No matter what Hillary and Johnny meant, what gives them the audacity...

[Bread and Circus]

to act like they are the only two to decide on how and when the Democrats are going to debate?

At this point I'm thinking it doesn't matter whether they wanted to limit the number of candidates debating, divide them up, or limit the debates altogether (or whatever the rationalization du jour is). What matters is these two characters act like they own the place and get to have "their people get together" and decide what's best for the rest of the candidates and the rest of the Democratic electorate.

No one can argue against the apparent fact they were being fairly presumptuous.

Honestly, Obama and Kucinich walked right up to them and it would have been common decency to include them in on the conversation, would it not? I mean, if their discussion was such a benign and positive thing (which is what the Clinton/Edwards apologists here would have us believe), why didn't they include everyone in on their terrific plans or at least mention it when Barak and Dennis literally walked in on their conversation?

It can be argued to some extent what they were actually talking about at that point (although I'm pretty sure they meant that the "non-serious" candidates were trivializing the debates), but it can't be argued that these two folks took it upon themselves to act in somewhat of an exclusive manner in deciding what the future of the debates should hold. They also acted kind of miffed that their "campaigns" hadn't already taken care of this problem.

Hell, if they are so hot to have a serious debate, then guess what.... debate! Schedule some freakin' dates where's it's open mic and no hold's barred and slug it out to the wee hours.

But they don't really want a serious debate. What they really want is more control over hand-crafted well-controlled Q&A photo ops. I think what really bugs them is that the candidates who don't have much to lose make them look like damned fools because they call them on their bullshit.

[rodeodance]

1. I presume it was their idea which was a good idea.

[napi21]

2. You're making way too much out of this story!

I heard replays of what was supposed to be overheard via the open mike, and I don't think anyone can possibly know what they really meant.

There isn't a candidate on stage that doesn't wish there were fewer candidates! The more there are, the less time each has to answer the questions, AND the less questions each candidate gets asked too!

Although I enjoyed hearing each of our candidates voice their positions, even I wished there were fewer because all we as voters get to hear now are soundbite answers!

[Bread and Circus]

3. That's what I'm saying, it can't be divined what exactly they meant...

but it can be easily ascertained what they were doing and this is acting in a secretive manner to somehow guide the content of future debates. Like I said in the OP, it would have been extremely easy and courteous to involve Barak and Dennis in the conversation as they literally walked into the conversation. All I hear was this:

"Thanks Barak"
"Thanks Dennis"
To Edwards, in a different/hushed tone "we need to have our people talk".

I mean WTF?!?

:shrug:

P.S. This story disgusts me. Who are you to act like you are one to tell me what I should be upset about?

[emilyg]

4. Hey - be upset

who cares.

[napi21]

5. Hey. get excited already! Take another blood pressure pill

and throw a fit. I don't care. I was trying to explain that there are many possible explainations to that VERY BRIEF EXCHANGE.

[stray cat]

6. How dare they talk quietly to one another about frustrations

with a debate format!

[zulchzulu]

7. Two very good points...

The first is why did both Edwards and Clinton not bring up the issue with Obama when he approached both of them? They want to get rid of Kucinich, but Obama kicked both of their asses in the second quarter and leads or nearly leads in most polls.

The second point that nails it is that both Clinton and Edwards would rather just "debate" each other with their well-handled "messages". And of course, neither would want to talk about their votes on the IWR. That must make them very uncomfortable.

It is assumed by Clinton as she was walking away with Edwards that she would get her people to talk with Edwards' people...as if both of them were the only ones that mattered.

:crazy:

[flpoljunkie]

8. Plus, the DNC has already reduced the number of debates-not the number of candidates debating

DNC SANCTIONED DEBATES:

July 23, 2007: YouTube/Google and CNN* in Charleston, SC

August 19, 2007: ABC in Des Moines, IA

September 26, 2007: NBC News/MSNBC** in Hanover, NH

October 30, 2007: NBC News/MSNBC** in Philadelphia, PA

November 15, 2007: CNN* in Las Vegas, NV

December 10, 2007: CBS in Los Angeles, CA


*Debate will be simulcast on CNN en Espanol.
**Telemundo will re-broadcast both debates.

http://dnc.org/a/2007/05/dnc_announces_d_1.php

[rinsd]

29. "leads or nearly leads in most polls." You meant he is within double digits of Hillary (nt)

[MaineDem]

9. We...don't...know

And we probably won't know. We can speculate all we want but we still won't know what was being discussed.

It's possible that all the campaigns will discuss this at some point but any discussion has to start somewhere.

We truly don't know and thank you to Fox for making a mountain out of this molehill. I'm not concerned and I'll wait until the DNC-sponsored debates happen before I jump to any conclusions.

[autorank]

10. Debates only matter if they're rigged, too risky otherwise.

Somebody might say:

I have a question for both of you. Can you tell me why you voted to authorize the Iraq War
when millions of bloggers all over the country knew that the WMD evidence presented at the UN
and in the President's speech was totally bogus?

Same reason Reason the Republicans want Ron Paul out.

[RufusTFirefly]

11. Why do you hate America, autorank?

Awfully uppity of you to even entertain such questions. You obviously don't understand democracy.

:spank:

[hijinx87]

12. I am much more bothered

by the fact that two of our top tier candidates have yet to learn
that the there is always a mike nearby, and it is almost always on.

it sort of reminded me of the first two months of the kerry campaign
after the convention.

[penguin7]

13. Edward's explanation should be troubling to all of us

Does anyone really think that when Edwards talked to Hillary he was talking about smaller groups?

This story completely lacks any credibility.

When Edwards talked to Hillary, I am morally certain that his intent was to pare the group of candidates. I believe that Edwards studied the tape and the words that were said and came up with this alternative story. Edwards story just is not plausible, if only for reasons stated by the OP.

Do we need another president that has a problem with the truth?

[DangerDave921]

14. Time Limit to Run

I think this whole debate is enabled by the sheer length involved in running for president. We have a two-year period of running! It's insane. We need a limit, whether it's 90 days, 120 days, or something else, to allow people to run for president. Personally, I can't focus on political speeches over a 2 year period. There is so much noise out there.

[hijinx87]

15. how would you go about that

without having to shred the constitution?

2 year long primaries are a pain in the ass, but an actual
law dictating how long they are allowed to last is a million
times worse than just living with the annoyance.

[DangerDave921]

16. I don't know

I don't know the precise mechanism, but we somehow found a way to pass a law banning political ads within 60 days of an election. Why can't we pass a law banning running for president within 120 days of an election? Seems to me it would be doable. Or maybe a time limit on when a candidate can accept funds to run. If you eliminate the funds, you eliminate the campaigning.

And think about how much other news we could cover if it wasn't election news 24/7 for two years!

[hijinx87]

19. there were restrictions placed

on certain types of corporate and union sponsored political advertising, but
those restrictions were largely relaxed last month.

I don't think any "worthwhile" news stories are getting crowded out by 2 year
long presidential races. maybe they cover a few less drunk celebrities, or
televised car chases. but a lot of what is on cable news is crap in the first
place.

I think what you are talking about is infinitely more dangerous than just living
with the problem. if people don't want to watch it until next year, they don't
have to.

[DangerDave921]

20. ban

I thought there was a total ban on ads within 60 days. Maybe I'm wrong.

Your argument sounds a lot like those who say if they don't want to listen to RW crap on the radio, just turn the dial. What if there's no other option?

Personally, I think our 2-year campaigning hurts the country because there is so much noise out there, we can't focus on the issues or the candidates. It all blends in together. Why not say you can't start campaigning until July 1st of the election year? Why would that be so bad? You'd still have months to campaign and get the message out. It's like sports rules that preclude a manager from talking to other teams until after the season ends. Very clear rules and very enforceable. It is very doable in the context of politics too.

[hijinx87]

21. the flip side to that coin would say that

extended primary elections are good for the country because they
allow a full and free discussion of all of the issues.

without repealing the first amendment, I just don't think you are going
to stop people from running for president for two years. maybe if it works
out badly in the end for the early declarers, then common sense will prevent
candidates from getting into the race so early, but I would prefer not to see
any type of an actual prohibition. what are you going to do to people that
break that law? throw them in jail?

[DangerDave921]

22. OK

Then why have any restrictions on political advertising? Let's have the Swiftboat guys cranking up their ads all over TV just days before the election. Let's have all the PACS just inundate the airwaves with their skewed ads 24/7.

Too much free speech can be a problem at times. And I'm not limiting content; just the timing of it. If you can't get across your message in 4 months, then you can't do it in 24. You just need to focus.

Penalty would not be jail; it would be financial, i.e., a fine.

[hijinx87]

23. limiting free speech for the purposes of primary elections

I find quite chilling, to be completely honest.

and dragging the vile swiftboaters into a discussion about limiting the
activities of political candidates, much less presidential candidates,
is, um, more than a little hysterical.

[DangerDave921]

24. Not hysterical

You were the one who mentioned the free and full discussion of ideas, and the first amendment. So I was pointing out that I guess the Swifties were just exercising their 1st amendment rights and contributing to the free and full discussion of ideas. If you want one type of free speech, then you gotta have it all. You can't discriminate on the basis of content.

I don't know why you're so freaked out by having a designated campaign season. No one would be prohibited from speaking; it would just be the timing of it that would be different. As long as it's content neutral, the timing of speech can be regulated by the government.

So yes, I would like to see a law that says you can start campaigning for president no earlier than July 1st of the election year. You can solicit funds no sooner than January 1st of the election year. That way, we can all pay attention without the constant drone of election coverage for 18 months or more.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

17. The fact that between them they have as much support as all the others combined?

If Clinton and Edwards have one debate with just the two of them, and all the other candidates have another, the former will probably be the more important.

[Beaverhausen]

18. So I guess all of your conversations involve only things you can decide on?

People talk about all sorts of things all the time...doesn't mean that anything will be done about it.

this is the most bullshit topic to come around here in months- why does anyone keep talking about it?

[LittleClarkie]

25. What if they were only discussig?

Who said they were trying to decide for everyone. It sounds more like they were coming up with ideas.

[jsamuel]

26. bingo

Apparently the op thinks that Clinton and Edwards aren't allowed to have opinions about debate format.

[NYCGirl]

27. According to Olbermann, the person they might want to "throw out", as he

put it, was Obama!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19790020/

As to the open mike incident, that happened at the end of yesterday‘s NAACP event. Curiously, Fox Noise somehow leaving Edwards‘ and Clinton‘s microphones open after the event was over.

Senator Edwards and Senator Clinton only barely audible but according to the Associated Press they were complaining about the race being trivialized because of too many Democratic candidates. Edwards quoted as saying, “We should try to have a more serious and smaller group.” Clinton in response, “We‘ve got to cut the number. They‘re not serious.”

In New Hampshire Senator Clinton said that Edwards just wanted to talk about ideas and the Edwards campaign saying he does not want to exclude anyone but wants smaller groups chosen at random for the debates.

An angry Dennis Kucinich campaign calling Edwards and Clinton imperial candidates who want to dictate who voters hear. Now you‘re just assuming they want to throw you out. They might mean Senator Obama.

;)

[AtomicKitten]

28. A pox on Fox Noise for starting this petite brouhaha

by accidentally leaving mics open

and shame on those on the left for taking the bait.