“. . . 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 . . .”

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.

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???

Don’t go out on too much of a limb there

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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

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.

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.

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).

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).