Transcript of Clinton and Edwards Plotting Against Democrats Who Aren't "Serious"

[DemBones DemBones]

If you've only seen this on tv, you may not have been able to understand much. My inquiring mind wanted to know what was said.

YouTube has a video tape of the post-debate conversation in which the audio is much clearer than the tapes I've seen on CNN. I have listened to it all the way through at least 15 times. I finally figured out how to advance it "frame" by "frame" and then listened 5 or 6 times to each thing Clinton said and each thing Edwards said.

At Beyond the News, subtitles have been added to the tape and I was unable to find any instance in which the subtitles don't match what they're saying, word for word, so I copied the subtitles, with their puncuation. There are lots of ellipses (. . .) used to represent slight pauses. I've bolded the words so you can read it as it's heard, without the descriptions of their actions.

I support Dennis Kucinich, but do not want to be unfair to other candidates; that's why I watched this over and over and over and over and over and over, etc. Then I watched it at ABC and heard the same words. Read this and then go watch the tapes for yourself.

Edwards, speaking into Clinton's ear at her podium, says "At some point. . . (unintelligible). . . maybe the Fall, we should try to have a more serious and smaller group."

(This is when there is the most noise and there may have been a word lost here but I doubt it could change the meaning at all, especially when considered in light of the rest of their dialogue.)

Clinton, speaking into Edwards's ear, says "Well. . .we . . .we've got to cut the number . . . because they are just being trivialized." (Sen. Clinton, the proper word is marginalized.)

Edwards, walking away, responds "And they're. . .they're not serious. They're not serious."

Hillary approaches John's podium, says: "No, you know. . .I. . .I. . .I think there was an effort by our campaign to do that. It got. . . it got somehow. . . detoured."

Next Barack and Dennis approached Hillary as she was saying to John "We've got to get back to it. . .because that's all we're going to do between now and then. . . Thanks, Barack. (shaking his hand). We. . .us. . .Thanks, Dennis(shaking his hand). . .Our people should talk."


Watch the video with subtitles at:

http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=BeyondTheNews

Watch it without subtitles at:

http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=3371185

[LoZoccolo]

1. Fox News subtitles? n/t

[DemBones DemBones]

4. Listen to it and I think you'll agree it

doesn't matter who put the subtitles on. Maybe FOX, maybe Beyond the News, where I watched it.

I spent HOURS on this, checking and checking. This is what they said.

[IndianaGreen]

73. He won't! Hillarycamp is following Rove's brilliant 2000 primary playbook

which among other things involved repackaging the candidate as something that he (or she in this case) is not, accuse the opponents of being dangerous "liberals" (still true today), and never, ever, admit a mistake (sadly true in Iraq now).

[Maat]

2. Interesting.

I've heard the various explanations. This just doesn't pass 'the smell test,' in my humble opinion. Something stinky was going on.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

3. The "trivialized" could have been referring to the debates

rather than the candidates?

[DemBones DemBones]

6. But Edwards said "we should try to have a more serious and smaller group."

just before Hillary made the "trivialized" comment.

[calteacherguy]

9. I don't think so, the "they" seems to be in references to Hillary's "they" nt

[pstans]

5. Smaller debates where the issues could be debated

The large debates only let the candidates speak in sound bites. Hillary and Edwards were talking about having more smaller debates of 4 candidates that allowed more discussion of the issues. I think that is exactly what should be done. Have 2 hours, but draw 4 names out a hat for the first hour. Then have the other 4 candidates the second hour. You still get your 2 hour debate, but you actually get to hear what they think about the issues.

[DemBones DemBones]

10. If that's what they meant, they could have said so. nt

[draft_mario_cuomo]

12. Edwards did but the conspiracy theorists ignored it nt

[DemBones DemBones]

18. Bad idea because voters should be able to see all candidates answer

the same question on the same stage. It's the only way to make fair comparisons in a debate setting.

Splitting them up guarantees some voters will miss some debates.

What they should do is have serious and unbiased moderators, limit the topics to be discussed in a particular debate, and give each candidate an equal amount of time, enough time to articulate a position.
I've been on C-SPAN's "Washington Journal" twice and was surprised at how much I was able to say to make my point in 3 minutes. These are professional politicians so they can surely do better than I can.

[Catherine Vincent]

7. They were not trying to hide anything. I saw the video clip.

This issue is dead.

[calteacherguy]

8. It's clear that the "they" are the fellow candidates. nt

[JDPriestly]

17. "They" has to be referring to debates.

Substitute candidates for "they," and you have "the candidates are being trivialized." That does not make sense.
Substitute debates for "they," and you have "the debates are being trivialized." That makes sense. That fits.

"They" did not refer to candidates. "They" referred to something that could be trivialized -- i.e., the debates. It's the only explanation that makes sense.

[DemBones DemBones]

11. If they were talking about fewer debates, why didn't they say so?

Edwards is claiming that now, while Clinton declines to discuss it. I suppose that shows the advantage of a lot of trial experience: he came up with an explanation when she couldn't.

"While campaigning in Iowa today Mr. Edwards confirmed the topic of his discussion with Mrs. Clinton and sought to clarify his remarks, saying that he does not favor excluding candidates from the debates, but would prefer breaking up the field into smaller groups."

<snip>

"Mrs. Clinton, who was campaigning in New Hampshire today, declined to be specific about what she meant by her comments on Thursday."

“I think he has some ideas about what he’d like to do,” she said, referring to Mr. Edwards, according to a dispatch from the Associated Press. A Clinton campaign spokesman said he would not comment on “a private conversation” between the two candidates."

Edit to add link:

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/07/13/open-mike-moment-sparks-debate-about-debates/

[draft_mario_cuomo]

13. They said it 5 months ago, along with the Obama campaign

All three tried to reduce the number of debates and forums. That is a legitimate position. There are already 18 debates scheduled and several forums.

[emilyg]

15. Yes.

[Wesin04]

26. These are NOT debates

These appearances on stage, behind a podium with someone asking questions in round robin fashion are not debates. These are not helpful in advancing the cause or in helping determine who is most capable to serve.

[MGKrebs]

29. They serve a purpose, but it has little to do with policy positions.

I think a lot of people just want to get a look at the candidates in the exact same environment. It's kind of like putting them into a video spreadsheet. Candidates listed down the left, various criteria across the top. Fill in as appropriate: This one's tall, this one dresses better than the others, that one sweats too much, he can't give a straight answer, that kind of thing.

[DemBones DemBones]

14. Clinton refuses to discuss it -- IF they were talking about debates, why not

talk about it?

Edwards, speaking into Clinton's ear at her podium, says "At some point. . . (unintelligible). . . maybe the Fall, we should try to have a more serious and smaller group."

[draft_mario_cuomo]

16. Maybe because it prolongs the 15 minutes? Ignore it and it will go away by Monday

Besides, this is not even a major story for 99% of the population.

[BeyondGeography]

25. CNN has a debate on 7/23 and this will surely come up...forget 15 minutes

In the unlikely event that the question isn't posed directly, you don't think Kucinich won't raise the issue?

Hillary will have to elaborate on the outright lie she told in NH Friday, where she put the whole conversation on Edwards and took no responsibility for what she said. In the meantime, points to Edwards for at least giving us an explanation (even if was little more than spin); that's the way to begin to make the media go away. She still has work to do on this one.

[locopolitico]

19. Look on the bright side

It's not the dumbest thing Hillary Clinton has ever said

[bling bling]

21. If those are the 10 dumbest things she's ever said, she's in good shape.

That was really reaching. They weren't even funny.

[DemBones DemBones]

22. Thanks for the laugh, locopolitico. You should

be careful, though, as a new poster posting jokes about Hillary, lest people think you're a troll.

Of course, you may be a troll, but thanks for the laugh, anyway. :hi:

[DemBones DemBones]

20. One last point: IF they were referring to debates, why did they never once

use the word debate(s)??? They are intelligent people, lawyers with Senate experience, they were on stage, they should have known their mics could be on (remember * referring to a reporter as "an asshole" on an open mic? or Reagan announcing a war or. . .), and people were wandering around on stage shaking hands while they were having their little talk.


What the hell, we get the best "democracy" money can buy, right?

[iamjoy]

27. A - Ha! We Have A Winner!

you said it yourself. Now, think about it.

If they knew their mikes could be on or they could be overheard, why would they be plotting some big evil conspiracy? He would have contacted her privately about it.

Although I like John Edwards, my personal opinion is that the "breaking up the candidates" does smell a little funny. But, I do not think there is a big plot underway. Rather, I think Edwards was expressing frustration with the format. So, I see his approach as "let's discuss this - how can we have smaller, more serious debates?" He chose Hillary because she is the front runner and a powerhouse within the party.

And remember he said "in the fall" - that's a couple of months away/six months away. We have already seen one Republican candidate voluntarily drop off. I believe in late fall 2003 was when Bob Graham dropped out of the 2004 race. Everyone is talking about the accelerated primary schedule this year, so it may be reasonable to assume other candidates will also drop out in the fall.

You may also remember that in the 2004 Presidential race, we had candidates staying in even after the math said they couldn't get the delegates to win. This certainly gives some credence to any claim that some of the candidates aren't serious.

[DemBones DemBones]

60. I have thought about it. They should have known their mics could be on

but that doesn't mean they forgot the possibility. People who wear mics so much count on the sound crew turning off the mics and forget that sound crews sometimes forget to do that.

A singer I know was appearing in a musical with a very well-known star who didn't realize her mic was on when she went to the bathroom between scenes. The audience got to hear her using the toilet and then, realizing her mic was on, cursing a blue streak. Again, the sound crew is supposed to turn mics off but they forget sometimes. The performers or politicians don't always realize their mics are still open.

I think it was pretty stupid of them to discuss this onstage, even if the mics were not on. Has John Edwards never heard of phone calls?

According to everyone defending them, they just want smaller debates. What that means is that they want the stage to themselves and Obama and to get the "lower tier" candidates to have a separate debate at another time and place, which is getting rid of those candidates, for all practical purposes.

It used to be that many candidates remained in the race until the convention. The nominee was actually chosen at the convention, often after many votes. It should still be that way. A serious candidate stays in and hopes to get his message out, still believing in democracy and the Democratic Party.

As it is, we might as well stop wasting money on conventions and primaries and just let the DLC choose the person who raises the most money as the nominee. Hell, why have elections, either? The nominee with the most money, whether a Democrat or a Republican, automatically becomes president.

This has ceased to be a democracy, and is an oligarchy, and even many DUers who aren't trolls don't care.

[InvisibleTouch]

35. How much of the conversation was NOT heard?

Maybe they did use the word "debates," or were continuing a conversation from earlier, so both already knew what they were referring to. People are getting worked up about partial quotes and trying to read the minds of the candidates.

I don't particularly like the debate format either. I'd like to see them talk to each other, not to the moderator.

[Mojorabbit]

23. If you were running

for president where only one person will win and looking for your portion of the enormous amt of money to be raised you naturally would want to weed out your competitors. This is our messed up system. The less people on the stage the more it benefits you.
Nothing surprises me in politics anymore.

[Trajan]

24. Much Ado About Nothing ....

Truly a non-issue .....

[IndyOp]

28. What Edwards doesn't like is DEBATES THAT ARE NOT SERIOUS --

You are reading into the transcript to force it to be "Democratic candidates that are not serious" -- he wants two sets of 4, randomly chosen, and one hour for each set of 4 candidates for SERIOUS DEBATES.

I am all for that...

[populistdriven]

30. You Idiots! This is about Project X!!

FOX is on to us...

[welshTerrier2]

31. Clinton and Edwards supporters are in DENIAL

both Clinton and Edwards have issued statements relative to this incident. Clinton said she won't discuss it; Edwards said he wants smaller debates and his wife asked for input about how that might be achieved. EITHER WAY, there was NO DENIAL. All they gave us were non-denial denials.

But DU'ers who support them want to spin the TRUTH.

And DU'ers who don't support them seem to be missing the most important point. It's not just that both campaigns said they WANTED to exclude some of the other candidates; it's that they thought they might have the POWER to actually do it. When we talk about the DLC controlling the party or we talk about corporate candidates and their big money campaigns having excessive, abusive control, this is an example of what we mean.

I'd like to see Howard Dean and the DNC chastise both candidates for this. And I'd like to see the DNC direct and control better debate formats and an end to this sort of nonsense. If the Democratic Party expects our support, we should demand that they ensure the fairness and quality of the debate process. Thus far, they have been far too absent.

[Evergreen Emerald]

32. they want smaller debates

they want to narrow the field. They want to get rid of some of the competetion. So the fuck what.
Dennis K. gets up there and bashes Clinton, constantly. What does he expect? I would want to get rid of him too!

[welshTerrier2]

33. bashed Clinton?

you mean he points out that he doesn't agree with her? that's bashing?

and you've just highlighted the exact point of my post. Clinton seemed to believe she has the power to control who gets in and who gets thrown out. Who exactly is running this Party, pro-democracy Democrats or corporate money tyrants?

you don't "get rid" of the competition in your own party; you debate their ideas so that ALL DEMOCRATS and ALL AMERICANS get to hear a full airing of the ideas of those who are running. "GETTING RID" of other candidates, and who appointed them god, is also getting rid of a discussion of the ideas some of us support. Don't EVER expect support from us if you do.

[Evergreen Emerald]

34. They are asking for a full airing of ideas.

The format does not allow for that. It allows for sound bites. If I were in a competition, I would want to limit my opponents as well.

[welshTerrier2]

36. you're putting more emphasis on winning than on democracy

because you're seeing the process as a "competition" and thus puttig too much weight on "winning", the methods you're condoning wouldn't give the American people an opportunity to hear all the ideas fully debated among all the candidates.

sounds like the perfect definition of Hillary's campaign. are you a Hillary supporter?

[Evergreen Emerald]

37. actually, that is not true.

There is no full airing of ideas because of the format. And if you believe that the other candidates are not focused on "winning" you are mistaken.

Who I support: my ideals are closest to Kucinich. I have not yet made up my mind. I am disappointed in his spinning of this issue. I am tired of spin and exaggeration and feigned injury. If you review my posts, you will see that I defend those who are treated unfairly on this board.

And who do you support?

[welshTerrier2]

40. fighting fair

there's nothing wrong with candidates setting winning as an objective. there's plenty wrong with doing it in an undemocratic manner. candidates with more money, especially corporate money, and candidates with the power to manipulate the frequency or format of the debates or who can and cannot participate are doing a huge disservice to the voters ... especially to Democratic Party voters. Fighting hard to "win" is fine; depriving other candidates and their supporters of equal debate access is not fine at all. And it's also not fair to those who just want all the ideas to have a forum where they are fully debated.

I couldn't agree more that the current "debate" format is hideous. It's nothing but a beauty pageant. I'd like to see a series of one-on-one debates. Let's let each and every candidate discuss their views with each and every other candidate. My idea, and I'd be open to many other formats, is to have the party pick one topic per month and setup a series of 1/2 hour, round robin debates. With 8 or 9 candidates, this would give each candidate 4 hours a month on each monthly topic. The head-to-head exchanges should be widely distributed on C-Span, the DNC website, the candidates' websites, and perhaps outlets like YouTube.

Barring candidates from directly challenging each other is crap. And giving candidates only 1 minute to explain the complex issues they should be addressing is also crap. It's one thing to call for fixing the problems with the current format; it's something else entirely to solve the problem by using money, power and influence to eliminate competitors. That's just plain old dirty politics and I don't condone it.

And finally, if nothing else changes, I'll probably vote for Kucinich in the primary. I'll also tell you that, unlike every other Presidential vote I've ever cast, it seems very unlikely I'll be voting for a Democrat for president in 2008. I'll definitely be voting for my Democratic Congressman and perhaps other local Dems. But for President, given the current "likelies", I doubt it. Right now, I have no idea what I'll do and frankly, I have no particular preference to any of the options I'm weighing. I don't think it makes much difference among the choices I'm considering. I'll either write in someone, not vote at all, or perhaps even vote for a third party candidate.

It's interesting that you said you will see that I defend those who are treated unfairly on this board. I suppose it's good that we both put our focus on "fairness." The difference is, I see using money and power and family name to exclude other candidates as not being fair.

[Evergreen Emerald]

42. so in other words--your vote will help to ensure neo-con victory.

[welshTerrier2]

43. and your vote will help ensure continued corporate control of the government

[Evergreen Emerald]

45. Embedded in your argument is the idea that republicans and democrats

are the same. As we discovered, in 2000, we can no longer make that assumption--that it is too dangerous to our democracy. It is clear that because of that assumption, we put our constitution and our society at great risk. Indeed, one could argue that we allowed the coop to take place while we sat back and made assumptions that there was really no difference between them.

After the ravaging and destruction brought by the current admin--we know that we can no longer assume. Clinton was not the same as Bush. Sure he was not perfect, but he did not use his power to destroy our country for the sake of oil.

They are not the same.

[welshTerrier2]

48. republicans and Democrats are not the same

but some Democrats are paid for by powerful K Street money and they will not bring about the critically needed changes we need.

you'll see that in health care; you'll see that in energy policy and an inadequate response to global warming; you'll see it in support for endless spending on bloated weapons systems; you'll see it in a refusal to talk about taking money out of the electoral process. the country is dying. corporate Democrats offer band-aid solutions to these problems. corporate republicans offer no solutions. No, the parties are not the same.

[ProudDad]

63. Two words

NAFTA and GATT...

Clinton I

Destroyed our country for the sake of all corporations...

[ProudDad]

62. I've got a plan

how about expanding the time of the debates instead of limiting access???

Have more of them...single issue in each one with more time for each candidate to lay out one's position...

Or have more of them with fewer participants...If you must, have a mix -- 2 "top tier" and 2 "alternative voices"...

MORE ACCESS NOT LESS is what We the People need to choose our representatives...

[ClassWarrior]

44. People discuss things they may or may not have power to change all the time.

Even right here at DU. Does that mean they're evil and power-hungry? Or that they have opinions?

NGU.

[welshTerrier2]

46. evil and power hungry

they may or may not have sufficient power to exclude other candidates from future debates. i suspect there's a very good chance they do but that remains to be seen and demonstrated.

do I think it's evil and power-hungry to even try to exclude others? you're damned straight I do. that's not democracy it's dirty politics.

it's not about "discussing things"; it's about believing such things are acceptable in the first place.

[ClassWarrior]

47. It's about believing Faux talking points are acceptable in the first place...

...as far as I can see.

NGU.

[welshTerrier2]

49. neither candidate has disputed what has been reported

when they do, I'll entertain your point about whether the FAUX news transcript is or is not credible.

but not until then ...

[ClassWarrior]

50. It's amazing how far some people will stretch to trash our own candidates.

Kinda makes one wonder...

NGU.

[welshTerrier2]

56. somebody sure is stretching something ...

what's amazing to me is how far people will stretch to support their candidate regardless of their hideous conduct.

you implied I was "stretching" the truth? here's what I said: "neither candidate has disputed what has been reported."

Is there something not truthful about that?

So, Mr. Wonderer, who is your candidate? It wouldn't be one of those involved in this ugly incident, would it? You know damned well they didn't want this going public because it doesn't pass the smell test.

[DemBones DemBones]

66. Exactly: "Neither candidate disputed what has been reported."

They couldn't dispute it since it's on videotape.

Even those who buy Edwards's explanation that they were talking about smaller debates, not eliminating candidates, need to wake up and realize the unfairness of dividing the candidates into two or three groups for debates.

We've already seen that once, when CNN gave Clinton, Edwards, and Obama to be asked about their religious views and a half hour for Biden, Dodd, Kucinich, and Richardson.

Of course "the top tier" aired first, getting across the message that the media keeps pushing: these are the candidates who count. Ignore those other guys. It effectively eliminates the other guys. The media has been pimping the "top tier" for months, years for Hillary.

The Clinton-Edwards discussion doesn't pass the smell test and those who support Obama should be very concerned.

Watch the tape and notice how HC and JE barely glanced at Obama or Kucinich while Hillary said "Thanks, Barack," "Thanks, Dennis." JE shook their hands, didn't seem to say anything, probably because Hillary was talking to him and inserted her brief recognition Obama and Kucinich in the midst of saying to JE that they had to get together, obviously for further discussion of how they would get the networks to do what they want for the debates. JE was listening to her, not paying attention to Obama or Kucinich.

If HRC gets the nomination, she'll pick JE for VP because he's a Southerner and she knows she'd have to win some of the Southern states to win the election. She won't pick BO because he is black. Only half-black, really, but seen as black, and that would cost her some votes in every state, including blue states like California, New York, and Massachusetts. CA and NY have GOP governors so they have a fair share of conservative voters. There will be people everywhere who won't vote for a woman, as well as people who won't vote for THIS woman, so she can't afford to lose people who might vote for her but won't vote for a black. All our presidents and VPs have been white men so who knows if the voters will go for a woman or a black in 2008?

[Like It Is]

52. They don't want real debates!

The moneyed interests that control the debates don't want an honest debate because they are afraid Joe Biden would cream the top three. They want one of the top three fundraisers; Hillary,Obama or Edwards to be nominated because they would be a soft touch for the Republican candidate in the General Election. That is a fact!

[DemBones DemBones]

59. I agree. Supporters are in denial,

Clinton refuses comment, and Edwards manages to put a spin on it that they were talking about smaller debates. He has a bridge to sell you, too.

People are supporting splitting up the candidates, something CNN has already done once, giving an hour to Clinton, Edwards, and Obama, and only half an hour to Biden, Dodd, Kucinich, and Richardson. How is that fair?

It all stinks to high heaven. As Indiana Green said in another thread, when the networks took over the debates, which were formerly run by the League of Women Voters, it's been downhill ever since. Idiotic moderators asking idiotic questions (Tweety is the current champ), candidates not being given equal time to answer questions or even to answer the same questions.

It's all about the money. Clinton and Edwards have lots of money so they think they can decide how the debates should be run.

As I said somewhere upthread to someone defending these two fatcat lawyers,

"What the hell, we have the best democracy money can buy, right?"

[paulk]

38. if your transcript is correct, it's clear that Edwards was

referring to the debates and not the candidates. Otherwise Clinton's "trivialized" comment doesn't make any sense.
I don't see why any of the front runners would want DK or Gravel out of the race. They have no real support, (ie, they are not a threat to win), and provide perfect foils for the more moderate candidates.

[Like It Is]

53. They should drop out!

Kucinich and Gravel are not serious candidates and should drop out on their own. they take up too much valuable time and Gravel is a bit of an odd-ball. But it's not up to Hillary and Edwards to decide.

[jsamuel]

39. "They" refer to the debates themselves. Edwards wants smaller groups so more can be covered but

doesn't want to kick anyone out.

[ClassWarrior]

41. Sen. Clinton had the right word. Debates are trivialized, not marginalized.

NGU.

[Inspired]

51. Blah, blah, blah.

The debates ARE a joke. I don't blame Clinton or Edwards for stating the truth. I only wish that Clinton had been a little smarter about turning off her mike first.

[jenmito]

54. So if, as Edwards later "clarified," he meant smaller GROUPS

why did he say, "At some point. . . (unintelligible). . . maybe the Fall, we should try to have a more serious and smaller group"and they talked about getting in touch with each others' 'people'? Why didn't he say we should try to divide up into smaller groupS? And why didn't they pull Kucinich and Obama IN with them when they came up to them if they were really talking about ALL of them being split up into smaller groups so the debates could be more serious? I don't buy Edwards' spin.

[geek tragedy]

55. Gee, authenticity issues with St. John?

Who would ever have guessed that from the guy who went from Joe Lieberman to Cindy Sheehan in one election cycle?

[jenmito]

58. Yeah...who would've guessed?

I don't understand why so many people are trying to spin what he clearly said.

[DemBones DemBones]

68. Good points. Why not bring Obama and Kucinich into the conversation when

they came over to shake hands with them? Ask them what they thought, instead of barely speaking to them.

And why did Clinton decline to discuss it at all?

I think the deal is that HRC plans to have JE as her running mate, it may already be agreed upon, by them and the DLC.

[Alamom]

57. Sen. Clinton says "Our Campaigns" not campaign. It's very clear. How

many does our campaigns mean.....

2..... 4..... 6..... 8.....
Let's.. all... play...... SPECULATE.

[bamacrat]

61. The only ones who have trivialized the other cadidates is the media.

If they would cover Kucinich, or Biden with the tenacity that they cover Clinton, Obama and Edwards, we might have a better form of government. Instead they preselect the more "electable" (corporate friendly/ buyable) one and then we all suffer.

[ProudDad]

64. Debates, Those ain't no debates

This 'ere's a debate!!!

http://kronykronicle.com/1968/BV4.html



Vidal: "the only pro or crypto-Nazi here is yourself."

Buckley: "Now listen, you queer, you stop calling me a crypto-Nazi or I'll sock you in the goddamn face and you'll stay plastered."

[AtomicKitten]

65. I thought they were just talking.

"plotting"

seriously?

[DemBones DemBones]

67. Why didn't they discuss it with all the other candidates?

Not doing so and the way they acted made it look more like plotting than mere conversation.

Seriously.

[AtomicKitten]

69. sometimes conversation is spontaneous

and more innocuous than the mud it turns into to sling in the Battle Royale on-line

[Hippo_Tron]

75. Either way, it does show that Hillary isn't infallible

Day after day I hear Hillary supporters drone on about how Obama is making amateur mistakes and how Hillary has so much experience and is flawless. I just enjoy the fact that people now realize that even Hillary can make gaffes.

[AtomicKitten]

76. I find much of the daily grind here re: candidates

absurd and often hypocritical, but it's not unlike every other primary.

[Hippo_Tron]

77. Agreed on both points

[DemBones DemBones]

79. Don't read it then. That's what the Hide Thread feature is for. nt

[Hippo_Tron]

70. Smaller debates would still be lame, they need to be able to ask each other questions

I think the words of Jed Bartlet sum up the current type of "debates" perfectly.

"It's a joint press conference. It's not necessary for the candidates to be in the same room. That part's just theater."

[DemBones DemBones]

71. I agree. All candidates should participate and should be

able to ask each other questions. They should also all have to answer the same questions, discuss the same issues, and be given the same amount of time for their answers.

Since there are eight candidates, the time "problem" could be dealt with by having each debate only deal with one or two topics.

[zulchzulu]

72. "Oh...Hi Barack!"

No mention from Edwards or Clinton to Obama about the plan. He did after all kick their asses in the Second Quarter...what does he know...

:crazy:

[Hippo_Tron]

74. Obama is the only one that this story is good for

I just find it funny considering that we hear day after day we hear about how flawless Hillary's campaign is. Even if she and Edwards weren't plotting anything, it was still dumb of them to be talking about that sort of thing with microphones around that were still on.

Even Hillary has gaffes sometimes.

[DemBones DemBones]

78. Somewhere upthread I said Obama supporters should be ticked

because of this. I think Clinton and Edwards have decided they'll be the ticket and thus can be rude to the other candidates when they come over to shake hands. Everyone writes Dennis off, sure he hasn't got a chance, but I think they're stupid to write Barack off, when he's raised as much money and is polling much better than Edwards.

The primaries could be a big surprise.