PDA

View Full Version : Clinton, Edwards talk of limiting debate


recxjake
07-13-2007, 10:15 AM
Clinton, Edwards talk of limiting debate

Associated Press - July 13, 2007 2:23 AM ET

DETROIT (AP) - Democrats John Edwards and Hillary Rodham Clinton consider themselves among the top presidential candidates.

They were caught by Fox News microphones discussing their desire to limit future joint appearances to exclude some lower rivals after a forum in Detroit Thursday.

Edwards says, "We should try to have a more serious and a smaller group."

Clinton agrees, saying, "We've got to cut the number" and "they're not serious." She also says that she thought their campaigns had already tried to limit the debates and say, "We've gotta get back to it."

Others taking part in the forum sponsored by the NAACP were Senators Barack Obama, Chris Dodd and Joe Biden, Congressman Dennis Kucinich, New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson and former Alaska Senator Mike Gravel.

One Republican, Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo, also participated.

http://www.wluctv6.com/Global/story.asp?S=6784011

recxjake
07-13-2007, 10:17 AM
Back to Story - Help
Kucinich Camp Outraged by 'Overheard' Plans of Clinton and Edwards to Eliminate Candidates from Future Presidential Debates, Forums Fri Jul 13, 4:16 AM ET




To: NATIONAL EDITORS


Contact: Andy Juniewicz, Cleveland National HQ, Kucinich for President 2008, +1-216-409-8992, Ajuniewicz@aol.com


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."


The Kucinich campaign will immediately take steps to address the planned actions of the Clinton and Edwards campaigns.

recxjake
07-13-2007, 10:17 AM
http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=3371185

Caught on tape!

Taco John
07-13-2007, 10:22 AM
If there are enough stupid Americans to vote Bush into office, there are probably an equal amount who would vote for a Hillary/Edwards ticket.

jAZ
07-13-2007, 10:28 AM
Rudy is saying the same thing.

It's good strategy for frontrunners, and a pragmatic necessity to get a deeper understanding of the "finalists" before the election.

If I were Kucinich or Gravel or Tommy Thompson or whatever... I'd be upset and fight to stay involved as long as I could.

jAZ
07-13-2007, 10:36 AM
"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.
First, I agree. But I don't think there is any system that can get around this scenario.

Clinton, Edwards and Obama agreed to hold a debate among the three of them only. And they invite MSNBC to host the event. And all of the networks to cover it.

There's nothing Kucinich or anyone else can do to stop those 3 campaigns from doing so, and there's nothing that can stop the networks from covering it.

recxjake
07-13-2007, 10:47 AM
Rudy is saying the same thing.

It's good strategy for frontrunners, and a pragmatic necessity to get a deeper understanding of the "finalists" before the election.

If I were Kucinich or Gravel or Tommy Thompson or whatever... I'd be upset and fight to stay involved as long as I could.

I don't disagree......

I would much rather have a debate between Rudy, Romney and Fred... but that's not how it works.

jAZ
07-13-2007, 11:05 AM
I don't disagree......

I would much rather have a debate between Rudy, Romney and Fred... but that's not how it works.
In fact the system works as the canddiates and the networks and the event organizers wish it to work.

Cochise
07-13-2007, 11:22 AM
Clinton here obviously does not want to endure being the target of 7 or 8 people at a debate and would prefer it just be 2 or 3 others. Hard to judge what the Breck Girl's motivation might be. Maybe because he's a minor candidate, he wants the airtime divided by 3 instead of some smaller fraction.

Maybe better would be that the top 5 or 6 candidates would be all that could get in. There's simply not much use to a debate with 10 candidates, but there's not much more use if there are only two or three, in primary season.

Mile High Mania
07-13-2007, 11:41 AM
Reality says that there are really only 2-3 "legit" candidates anyway... all the others are spare options looking for 15 more minutes of fame. A number of them are not charismatic, they do not have anything stellar to say.

Cochise
07-13-2007, 11:48 AM
Reality says that there are really only 2-3 "legit" candidates anyway... all the others are spare options looking for 15 more minutes of fame. A number of them are not charismatic, they do not have anything stellar to say.

Who's to say that, though?

There are probably a lot of people out there today who think Al Gore is charismatic, but in the debates in 2000 he looked positively robotic.

I don't see anything charismatic about Hillary. Her voice is grating and I find her to be a poor and abrasive speaker.

I don't see anything particularly charismatic about Barry Obama either. He just isn't Foo-Foo Edwards or Hillary, who reminds you of a mean elementary school teacher.

Somewhere the line needs to be drawn between inclusion and reality, but the debates also serve to direct the party agenda and bring points into people's consciousness. They are also good stages for potential running mates. Why can't there be a balance?

If realism is the only criteria, then John Edwards shouldn't be there. If Ann Coulter stopped writing for a month or two he'd have to board up his campaign offices.

There ought to be some sane limit. Like only the top 5 candidates, or only those polling 5% or more.

recxjake
07-13-2007, 11:56 AM
Reality says that there are really only 2-3 "legit" candidates anyway... all the others are spare options looking for 15 more minutes of fame. A number of them are not charismatic, they do not have anything stellar to say.

ROFL....

I like hearing other views, it's refreshing.

go bowe
07-13-2007, 12:34 PM
Who's to say that, though?

There are probably a lot of people out there today who think Al Gore is charismatic, but in the debates in 2000 he looked positively robotic.

I don't see anything charismatic about Hillary. Her voice is grating and I find her to be a poor and abrasive speaker.

I don't see anything particularly charismatic about Barry Obama either. He just isn't Foo-Foo Edwards or Hillary, who reminds you of a mean elementary school teacher.

Somewhere the line needs to be drawn between inclusion and reality, but the debates also serve to direct the party agenda and bring points into people's consciousness. They are also good stages for potential running mates. Why can't there be a balance?

If realism is the only criteria, then John Edwards shouldn't be there. If Ann Coulter stopped writing for a month or two he'd have to board up his campaign offices.

There ought to be some sane limit. Like only the top 5 candidates, or only those polling 5% or more.that's a good idea...

maby it should be open to any announced candidate for the early debates, but the later debates should be limited to obvious front runners (5% at first, then increase the percentage as we go along into the campaigns)...

having said all that, i think the criteria for each debate is a product of negotiations between the candidates' campaign staff and the host(s) of the debate...

SBK
07-13-2007, 12:49 PM
The funny thing is that Edwards isn't a serious canidate either! The dem ticket is Obama or Hillary, nobody else matters......

Mr. Laz
07-13-2007, 01:19 PM
i don't agree with limiting the debates and excluding people.

they just need to moderate the debates with more efficiency so substance comes out instead of a bunch of blather.


have i said that i don't much like Hillary lately?!?

SBK
07-13-2007, 03:48 PM
Speaking of Edwards, it'll be interesting to see what the gay community thinks of him after the big gay debate.

They didn't care too much for him after his treatment of Cheney in the last election season....

ChiefaRoo
07-13-2007, 04:28 PM
Speaking of Edwards, it'll be interesting to see what the gay community thinks of him after the big gay debate.

They didn't care too much for him after his treatment of Cheney in the last election season....

Yeah, I'd like to know what Go Chiefs thinks too.

Logical
07-13-2007, 06:57 PM
Speaking of Edwards, it'll be interesting to see what the gay community thinks of him after the big gay debate.

They didn't care too much for him after his treatment of Cheney in the last election season....What issue are you referring to?

Gracie Dean
07-14-2007, 11:43 AM
For his part, Edwards told reporters in Iowa that he wasn't in favor of barring anyone from future gatherings. Rather, he said he wanted to see them separated into two groups of four each, chosen randomly.

"The result would be that we would have a much more serious discussion and people would actually be able to see what the differences are between us," he said.


http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8QBT8HG0&show_...


So John Edwards wanted to break up into 2 groups of 4 so that more could be covered.

I guess everyone just jumped to conclusions. All the other reduction talk was about the debates themselves. In other words, the conversation was about debate format.

bigfoot
07-14-2007, 01:05 PM
If there are enough stupid Americans to vote Bush into office, there are probably an equal amount who would vote for a Hillary/Edwards ticket.

I didn't vote for him in the republican primary.....

go bowe
07-14-2007, 04:13 PM
If there are enough stupid Americans to vote Bush into office, there are probably an equal amount who would vote for a Hillary/Edwards ticket.i would question that...

besides, it will be hussein on the top of the ticket, not hillary or john...