Caught on Tape: Hillary Clinton and John Edwards Discuss Purging Democratic Rivals From Presidential Debates
I 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 was—unbeknownst to them— picked up by microphones bears posting for everyone at TMV to see:
EDWARDS:…at some point…(unintelligible)…maybe the Fall. We should try to have…a more serious and a smaller group.
CLINTON: (nodding head) Well…we…we’ve got to cut the number…because they are…because they are just being trivialized.
EDWARDS:…and they’re…they’re not serious. They’re not serious.
CLINTON: No…you know…I…I…I think there was an effort by our campaigns to do that. It got…it got somehow…detoured. We’ve got to get back to it…because that’s all we’re going to do between now and then…is that.
CLINTON: (turns to Obama and shakes hand) Thanks Barack.
CLINTON: (turns back to Edwards) So…we…us…
CLINTON: (turns to Kucinich and shakes hand) Thanks Dennis.
CLINTON: (turns back to Edwards) Our guys should talk.
When it comes to democracy, more voices means more choices.
But apparently that’s not what Clinton and Edwards want.
I suppose 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.
Edwards and Clinton do not represent change; they represent the status quo. 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 without even bothering to read the National Intelligence Estimate report that came out in 2002. And let’s also not forget that Edwards and Clinton voted in favor of the USA PATRIOT Act. Yet like the panderers that they are, they changed their tune on both of 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.
UPDATE: Below are links to other articles discussing the Clinton-Edwards Post-Debate Exchange:
ABC News: Clinton, Edwards Talk of Limited Debates
Washington Post: Kucinich Lashes Out at Limiting Debates
The Boston Globe: Edwards, Clinton discuss limiting debates
AP: Clinton & Edwards overheard talking about excluding some rivals from debates
CNSNews.com: Kucinich Blasts Clinton, Edwards for Trying to Shut Him Out
The Caucus: Open Mike Moment Sparks Debate About Debates
Newsroom America: Clinton, Edwards Heard Discussing Excluding Rivals
The Raw Story: Kucinich: Clinton, Edwards are rigging the ’08 election
San Diego Union-Tribune: Kucinich angrily reacts to Clinton-Edwards exchange on limiting debate participants
AOL News: Edwards, Clinton: Let’s Lose the Losers
13 Responses to “Caught on Tape: Hillary Clinton and John Edwards Discuss Purging Democratic Rivals From Presidential Debates”
1) It’s not sabotage.
2) I’d rather see the debates WITHOUT Gravel, Kucinich, Biden and Dodd.
Really, Holly? Maybe you should look again at what Clinton said in response to Edwards’ suggestion that they “cut the number” of candidates participating in the Democratic Presidential Debates:
If the leading candidate’s efforts to exclude rivals from the presidential debates isn’t sabotage, I don’t know what is.
Yep, Holly, that’s EXACTLY what we need…less alternatives.
On second thought, maybe we ought to just do anyway with the formalities and crown Hillary Clinton president now.
If we are one month before the primaries actually start and it appears some candidate has absolutely no chanc, then it can be in the public interest to get the word out about the truly viable candidates, and then I could support limiting debate to just the most viable. But this far out everyone should still be in. I mostly use the Yahoo AP feed for news and every day it seems that one of the annointed six (Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Giuliani, McCain, or Romney (maybe Thompson too)) gets an article about something they have stated. Everyone else is already being almost entirely ignored by the media. In other words, Clinton and Edwards already have plenty of voice over the other candidates, and so the others should stay in until crunch time.
There is almost no chance I want anything to do with any of the current crop of dems (Obama being the sole exception, even tho I disagree with most of his stances on issues I seem to like him personally), But it’s had to disagree that putting in a load of no chancers in the debate waters them down so much you lose any ability to really here from the ones with a shot. Of course that also keeps them from screwing themselves up so maybe it’s not the best thing for Clinton.
I fail to see what good it does to weed out the lower-tier candidates when most of the “truly viable” candidates are horrible choices.
Democratic and Republican partisans don’t seem to realize that that job of the media isn’t to promote the establishment candidates. The media’s job is to cover the news. And when political mavericks offer a startlingly different view than the status quo view held by the esatblishment candidates, that’s news.
The Mainstream Media is treating Hillary Clinton much like it treated George W. Bush in 2000. Like Bush, Clinton has deep connections with her party, tons of money, and the built-in name recognition that comes from sharing the surname of a recent president.
It’s as if the media is having a countdown until Hillary becomes president and the campaign is simply a formality.
And Edwards is hardly any better. He claims to represent the “little guy.” But apparently, if one of the “little guys” decides to run for president, he shouldn’t be afforded the same opportunity to have his message heard.
[...] Clark Link to Article dennis kucinich Caught on Tape: Hillary Clinton and John Edwards Discuss Purging [...]
Bones,
Clinton and Edwards have raised FIVE to TEN times as much money with which they can use to air political advertisements. They have plenty of opportunity to get their word out. Having “lower tier” candidates isn’t preventing Clinton and Edwards from getting their message out.
I don’t understand the entitlement mentality among Democrats and Republicans that posits that the wealthy and politically-connected Democrats and Republicans somehow deserve even more of an advantage from the Mainstream Media than they already have.
The media’s duty is not to the esatblishment candidates…it’s to the American people. And to the extent that the Mainstream Media fails to focus on political mavericks that discussing political issues that the establishment candidates refuse to talk about, the MSM is failing.
This is why we keep having to decide to choose between the “lesser of two evils.” Anyone who isn’t an establishment candidates doesn’t have a chance. The Mainstream Media and the two-party establishment sees to it that this is so, and supposedly “independent” voters go along with the charade.
[...] Voice is waiting for the Clinton and Edwards apologists to spin this one, he says so in his post, Caught on Tape: Hillary Clinton and John Edwards Discuss Purging Democratic Rivals From Presidential…. Here is the YouTube Video of Hillary Clinton and John Edwards seemingly conspiring to limit the [...]
And let’s not forget how mis-named these “debates” actually are. There is precious little actual debate and most of the content consists of pre-packaged and “safe” soundbites.
I haven’t watched all of them, but in the ones I have watch the so-called “top tier” candidates get most of the time and attention anyway. Gravel in one of the debates finally got a turn to contribute something and said: “I’ve just grown up. I’m the senior statesman on here, and I was beginning to feel like a potted plant standing over here.” He was frustrated the “top tier” candidates were getting all the action. Personally, I can’t blame him and I agree with Nick on this issue.
As bad as the debates may be I still think they are better than the prepackaged sound bites that we otherwise hear from the candidates. Having Ron Paul chime in didn’t give me any more info on those who might have a chance , because Paul doesn’t have one. Other candidates might be interesting but not significant. Some say medias “duty” is not to limit choices, but what about providing more info about realistic candidates instead of propping up anyone regardless of reality.
I think It’s more about Edwards wanting a chance to beat Hillary than it is about getting rid of the small guys. He knows that if he wants to beat out the current leader he both needs a lot of time to talk, and to make Hillary talk a lot to hopefully get some ammunition for attack. He can’t do that when there are 8 people all trying to get equal time.
I’m willing to bet that if Kucinich and Gravel were close in the polls they would be thinking the same thing.
It’s always apt that the lowest candidates speak the most freely and honestly, and often the most sanely- although Gravel reminds me of Perot’s VP choice, yet these are the people who are NEVER supported by the electorate that says is wants honest and thinking candidates.
If people do not like the D & R, do something about it. DON’T VOTE FOR THEM!
[...] one fine day two swindlers, calling themselves weavers, arrived. They declared that they could make the most magnificent cloth [...]