would Hillary and Edwards do this so publicly? Why didn't they know mike could be on?

[KoKo]

Both of them are very experienced in the "ways of the media." Why would they so openly talk about this where not only the mike could be on, but anyone around them could overhear?
------------

Morning Roundup
By Eric Kleefeld and T. W. Farnam | bio

Clinton, Edwards Overheard Talking About Excluding Candidates From Debates
A microphone caught John Edwards and Hillary Clinton after the NAACP forum in Detroit yesterday proposing to exclude lesser-known candidates from the debates with Clinton saying, "We've got to cut the number ... They're not serious." Dennis Kucinich, who can be seen walking up to Clinton a moment later, released a statement saying "Imperial candidates are as repugnant to the American people and to our Democracy as an imperial President."

video link at......
http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/jul/13/election_central_morning_roundup

[SharonRB]

1. Really dumb move.

What were they thinking?

[Lerkfish]

3. well, apparently, we now KNOW what they were thinking.

the question is WHY were they thinking that

[Carolina]

29. HRC thinking she's entitled

JE thinking he's the best.

Both enabled the war from the start and don't want the likes of Kucinich or Gravel reminding them of their past, most egregious mistake.

Sorry and I wish I knew then what I know now JUST DON'T CUT IT.

[BeyondGeography]

2. But it was a Fox mike so they really didn't say anything

:sarcasm:

at least, that's what the Hillarians are saying.

[aquart]

5. Once again, Obama wasn't there.

So we can't know what he would have been saying into that mike.

Can we?

[BeyondGeography]

8. A new, if unintelligble, angle emerges...What does Obama have to do with it?

[rinsd]

7. I'll remember that when FoxNews calls Barack "Osama" umpteen times over the next year

[BeyondGeography]

9. There's a difference between recording other's comments and slandering from the studio

you should be able to grasp that.

[rinsd]

12. Have you heard the audio?

At this point I am waiting for the candidates to comment on it.

Until then, the entire thing is suspect and should be treated as such.

I would do the same if my candidate wasn't involved.

In fact this hardly hurts my candidate and probably hurts Edwards more since he must draw from that pool of supporters and he also depends on the netroots which are more likely to be aware of this story.

[BeyondGeography]

15. Oh, they said it all right, they're just trying to figure out proper spin control

and this too shall pass.

I do agree with your other point on who smells worse. Then again, love tends to be blind with Edwards' supporters.

On edit: Looks like Team Clinton won't be saying anything (and that would seem to include refuting the story and blaming Fox's microphones).

<Asked for comment, a Clinton campaign spokesman said, “We’re not discussing it.”>

Here's what Edwards' campaign is saying (another non-denial, make it go away-type response):

<An Edwards spokesman emails us, "Edwards thought yesterday was a good forum, but wants additional substantive debates over the course of the campaign.">

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/07/13/269346.aspx

[orleans]

11. oh my god--that happened yesterday on spitball!

mike barnacle was taking over for tweety and he was talking to 3 guys (i tuned in late--at the end of the show i think) and this third jerk refereed to obama as osama--AND NO ONE CAUGHT IT??

(maybe i'm hearing things, but i'm almost positive that was said--it pissed me off to no end!)

[rinsd]

14. It drives me nuts.

And I do think someone wrote about that here.

Media Matters has volumes at this point of rw assholes calling him Osama.

[Crunchy Frog]

18. I heard it too.

That'll teach me to turn the TV on two minutes before KO starts.

[TahitiNut]

19. Yep. I caught it. The GOP shill was actually proud of it.

Disgusting.

[paulk]

17. so you trust Fox to be honest?

Good luck with that.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

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

[paulk]

38. only if you're stupid enough to take them at their word

on their version of what was said.

"bunch of tinfoilers"? WTF is that supposed to mean? If all you have are insults, I'd just as soon you keep them to yourself...

[BeyondGeography]

39. You're implying an evil conspiracy on the part of Fox's sound technology

have you heard or seen any denials from Clinton or Edwards about the transcription of their remarks? No...only the :tinfoilhat: like you are stupid enough to deny the obvious.

[ieoeja]

40. And those transcripts don't mention the other candidates. n/t

[paulk]

42. only if you accept Fox's version of what they

heard...

and as far as an "evil conspiracy", we are talking about FOX, here. It is perfectly reasonable to question Fox's motivations and their "transcript".

Edwards has denied that they were talking about limiting the field. He said that they were talking about reducing the number of debates, which fits better into what I was able to understand from the recording. And I did listen to it.

Have you listened to the recording? Or are you taking Fox's word for what was said?

[BeyondGeography]

44. I've listened to it numerous times

and the problem I have with the "it was about the debates not the candidates" theory is, if true, Edwards and Clinton have to tell which Democratic debate sponsors and their underlying constituencies are "not serious" and "trivial." So they stepped in shit no matter how you look at it, which is why they're keeping quiet and hoping the whole thing goes away.

Let's, for the sake of argument, say you're correct and Fox is up to something. Don't you think Edwards in particular, who has scored a number of points with the netroots by slamming Fox, would jump at the opportunity here? The fact that he's saying nothing to refute the transcripts as relayed in press report after press report should tell you something.

[The Count]

4. because they don't see anything wrong with it - they are entitled, you see?

Hillary displayed this when asking us to vote for her in November (before the primaries took place). I didn't. Edwards - well, another ironical turn for the champion of the little guy, ain't it? :shrug:

[Lex]

6. You mean they want less candidates in the race to run against?!11

And that's scandalous? I thought that would be expected by any candidate.

[MannyGoldstein]

10. It Happens

A friend of mine was in a performance with a pretty major opera company. The crew forgot to turn off the mike when a character walked offstage. Minutes later, the audience was treated to the amplified sound of a flushing toilet.

[Truthiness Inspector]

50. Ha!

That cracked me up.

:o

I don't think this microphone "scandal" is a big deal. The more candidates there are, the less time each one has to speak. That was my interpretation of the overheard comments.

[Robbien]

13. Oh heck, why have an election at all.

Just tell us who you DC elites have decided to anoint why don't you.

[Lex]

16. Yeah, they are so mean to want less candidates to run against.

:eyes:

[ElizabethDC]

20. You can see Hillary putting her hand over her mic and John removing his

I'm assuming they thought the mics were switched off, but Hillary covered hers up just in case (she leanred her lesson after the time her mic picked up her singing of the National Anthem at a campaign event) - and John took his mic off entirely. It's pretty clear that they assumed that no one else could hear them, but at the same time it was obviously not a totally top-secret conversation.

[Snotcicles]

22. NADER

[mmonk]

23. To plant the idea in voters' heads others aren't serious candidates

[durrrty libby]

24. News Flash....Candidates try to eliminate each other. That's how they get to

the top of the heap

This is a dumb non-story

[Lex]

31. I thought I was crazy thinking the same thing.

Glad you mentioned it too.

[durrrty libby]

35. I can't believe there are half a dozen threads on this nonsense

It must be a slow hot summer day

[Big Blue Marble]

33. I thought it was the voters who do the eliminating...

not the other candidates

[durrrty libby]

36. Well duh! They still have to duke it out, jockey for position,

and leave behind the bottom feeders.

It's called politics.

[Big Blue Marble]

46. I hardly think it is appropriate to call Dennis Kucinich

a bottom feeder. Debates are as much about ideas as they are about candidates.
Shut out everyone who 'doesn't have a chance," and you end up with a lot
of DLC rehash. It is the "little' candidates that often have the big ideas.

[Lex]

37. Newsflash--not all the candidates will make it to the end of the primary.

nt

[Big Blue Marble]

49. That is why we have the primary process,

to sort out the candidates and the ideas. Who says
that the favorites get to decide who gets to stay in
process?

[DU9598]

25. So scandalous

NOT! My preference would be for the candidates at 7% in the combined polls to agree to their own debates hosted by the campaigns, not some corporate media conglomerate or other interest group. Those 3 to 4 candidates could ask each other questions and have a free flow of ideas. I think Clinton, Obama and Edwards would all benefit from it.

The present debates with Kucinich and Gravel, etc are silly exercises in futility. Perhaps I should run for President and demand a spot at the table ... I could raise $50,000 pretty easily and host a website. But that would not make me a legitimate candidate.

[mmonk]

26. I want my exercise in futility so I can vote my conscience

thank you very much. If you people want your political heroes to receive votes from the rest of us should they win the nomination, you ought to shut up.

[Snotcicles]

27. What next, allow them more than twelve seconds to elaborate on an issue? nt

[Robbien]

28. These guys will never reverse all the power Cheney/Bush grabbed for the presidency

If they believe they have the power to decide whether others can run against them, I don't see how they will give up any presidential power at all if they are "selected" for the WH.

[librechik]

30. i think they mistakenly believed it was ok to chat about anything--it's a free country

not.

And Dennis is displaying one of our most annoying traits--censoring our own because our own butts are involved in the issue. I can understand his pique, but does he really want to shut them down? That would make him as bad as they are.

If I were Dennis, I would "welcome the debate," and confront them openly on the issue instead of sniping behind their backs. That's what Dems should do on all issues, just jump in and demand a showdown now!

[Lex]

32. Breaking news: Candidates want to elimate each other during primaries!

nt

[zulchzulu]

34. Arrogance with a little stupidity on the side

You'd think they'd wait until they left the stage...ferchrissakes...

[ieoeja]

41. Because that isn't what they were talking about.

"Why would Hillary and Edwards do this so publicly?"

You are asking why Hillary and Edwards would speak to each other openly in front of the other candidates about working to exclude those other candidates from future debates. I believe that answer is obvious. They didn't. They were talking about something else. All the rest is just speculation.

Not only that, but speculation which originated from the GOP.

[SharonRB]

43. Thom Hartmann was talking about this today

It's not what they were talking about. They were talking about there being too many forums/debates, etc., and the number should be cut down.

Thom mentioned DU specifically and how people were going crazy over this.

[KoKo]

45. I hope both Hillary and Edwards will make statements on this...because

the video and transcript will come back to bite them. They should have been on this right away, hopefully by tonight's evening news.

[martymar64]

47. They are imperial assholes

And now I see them both on the same level as Bush.

They both suck horse dick.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

48. shocked just shocked