Edwards, Clinton: 'Biden, Gravel, Kucinich are not serious candidates'

[rhombus]

Open mics picked up Edwards and Hillary's secret conversations/handshake --

Snip--

After the forum, Fox News microphones picked up Clinton and Edwards 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.

Clinton agreed. "We've got to cut the number. ... They're not serious," she said , then thanked Obama and Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich as they walked by. Turning back to Edwards, she added that she thought their campaigns had already tried to limit the debates and "we've gotta get back to it."

http://www.philly.com/philly/wires/ap/news/nation/elections/presidential/8463532.html


So John Edwards and Hillary Clinton are now conspiring to shut out Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel, Joe Biden, and Chris Dodd from future debates? This is a disgrace coming from supposed Democrats who should know better. Shutting out voices of conscience is not the way to gain support.

[polichick]

1. Yikes...not good. nt

[politicasista]

2. Thankfully, I have no dogs or cats in this fight

Good luck to those who do. :hi: 08 going to be a nasty one.

[barack4prez]

15. What the hell does this post mean?

You think that these folk ain't important to you?

[OnyxCollie]

21. Maybe Politicasista is not a US citizen.

Some folks have the luxury of watching this slow-motion trainwreck from a position outside the car.

[politicasista]

26. FYI, I am a US citizen

Born and raised. Pay taxes too. :hi:

[politicasista]

25. You're not helping Obama with that attitude

I was considering supporting him without tearing down other Democrats (running or not running). I will vote for the nominee, but I have a right to stay out of the primaries and observe if I want.

[LeftyMom]

3. They know the voters want more choices

The last thing they want to do is give them to them, after all they might do something crazy like vote for somebody based on something more than name recognition and branding! :scared:

[The Magistrate]

4. They Are Not Serious Candidates, Sir, And By Autumn Will Not Feature In the Debates

[NCarolinawoman]

13. I've always felt that smaller debates would be more effective; however

If Edwards had held himself to these same rules at this time back in 2003, he would most likely have excluded himself.

[Hippo_Tron]

32. I think Edwards was polling higher than Kucinich, Biden, Dodd, Kucinich, and Gravel are

But if they want to exclude Richardson, then I think the rules would apply.

[BeyondGeography]

69. What makes you think that?

The so-called "fringe" candidates like Kucinich and Sharpton showed up at every debate in the 2004 campaign through January. They don't have the same expense load as the top-tier and the debates are free (and massive) exposure. If past experience is any guide, you're wrong.

[ludwigb]

5. They Didn't Mention Those Names

anywhere in the article. So your title post seems misleading to me.

I'd be for excluding Gravel, though with some reservations as he's a good guy. I'd prefer if Biden and Dodd would drop out of the race, but I don't think it's justifiable to exclude them at this early date.

[Herman Munster]

6. they are right at least about gravel

he is not a serious candidate.

[bigwillq]

10. It is misleading

and inaccurate. I think the OP should edit.

[wyldwolf]

7. FOX vs. MSNBC ....

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/07/12/267951.aspx

[maximusveritas]

8. Sounds like the Fox microphone picked it up better

Even when I read the MSNBC description earlier, I figured they were talking about excluding the other candidates.

[CC]

54. Or Fox Noise just filled

in the blanks with whatever they wanted. Wouldn't be the first time.

[earthlover]

9. Hell....I could make a case that NONE of the announced candidates are serious candidates!

What arrogance on the part of Edwards and Clinton! And stupidity, with an open mike. Oh, come to think of it, seems as if Edwards has had previous experiences with open mikes/cameras. And the one time in her life Hillary takes a stand on anything, this is it?

Gore? Clark? Save us from the pablum! Announce today!!!!!

[Cameron27]

11. Clark, Gore, yeah count me in for either of them!

[razors edge]

14. Absofuckinlutely.

With friends like these, who needs enemys?

If either of these two make it to the WH we will see no end to war for a long time.

That is if * actually leaves office on time.

Maybe if he knows they will replace him he will, and that still sucks.

[earthlover]

36. You're not comfortable with a candidate who was endorsed by Michael Moore and George McGovern?

Wow! I guess Moore and McGovern are war-locks? But they both endorsed Clark. Clark, you know, the one who has spoken out against war in IRAN (when have any of the announced candidates made a big deal about opposition to Iran? HUH?). And Clark, the guy who has made it clear that war is for last, last, last possible resort.

Pisses me off. What is this? George avoids war service, as did many of the administration who did not serve but were warlocks. But you take THAT as a standard and attack someone who knows first hand what war can do, has been there and served valiantly, and you fear someone who actually knows how horrible war is... is MORE likely to go to war? That makes as much sense as electing our chickenhawk president! Only in reverse.

We will stay in war more likely if we have folks like Clinton in power who will eternally feel the need to NOT look weak. And you could say the same about most of the other candidates, for that matter. With Clark, he has nothing to prove. Already done that. He would bring to the plate diplomacy, negotiations, dialogue in the Middle East, and a number of things that the namby-pamby crowd wouldn't dare attempt. But you think he is a warlock? What ARE you smokin'?

[CarolNYC]

38. Maybe I shouldn't speak for DiktatrW, but I think he was talking about....

Clinton and Edwards, earthlover, not Wes and Al...

[earthlover]

41. My embarrassed apology in that case....dang

[CarolNYC]

43. It's understandable you reacted that way....

considering the unfair assumptions some people make about Clark because he was in the military....We've both seen it way too many times, I'm sure.

[razors edge]

78. Sorry for the confusion,

I was talking about Clinton and Edwards.

Gore and Clark would be a welcome choice.:hi:

[davidwparker]

17. you have a point. actually, I feel Kucinich is the best Dem running, but

look forward to Gore announcing and shut them all out. Clark would be a great VP.

[penguin7]

12. If you ain't getting that special interest money, you ain't serious.

[davidwparker]

16. that's really poor. n/t

[NCarolinawoman]

18. Anybody know what candidates were polling at this time in 2003?

Was Joe Lieberlooser considered "serious"? I have a vague recollection of Edwards polling at 4%. Can someone set me straight on who the "serious" candidates were?

[bigwillq]

19. I believe JoMo

was in the lead in several polls in the early going. I will try and search for some links. Others may know for sure though.

[bigwillq]

23. I don't have the energy

to really search for that info but I did find this


~snip~
In the same poll, likely Democratic primary voters give a plurality of their support to former Vermont Governor Dr. Howard Dean (16%), whose campaign has been gathering support in recent polling. He is followed by Massachusetts Senator John Kerry (13%), Connecticut Senator Joseph Lieberman (12%), and Missouri Congressman Richard Gephardt (8%). No other candidate polled more than 3%.


It shows JoeMoe in third with 12 percent

from this link in Sept. 2003
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=732

[NCarolinawoman]

24. You did good! Thanks! n/t

[maximusveritas]

27. Edwards was still at 5% on Jan 10, 2004. It wasn't until Iowa that

he broke through.
Maybe that's why he's trying to force out the weaker candidates now. He knows how dangerous they can be if they're allowed to hang around.

[CarolNYC]

40. Good point. n/t

[MuseRider]

50. He only broke through in Iowa because of Kucinich

who knew he was not going to do as well so he sent his delegates over the Edwards. What a nice way to repay him for that. My opinion of Edwards has gone from OK but not my type for a candidate to really creepy.

[Texas_Kat]

20. It' bad enough that the media wants to short circuit the process

When the candidates begin to conspire to do the same thing --- on second thought, it's worse! -- what does that say about them as candidates.

It says more than enough for me. I've been disenfranchised for the last damned time!

[tridim]

22. I hope more are conspiring to get rid of Gravel.

His ideas are batshit insane, he's an arrogant asshole, AND HE'S NOT A DEMOCRAT.

[jsamuel]

33. I agree. Gravel just launches attacks at the other candidates. He isn't serious at all. He threw a

rock into a pond as a campaign ad for heaven's sake.

[The Gunslinger]

28. "Fox News microphones"

I need more proof than that. Id need to hear it first.

[Botany]

29. Fox News .... say no more

[maximusveritas]

31. Can microphones be biased?

Their microphones picked it up, but it's the AP that listened to it and is telling us what it picked up.
In any case, I suspect we'll find out soon enough when this inevitably gets posted on youtube.

[ieoeja]

72. The interpretation can be.

They were speaking in a normal tone of voice surrounded by the very people they were allegedly wanting to exclude from future debates. Only FOX could make up an explanation so stupid.

[mikelgb]

30. charming n/t

[jsamuel]

34. OP does not know who they exactly are talking about. Making assumptions.

I agree with them with Gravel for sure. Possibly Dodd, Kucinich, and Biden too.

[Tejanocrat]

42. Absolutely. This is a crazy unfounded assumption to imply that it concerns any specific candidate.

[Texas_Kat]

45. Hume's show repeats

I guess I'll have to watch.

[iamjoy]

35. This Makes No Sense

I mean, as a stategy, I can understand Edwards wanting to limit debates. From a tactical viewpoint, he places himself in the same tier as Hillary and Obama even though he is actually behind them in polls and fundraising. Smaller debates would certainly help him. If he realizes that some of the others in the field may be a "threat" down the road, he heads off that possiblity in advance. On the other hand, what did he have to gain by saying to Hillary that the other candidates "weren't serious" unless he honestly believed that to be the case?

But Hillary - what has she to gain by smaller debates? She is currently the front runner. Following conventional political wisdom, she's the one with the most to lose in a debate. So, I would think she'd want fewer debates and a crowded field to help her stand out all the more. IMHO, Hillary's lead would be in danger if she had to go head to head against Obama. But, against 7 other candidates, she has a comfortable lead. And why should she consider Edwards serious when she raised more than twice as much money as he did the last quarter and has a double digit lead over him in most polls? What has she to gain from this "deal"?

:shrug:

Any ideas?

[southerncrone]

47. To insure corporate interests remain intact?

I know HRC is bought & paid for by corporate hacks, but thought Edwards was more of a grassroots candidate. I really like him, but this makes me question things some. Maybe, she was feeling him out for VP material? Working in collusion like this at this point in time is sleazy. I am disappointed in him. Her action does not surprise me.

[flaminbats]

55. it gives 2nd tier candidates more publicity

why indeed? I'm still undecided, but usually rely on the debates to make a choice. when a candidate doesn't participate, this only makes it less likely that I'll support him in the primary.

1992 I started by supporting Jerry Brown, but I voted for Paul Tsongas in the primary. in 2004 I started by backing Howard Dean, but he dropped out before my primary..so I voted for Dennis Kucinich.

so far..any of these Democrats would get my vote if nominated, but not one has my support.

[barack4prez]

37. I wouldn't piss off Biden

there's no telling what he'll say next.

[jillan]

49. He would NEVER say something as stupid as this.

[CarolNYC]

39. Geez, if they really are trying to lock some out of the debates....

that's really fucked up on both their parts.

[jillan]

44. And that my friends is exactly why the 2 of them will never get my vote.

I don't want another meglomaniac in the WH.

grrrr!

[GOPBasher]

46. This is so disappointing to me. I've always loved Edwards... don't know now.

I'm disillusioned.

[zulchzulu]

48. I'm giving money to Kucinich, Gravel, Biden and Dodd tonight

Edwards and Clinton can go Cheney themselves. Their true colors show in their idiotic arrogance with the open mics. What dumb assholes...

[jefferson_dem]

51. No shit. What a couple of arrogant fucks...plotting...scheming...

as they *smile* for the cameras.

:puke:

[zulchzulu]

70. I sent $25 to each of them with a message that they need to stay in the race

Best $100 I've spent this week...

Kucinich
https://services.myngp.com/ngponlineservices/contribution.aspx?X=aDlDFFT9TMGh0ghebdP6VkYKCfcT%2fFNw

Gravel
http://www.gravel2008.us/donate

Biden
https://secure.ga3.org/03/joebiden

Dodd
http://www.chrisdodd.com/
https://salsa.wiredforchange.com/o/1318/t/120/shop/custom.jsp?donate_page_KEY=1476&__utma=1.590357944.1184336480.1184336480.1184336480.1&__utmb=1&__utmc=1&__utmx=-&__utmz=1.1184336480.1.1.utmccn%3D(organic)%7Cutmcsr%3Dgoogle%7Cutmctr%3Ddodd%2Bweb%2Bsite%7Cutmcmd%3Dorganic&__utmv=-&__utmk=186260906

[draft_mario_cuomo]

52. Where did they mention any specific candidates?

What Faux is saying they are doing is lame, if true, but the OP is misleading.

[jefferson_dem]

53. VIDEO with AUDIO posted here --->

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x40560

[CC]

56. Thanks for posting the video link.

After listening to it 3 times with my eyes closed (so I didn't read the screen) I had a hard time making out what they were saying/talking about. Even reading it I see a call for smaller debates but none that mentioned names or even how many to get rid of.

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

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

[SaveElmer]

58. Funny how you left Edwards out of your screed as he initiated the conversatiion...

[MonkeyFunk]

60. also funny

is that nowhere is the quote in the title of this thread shown to be a real quote.

[Kingstree]

66. It's true. A little advice: just be careful who you support

A the old saying goes. It's not what you say, it's what you do. We don't need the same mistake again. There is too much at stake.

[Kingstree]

61. I'm not even worried about him

He had his chance with Kerry. Any righteous candidate would view all opinions as credible no matter what their position is, would not even listen to this mess, she should have walked away but she engage. It says a lot about her character.

[SaveElmer]

59. If David Duke ran as a Democrat...should the NAACP be required...

To invite him to their forum?

[Kingstree]

63. Yes, this is America

Africa Americans understands racism and bigotry better than anybody on this planet so it wouldn't have any effect. He would be welcomed and allowed to state his position. Nobody's worried about that.

[SaveElmer]

65. So y ou would require t he NAACP to invite a Ku Klux Klan member...

Simply because he filed some papers saying he was a Democratic candidate...

[Kingstree]

67. African americans are afraid of someone's opinion or stand

that era is over It's known that racist ignorant people (including the ones in politics as well as corporate america) saturate this country and they are harmless. I hope that I am not responding to one. If so, I truly feel sorry for you and trying to extend this conversation is really childish and petty. Take care and educate yourself. If not, disregard.

[jsamuel]

62. also notice Edwards said "In the Fall" where as Clinton said her campaign had already tried

Edwards was thrown off by that statement of hers, he was talking about the future and she was saying she wanted it done NOW.

[bbgrunt]

64. it is a blood game. See what they did to Howard last time.

[The Sushi Bandit]

68. Your right! Obama Clinton and Edwards are not serious candidates

either!

[robcon]

71. I agree. Kucinich, Gravel, Biden are not serious candidates.

I understand why Clinton and Edwards want to shut them out... but that would be unwise, IMO.

[ieoeja]

73. Maybe they were talking about Obama?

Or maybe they were talking about something entirely different. But, no, let's believe FOX News' speculation on what these two Democrats meant. Edwards and Clinton were standing on a stage near Biden, Gravel and Kucinich speaking to each other in a normal voice about excluding Biden, Gravel and Kucinich because either Edwards or Clinton possesses super psychic powers they knew would prevent their being overheard by the people standing next to them.

Only FOX could come up with spin this stupid.

[ProudDad]

74. So many want to limit the debate

Why not let this group decide:




Might be better than letting corporate money decide... :sarcasm:

[Jillian]

75. Sadly - you are right.

This is what this election has become.

More glamour, more perfection than actual discussion of how to get this country out of the mess it is in.

[ProudDad]

76. Through the magic of the Vulcan Mind Wave

We now have the COMPLETE transcript of what they said and what they were thinking:

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

<<<I'm tired of my wishy-washy points getting hammered by that damn Kucinich and Gravel>>>

Clinton agreed. "We've got to cut the number. ... They're not serious," she said

<<<My tired soundbites are JUST NOT CUTTING through Kucinish's solid proposals, I can't compete!!!>>>

[venable]

77. who the hell said these names?

not edwards. not clinton.

why do you say these names?

that's called fanning the flames.

get some facts and then come back, please.