Hillary Clinton And John Edwards Trying To Cut Some Rivals Out Of Debates?
File this one in your OOPS File and the Get Ready For The Political Firestorm File:
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.”
In a sense, they’re correct. In every campaign there are the “not serious” candidates — but they are perceived as not being serious to people who hold certain beliefs. To some other voters, they are quite serious since they offer a non-mainstream, non-conventional wisdom outlook.
The problem with cutting them out from debates — even if it’s done with political CYA cover story — is that in the end the candidates that cut out the candidates lose in both their prestige (it gets media coverage) and in support (those who supported the “not serious” candidates would rather stay home on election day then vote for the “serious” guy/lady who cut them out).
Also, remember Ronald Reagan championing a debate including all candidates in New Hampshire in 1980? A certain candidate named George Bush had been in the lead until then — and the moment when a red-faced Reagan demanded his mike be open greatly helped his campaign. WATCH IT HERE. Note the other candidates applaud an angry Reagan (which means their supporters were more likely to go along with Reagan, rather than be furious that he was exclusionary).
NOTE TO EDWARDS AND CLINTON: Don’t you know by now that it’s unwise to say in private near a mike what you wouldn’t say in public? That’s 21st Century Politics 1.01
opinions powered by SendLove.to
24 Responses to “Hillary Clinton And John Edwards Trying To Cut Some Rivals Out Of Debates?”
There will be no firestorm since it was a fox news microphone that record it and that gives the other networks a good reason to ignore it. In addition, Drudge is already reporting it and that means that the story is now so tainted that no part of the MSM will bother to report it.
What? You think that PBS or NPR are going to mention this?
That’s funny, John Edwards thinks he’s a “serious” candidate. He’s a night enough guy but does he really thinks he could make it?
I don’t know. I can’t say I really like any of the Dem candidates right now.
I don’t know too much about Obama yet but at least he comes across as honest & sincere. We’ll see how that holds up as the campaign goes on.
Wow, I’m not even that cynical SD!
SD has it backwards
[...] Read the original here: Joe Gandelman [...]
Well, now we know who Hillary’s Vice President (and probable “innovative VP! The liberal media discovers the Power of the Vice Presidency!” news-conference political flack) is going to be. [snicker]
Obama is fluff but he and the money he already has raised is serious. Wouldn’t it be great if Gore got in the race and countered this Clinton-Edwards quasi-team with a quasi-team of their own. The question would then be what fraction of potential Dem voters (which includes all of us who are bored, or worse, when it comes to the GOP duds) beyond the young play-pen lefties, what fraction going all the way to establishmentarian and party-hard-core Dems, would switch to Obama-Gore (or Gore-Obama, either way).
There will be no firestorm since it was a fox news microphone … In addition, Drudge is already reporting it
Ah, but this was a slam against not only those who obviously won’t win, but implicitly against Obama (even if Hillary and Fast Eddie didn’t mean it to include Obama). Now the Hillary worshippers will remain, of course, predictably “strangely” [sic] silent and NPR and PBS may well choose not to say anything (along with the self-destructive Old Hag Dim Party Prostitute, the New York Times, etc.), but plenty of Obama fans are going to be angry, as well as those who are simply anti-Hillary (most Americans, that is).
Meanwhile on the GOP side, there is Romney, and for that matter also Giuliani, who ought to be blue-colored punching bags with blue bows on them, gifts to the Democratic Party this year and especially in 2008, simply wearing redface. (That’s the way smarter voters see them! Democrats Lite!)
[...] Clark Link to Article hillary clinton Hillary Clinton And John Edwards Trying To Cut Some Rivals Out Of [...]
I see their point though. The dead weight; Richardson, Gravel,Biden and Kucinich is to much, everytime there is a forum for the Democratic party.
I’d rather they just cut the number of debates.
I agree with PWT, but rather than just cut the number of debates, I would like to see them go to zero. This is WAY too early for this. And the primaries trying to one up each other and moving it further and further back until we may now have something in January is too much. We need something closer to the British system where it takes place in 6 weeks, not much more than 6 months, and what what seems like 6 years.
And the top leaders in both parties are senators or former senators, and in one case a former mayor. All 100 senators may think they can run the country, but few have been elected. Romney and Richardson are former governors, who have at least shown they can deal with a legislature, but neither has a chance.
Joe,
You hearken to a point (the Reagan microphone item) that I think is too often underestimated in its effect.
I’ll take a swag and say 10% of the voting public takes a researcher’s look at candidate’s positions and concludes their vote based on that policy evaluation.
At the risk of some hyperbole, the rest form a conclusion from “impressions” and turn of events.
While I happen to believe it is way too early for small gaffes to be deadly, I do believe over the course of time these things will ultimately determine the election result moreso than pure policy statements.
Don’t go out on too much of a limb there
If Clinton and Edwards are guilty of anything here, it’s being too impatient much too soon. But then, the whole race for president has gotten under way much too soon.
Theirs is not a new complaint and it’s one that will be heard whenever there is a large field of competitors.
I don’t condemn them for wanting to see the field narrowed. It’s natural for them to feel that way. What will matter is what, if anything, they say or do to bring a narrowing about.
As for Clinton and Edwards discussing the matter near an open microphone, we don’t know what lengths Fox went to to capture their conversation. I wouldn’t put anything past that propaganda source.
I guess the real surprise here isn’t that John Edwards and Hillary Clinton want to sabotage the “lower tier” candidates’ attempts to have their messages heard by the American people but rather that they’d be dumb enough to let themselves be overheard saying such a thing.
I never had any intention of voting for John Edwards or Hillary Clinton in the first place, but this news confirms that they are every bit the political hacks that I thought they were.
Edward and Clinton do not represent change; they represent the status quote. They do not represent the common man; they represent the Democratic Establishment and special interest groups.
There’s something incredibly perverse about the Mainstream Media devoting so much of their coverage to how much the top tier candidates are raising. As if their fundraising didn’t give them enough of an advantage over the “lower tier candidates”, the media seems intent on padding their advantage by giving them nearly limitless coverage free of charge.
Let’s not forget the Edwards and Clinton initially supported the Iraq War and the Patriot Act, but like the panderers they are, they changed their tune on these issues when it become political unfeasable for them to continue to support these misguided policies.
In contrast, Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel had opposed these measures from the start. Kucinich, inh particular, stood his ground on these issues even when it was politically unpopular to do so. Yet, as “lower tier” candidates, he and Gravel are the ones targeted for expulsion from furture debates.
I can hardly wait to hear Edwards and Clinton apologists defend them on this one.
Nick, Obama opposed the war from the start as well. Check out this video from 2002 (I think) where he basically predicts the future of the invasion. While in no way as outside the establishment as Kucinich, he’s no Clinton, either.
[...] realize that Joe already covered this story in a previous post, but I think that the post-debate exchange that took place between Edwards and Clinton and [...]
[...] realize that Joe already covered this story in a previous post, but I think that the post-debate exchange that took place between Edwards and Clinton and [...]
I don’t think it’s Obama that Edwards and Clinton are proposing they “cut.” That’s why I didn’t mention him.
Obama’s biggest virtue is that he’s not Hillary Clinton or John Edwards. The fact that he opposed the Iraq War at a time when Clinton and Edwards were cheerleading for us to invade Iraq is a major plus for him. As is the fact that he wasn’t involved in this exchange.
[...] moreso than pure policy statements. If Clinton and Edwards … Share This Original post by hillary clinton election – Google News and software by Elliott [...]
The 2000 campaign changed when Bush won the debates. That surprised everyone and gave non-liberals the impression that Bush might actually win, after all — which he did.
The debates are more important than the major party conventions, which amount to little more than strained entertainment up to the final, best, only-really-important speeches.
The Cheney-Lieberman “job interview” debate is what needs to be repeated — without any legal agreements beforehand stipulating what can and what cannot be asked.
I’m afraid it’s too difficult for most people for us ever to see the candidates discuss things like what their plans in detail are for domestic and foreign issues, and who they want for Cabinet members and why.
But what’s the point, when they campaign as someone totally different than they really are? People from Texas who loved Bush as governor, claim they no longer recognize him. Alan Simpson, one of Cheney’s best friends says the same about him.
America did not get what it voted for (well actually it voted for Gore but lets not get into that can of worms today) with Bush. It thought it was getting a moderate uniter who would bring the dignity of the presidency back, and who would promote a humble foreign policy that abhorred nation-building.
Bush was highly critical of Clinton for an “adventurous” foreign policy-yet Clinton’s seems almost conservative in comparison. So, how do you know that what you see has anything to do with what you get???
Nick Rivera wrote:
Sabotage? Stifle lower-tier candidates’ message? That might be right, but it’s just as possible Clinton and Edwards meant nothing more sinister than asking some candidates who aren’t getting any traction to consider skipping some of the forums.
Not being in every forum doesn’t necessarily mean a candidate can’t get his/her message out to the American people.
What I’m getting at here is that jumping to the most sinister conclusion is neither fair nor called for — but it is an ever present danger when doing instant analysis on blogs. Let’s watch, listen and see what develops. If Clinton, Edwards or anyone else goes after the others with a blackjack or a muzzle, I’ll be among the first to condemn them.