CNN: Clinton, Edwards caught on open mic

[AsburySkinsFan]

I guess Clinton and Edwards want the whole thing to themselves.

"Yeah, Jimmy and Susie you can even grow up to be President if Hillary and John Edwards say its ok."

July 13, 2007

Clinton, Edwards caught on open mic

WASHINGTON (CNN) –Next time, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-New York, and former Sen. John Edwards, D-North Carolina, will think twice about holding a private conversation when live microphones are present.

The two Democratic presidential hopefuls had an unscripted moment Thursday at the conclusion of the NAACP candidate forum where they were overheard talking about how to thin out the number of candidates participating in these presidential events.

At the conclusion of the forum, Edwards approached Clinton on stage to talk, and the two expressed frustration over the number of candidates in the debate forum and the time allotted for answers.

The open microphone caught the following exchange:

Clinton: “We’ve got to talk, because they are just being trivialized.”

Edwards: “They are not serious.”

Clinton: “No.”

Clinton: “I think there was an effort by our campaigns to do that. That got somehow detoured. We got to get back to it, because that’s all we’re going to do.”

Clinton: “Our guys should talk.”

While Clinton and Edwards did not specifically mention any candidate by name, Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, posted a scathing statement on his website condemning his two rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination.

“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,” Kucinich said. “Imperial candidates are as repugnant to the American people and to our Democracy as an imperial President.”

Eric Schultz, a spokesman for Edwards’ presidential campaign, said the former North Carolina senator was not suggesting excluding candidates, but instead is proposing to “break up the field into smaller groups for real debates.”

“You cannot explain how you will end the War in Iraq or solve the climate crisis in 60 seconds,” Schultz added.

Meanwhile, a Clinton spokesman declined to elaborate on the comments, saying, “It was private conversation and forums like yesterdays are important.”

In an interesting twist, Kucinich has been criticized for not appearing at political debates for his congressional seat. Andy Juniewicz, spokesman Kucinich’s presidential campaign, said the congressman has never sought to exclude another candidate from appearing at a debate or forum.

“The only issue is whether the congressmen appeared at a specific debate in the City of Cleveland at an organization called the City Club,” Juniewicz said in an interview Friday. “The City Club is not even in his congressional district. Second, over the years, the last congressional campaign or the campaign before that or the campaign before that he made numerous appearances at community organizations, various forums, street clubs, block clubs and a variety of other venues. What we are talking about in context of what happened yesterday is what has been described as subterfuge, conspiracy and collusion to exclude other candidates. The congressman has never ever attempted to exclude another candidate to present his or her issues to the public. There is absolutely no parallel.”

“The DNC has sanctioned six additional debates,” Juniewicz said. “If Senator Clinton or former Senator Edwards chooses not to participate in those debates because Dennis Kucinich is participating then that is their choice.”

[dreamingwolf]

I dont get the leftist outrage here, what are you ladies supposed to be upset about.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Leftist? What the heck are you talking about? do you honestly think I was going to vote for either of these jokers?

[Baculus]

If that is the case, it is just as bad as Republican efforts to shut out candidates as Ron Paul. It is shameful.

[bschurm]

I really don't see what the big deal is? Does anyone out there really think anyone who has declared their candidacy is going to beat either of these two. They know it and so should you. I think they are both going to be shocked when Gore decides to run. He will throw the Democratic race for a loop and may have the momentum to take the nomination.

What we should be talking about is the relevance of starting with these debates so early. I believe this is going to cause disdain, maybe even de-sensitize, so by the time the primaries come many will be tired of hearing the same drivel and choose not to vote.

[jnhay]

Where do they say that only the major candidates should be able to debate? It sounds to me that they're saying just what I'm thinking, in that there are too many people debating and no one really gets to make their points clearly.

[SnyderShrugged]

I think that the outrage for this situation and for the Ron Paul one of late, is around a few critical facts. First, I think that at this stage, we are well over a year away from the election. Any candidates really should have the option of participating fully and equally. It undermines the entire process to limit them this early. Another point is that all of the "annointed" candidates have been successful in pushing the primaries up to a rediculously early date starting as soon as February, thus limiting further the "little guys" time to campaign. The smaller campaigns are going to have a hard time affording bouncing from state to state in a compressed time period since they dont have Clintonesque fleets of jets and large scale resources.

Why do any of you feel that it's proper to limit the field to just the annointed? Do you think that is what the Founders envisioned? Would they be OK with a select and powerful group of individuals effectively deciding whom we are allowed to hear from?

I dont understand how this os OK for either the GOP or the Dems. In fact I think that the entire system should be overhauled to attain some semblence of equity

[AsburySkinsFan]

I really don't see what the big deal is? Does anyone out there really think anyone who has declared their candidacy is going to beat either of these two. They know it and so should you.

Everyone knows that people like Ron Paul aren't going to get their party's nod but that's not the problem because what we're talking about is the ability of other voices from within the parties to have their say, and to voice differing opinions on the issues of the day. I do not believe that it is in our nation's best interest to limit the voices in the national debate to the "anointed". After all if we limited discussion to the "approved" messengers then we would never have had Ron Paul giving Rudy an education in "blowback". If we are going to have a two party system (something I disagree with) then IMO it is necessary for their to be a diversity of views withing the dabates and this means including the other voices in the national debates.

What ticks me off the most is that this discussion if it is to be had at all should be done at the party level, no way the candidates themselves should be able to determine who gets to speak and who doesn't, that is simply self serving and wrong headed.

[ECU-ALUM]

Stuff like this makes me think that "The Daily Show" has the right title for all of this..."Cluster f*** to the White House."

[AsburySkinsFan]

Stuff like this makes me think that "The Daily Show" has the right title for all of this..."Cluster f*** to the White House."

It is quite interesting how well John Stewart boils away all the smoke and mirrors and gets at the heart of the matter. Plus we've got to be able to laugh at these maroons (yes I typed maroons google bugs bunny and maroon) otherwise we'd probably kill them all.

[Leonard Washington]

If that is the case, it is just as bad as Republican efforts to shut out candidates as Ron Paul. It is shameful.

exactly...doesn't really mean anything. i think it will probably help. what better time to steal good ideas from other lesser known opponents? :laugh:

[Baculus]

Everyone knows that people like Ron Paul aren't going to get their party's nod but that's not the problem because what we're talking about is the ability of other voices from within the parties to have their say, and to voice differing opinions on the issues of the day. I do not believe that it is in our nation's best interest to limit the voices in the national debate to the "anointed". After all if we limited discussion to the "approved" messengers then we would never have had Ron Paul giving Rudy an education in "blowback". If we are going to have a two party system (something I disagree with) then IMO it is necessary for their to be a diversity of views withing the dabates and this means including the other voices in the national debates.

What ticks me off the most is that this discussion if it is to be had at all should be done at the party level, no way the candidates themselves should be able to determine who gets to speak and who doesn't, that is simply self serving and wrong headed.

QFT. You right on target with this sentiment!

In this case, they are trying to shut out candidates such as Dennis Kucinich, who is the Democrat's version of Ron Paul and probably one of the only Democrats I'd vote for. (Like Paul, I don't agree with all of his philosophies, but more so then most of the other candidates...)

I have a feeling if none of my favored candidates wins the primary, I'll be voting Libertarian, once again.

[Baculus]

exactly...doesn't really mean anything. i think it will probably help. what better time to steal good ideas from other lesser known opponents? :laugh:

Yep - steal those ideas and then claim them as their own!

Politicians can really be despicable creatures.

[TradeTheBeal!]

If that is the case, it is just as bad as Republican efforts to shut out candidates as Ron Paul. It is shameful.

Controlling whom is electable is far, far more powerful than controlling whom can vote.

Rock the Vote!!

[Teller]

Update: Hillary blames Edwards. Edwards claims he was misunderstood. Keep on demanding accountability, dems!! WOOHOO!! :thumbsup:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070714/ap_on_el_pr/kucinich_edwards_debate

[AsburySkinsFan]

QFT, this needs to be said very loudly.

Controlling whom is electable is far, far more powerful than controlling whom can vote.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Update: Hillary blames Edwards. Edwards claims he was misunderstood. Keep on demanding accountability, dems!! WOOHOO!! :thumbsup:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070714/ap_on_el_pr/kucinich_edwards_debate

What's funny is that little snafu between Hillary and John as all but insured that all the candidates will participate in forums, at least for the foreseable future.

Its funny to see Hillary blaming Edwards and Edwards supporting full involvement by all candidates. Man where to they get these jokers.

[Teller]

What's funny is that little snafu between Hillary and John as all but insured that all the candidates will participate in forums, at least for the foreseable future.

Its funny to see Hillary blaming Edwards and Edwards supporting full involvement by all candidates. Man where to they get these jokers.

They're all for accountability. Provided it's someone else being held accountable.

[twa]

They're all for accountability. Provided it's someone else being held accountable.

Ain't that the American way?

At least in the modern era.

[AsburySkinsFan]

They're all for accountability. Provided it's someone else being held accountable.

Nah, there all for pandering, it just happens to be that the people want accountability, so that's what they pander to.

The only difference between a Rep and a Dem is who finances their campaigns.

hence my sig.

[Teller]

Ain't that the American way?

At least in the modern era.

Pretty much. :doh:

[E-Dog Night]

This is just how the game is played, and how it has been played for many, many years. There's nothing outrageous here. Political battles have been waged along much dirtier lines, long before any of us were born.

Well, except for maybe HapHazard.

[DjTj]

I think what's interesting is that smaller debates would probably help Obama the most. Hillary and Edwards are both pretty good in this sound-byte debate format, but Obama seems to be better in a more open format where he is allowed to talk a little longer.

[isle-hawg]

Nah, there all for pandering, it just happens to be that the people want accountability, so that's what they pander to.

Brilliant!!! Sad but true :doh:

[88Comrade2000]

I'd rather hear from the candidates who realistic have a chance to win the nomination and thus realistic shot at being president. The way the primary schedule has been front loaded, most of the minor candidates are done already. They have no shot in winning the nomination- they for Dennis K. and Ron Paul-- I doubt that's why they are really running. Some of the other candidates are running for veep or cabinet positions.

You can have 2 debates. One for the minor candidates and one for the major candidates. The public gets served well. Hearing more from the ones who have a realistic shot and also, the hearing what the minor candidates. Maybe one of the minor candidates catches fire and becomes a major.

With more than 20 states holding primaries on feb. 5th; the race will be over then unless the major candidates split up the vote.