I have lost respect for John Edwards

I liked Edwards a lot and has been my second candidate of choice. But his comments yesterday have turned me off. Next time, when he is on his Poverty tours, why doesn't tell the Poor that they can NEVER be President in this country. And also tell them it is FRUITLESS for them to even think about running for any public office. Because that is what his comments actually mean. If you don't have money, you are not considered a credible candidate to win a political race.

And in all honesty, he might be right if he says that. Because you do need money to run, and be President in this country. But who is HE to decide who should get silenced and who should have the opportunity to be heard. This is something that the lower tier candidates like Gravel and Kucinich want to change. They want to be part of the process that has influence for future elections. Maybe people and the government will wake up one day and realize that public financing of campaigns is the way to go.

But if Mr. Edwards wants to limit democracy; he might as well be honest and tell the Poor and their children that their opportunities will also always be limited.

BTW - The above opinion is based on the alleged story about Edwards/Clinton being true. If I turn out to be wrong, I apologize now.

Just like he did on the War, 'free' trade, the bankruptcy bil, and so forth.

And he'll be sincere.

Really.

or re-type from memory...just curious?

Hence the typo I just noticed.

I think his decision today to eliminate who he thinks are minor candidates is a blunder, it's stupid, it's short sighted and it's unfair to voters.

However, I won't lose all respect for him over it even as I decry it's absolute boneheadedness, its stunning idiocy.

this is the problem with this sound bite shit

based on some of what had just transpired, the man expressed a thought to clinton. Chances are it was prompted by some of the thinly veiled cheap shots that violated the supposed rules. Chances are he was frustrated at not having been able to express much of what he'd have liked to, and was 'venting' a bit to someone he felt would be sympatico. He did not necessarily "make a decision," did not launch a formal efort to suppress, might, in fact, on further reflection think it was inappropriate, or ill-phrased, or ill-timed, or whatever. Or he might decide he really means it and come out with a public call for rule changes, which would make it fair game for debate. But nooooo, it is now cast in concrete, everyone who supports someone else has something to hang on his nose, and it will haunt him until the day he dies.

Wow. Two candidates for president discussing ways to get a leg-up on the other candidates. I've never heard of such a thing /sarcasm.

OF COURSE they will try to limit the debate to as few as possible. Anything to look good. We're talking about politicians.

Do you really think the media, who gets paper from readership/viewership, isn't literally in ecstasy over the idea of a senator getting flogged in diapers?

Most media outlets - including conglmerations of web, broadcast TV, cable, radio, newspapers, and magazines - are now owned by single corporations that control huge segments of their market. They care less about readership and more about protecting their advertisers - many of which are owned by the same mega-corps that own the media outlets themselves.

This is the problem we are facing in this country. Other than privately-owned blogs and boards like DU, there are very few media sources that aren't part of enormous networks owned by the same companies that have interests in the gas and oil industry, pharmaceuticals, junk food, timber, and a few others.

The Republican Party - even at its most corrupt as in the Bush administration - is very friendly to these enormous corporations. Their profits are huge under bushco. They have a strong interest in protecting this administration.

Therefore, they will hide stories that make Republicans look bad, and push stories - even make up stories - to make Democratics look bad.

It's an uphill battle for the truth every step of the way.

Advertising dollars are directly preportionaly to circulation and demographics. If you want the real ugly "story" behind this, it iss news outlets having to cover Vitter over, say, less sexy/funny topics like genocide and homelessness because Vitter is better for circ. numbers.

Do some research into the brutal cuts into print newsrooms across the country because they aren't profitable enough; NewsCorp is rolling in dough because they popularized the kind of 'in your face yellow journalism' that sells the most effortlessly. Rupert Murdoch is into making money first; if Fox News' numbers continue to tank, they'll adjust their editorial viewpoint. Murdoch's politics are pliable if his money is at stake. Meanwhile, real newsoutlets are getting fucked to death because real news can't be documented in a simple, "THIS SIDE IS WRONG, AND WE'VE GOT THE SCOOP!"

As for everything else, including the "OMG ORWELLIAN TWISTS AT EVERY TURN" making up stories narrative; NewsCorp or the Washington Times or whatever will push factualy semi-accurate stuff to further their editorial agenda. Its not a conspiracy, its about sales numbers.

Advertising dollars are directly preportionaly to circulation and demographics. If you want the real ugly "story" behind this, it iss news outlets having to cover Vitter over, say, less sexy/funny topics like genocide and homelessness because Vitter is better for circ. numbers.

Do some research into the brutal cuts into print newsrooms across the country because they aren't profitable enough; NewsCorp is rolling in dough because they popularized the kind of 'in your face yellow journalism' that sells the most effortlessly. Rupert Murdoch is into making money first; if Fox News' numbers continue to tank, they'll adjust their editorial viewpoint. Murdoch's politics are pliable if his money is at stake. Meanwhile, real newsoutlets are getting fucked to death because real news can't be documented in a simple, "THIS SIDE IS WRONG, AND WE'VE GOT THE SCOOP!"

As for everything else, including the "OMG ORWELLIAN TWISTS AT EVERY TURN" making up stories narrative; NewsCorp or the Washington Times or whatever will push factualy semi-accurate stuff to further their editorial agenda. Its not a conspiracy, its about sales numbers.

However, I think that you are undervaluing the impact of ownership on the media outlets. Faux News has low ratings but they have NOT adjusted their editorial viewpoint, because Murdoch's politics when it comes to protecting his own interests are not pliable. Sure, he'll toss out GWB if he no longer serves his purpose. Any individual is disposable. But no way will Murdoch ever run a story that hurts his personal interests - protecting and growing his enormous media empire. Fortunately for Murdoch (and bad for the rest of us), he doesn't have to worry too much because all the other media outlets are also owned by huge conglomerates protecting their corporate butts.

waiting for something besides faux news interpretation?

how about keeping an open mind until he is asked about it and see how he explains it?

First of all, we're going based off of Fox News, who has it in for Democrats in the first place. They probably especially doesn't like John Edwards because he was the first to pull from their debate. Microphones don't lie but quotes are taken out of context.

He should be given an opportunity to explain exactly how he defines a "serious candidate"

Remember too, Edwars said in the fall. Now some people would say candidate shouldn't be excluded before the first primary, but in 2004, two candidates attended some debates and then dropped before the Iowa caucus (Graham and Mosley-Braun). Gephardt dropped the night of the Iowa caucus. For these three candidates, would we say they weren't serious? That they quit too easily? Or that they simply recognized the reality of the situation?

Most of the other candidates hung on until the math said it was no longer possible for them to get the delegates needed. Kucinich and Sharpton hung on despite the math. Now, we can admire their pluck, but at that point are they really serious candidates or just trying to promote an issue (or themselves)?

he just said Edwards is on his show Monday and he'll ask him about it

it's pretty clear -- and not an 'interpretation' -- Fox or otherwise.

I'm sure George Allen said the same thing about his Macacca moment: "It was a DEMOCRATIC VIDEOCAMERA! It was just a DEMOCRATIC interpretation!"

replayed about five times. have a hard time finding anything to get uptight about in the Edwards/Clinton exchange*. The fact that faux covered this and not the republican no-shows, covered Gravel's remarks and Obama's use of notes but not the "debate" itself is much more worthy of getting ones knickers in a twist

*I could not make it out except for Clinton's last comments; so the captioning is all I have to go on. It does not say "let's muzzle these bastards." It is a legitimate point that if these so-called "debates" are going to be a primary means of comparing, then at some point we need to get to more coverage of fewer candidates. I like Kucinich and want him to be taken seriously. I want his bill taken seriously. Even though I agree with one or two of Gravel's positions, I consider his involvement a distraction and detraction. So where to draw a line? Dunno. I am not sure what criteria are appropriate to reduce the list; perhaps some will drop out and it will solve itself.

but would like to respond to this post on principle:

This same point could have been made about the "Dean scream"--except that the media definitely set it up by framing it to be something scary or insane that it absolutely wasn't.

It isn't just that they removed the context within which it made perfect sense, but they also added a context within which it seemed to many to be quite unhinged.

Fox has a history of misreporting things to put Democrats in the worst light possible.

My feeling is that they do it to pit democrat activists against one another -- Divide and Conquer is the oldest RNC GOP ROVE strategy in the book.

I am sure you and I are on the same page -- the more candidates, the merrier.

I just advise against taking FOX stories at face value. They are not "fair" nor "balanced."

Now that's interesting. If there was ever any doubt that Democrats should stay the hell away from Fox, then this ought to be dead proof of it. I don't know all the details of this "controversy", but if it was a Fox sabatoge, then it's a case where we should unite against Fox and dirty media tricks.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1328351&mesg_id=1328351

So fox lied and tried to paint dems in the worst possible light.

The silence of Clinton and Edwards?

Ridiculous.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x40560

It is totally unclear what they are talking about -- FOX JUST SAYS THEY ARE CONSPIRING TO EXCLUDE the other candidates/

Do you have a link?

Turn up your speakers and close your eyes and just listen to it the first time or three. See if you can hear it all and make it out before you read what Fix Noise puts on the screen.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x40560

The commentator filled in the blanks with his own speculation. In other words, he just invented it; made the whole shit up.

:rofl:

band wagon on this story just shows the desperation of the DK supporters

That was reallllly bad.

And DUers believe it. So you might as well just make up shit too. You're no less believable than FNC.

Where Obama was all like, "I run gladiatorial betting matches in my basement with the children of poor people. Fuck the Two Americas!"

And then that hideous, shrill laugh and Hillary pantomiming the children forking each other with tridents.

Mother of Fuck.

for a national election. for good or for ill, fundraising is a huge part of presidential politics, and if a candidate is unable to keep up with the pack, then they are simply not a credible candidate.

I love it when money decides our elections. No wonder our nation is fucked.

It isn't that way now.

All you "heard" was snippets of a conversation that could have a completely different meaning from what FOX NEWS is saying it meant.

I would guess all candidates say things that I wouldn't like when they don't think others can hear them. We always seem to get these moments in every campaign when somebody says something when he/she forgot the mike was on. Ho hum.

Both Clinton and Edwards know that the field will be narrowed only by circumstances (lack of funds) and voters (primaries), as it always is. But you can't blame them -- or any candidate -- for wishing the field was smaller already so they could get more camera time. The others probably feel the same way but weren't stupid enough to say it within microphone range. They were just wishing out loud. No big deal IMO.

But candidates of all stripes should be more attentive to when their candid conversations can be picked up by microphones. This kinda drama is merely a side issue... one of those "Hey look over there!" types of things the pundits love to throw at us to take our minds off the real issues.

Just my opinion.

there are options available for everyone.unfortunately one must start small. Only Ralph Nader wants the top job with no track record of public office experience.

Msongs
www.msongs.com/political-shirts.htm

But it doesn't mean that they should be silenced.

she has plenty of money to do what she needs to do-

Obama is confusing the amount of contributors with votes.

Not the same in the real world!

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Plus Ulysses Grant, Dwight Eisenhower, and George Washington. (others, too, I suspect.)

==BTW - The above opinion is based on the alleged story about Edwards/Clinton being true. If I turn out to be wrong, I apologize now.==

Lame caveat. That is like posting a thread saying you "lost respect" for candidate X because Faux said he beats his wife but apologize if wrong.

I am glad to see Obama fans desperately try to make this lie into a big deal. It shows the campaign needs a boost and that 24/7 talk about the IWR just wasn't getting the job done.

Edwards made his remarks into a hot microphone,and it was Associated Press that picked up the story. Playing the Fox card is a weak attempt to dodge Edward's actions.

This is a point of propriety and class. The fact is Obama/Kucinich taking advantage of a nebulous situation will reflect on Obama's and Kucinich's poll numbers. Kucinich has overplayed his hand!

We're not looking for another predatory government. We are looking for a government that will work with the people, not cut them to pieces, when the opportunity arises.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Who was he referring to?

For both videos:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3374688

Democratic presidential hopefuls Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Sen. John Edwards talk after participating in a forum at the NAACP convention in Detroit, Thursday, July 12, 2007. (AP Photos/Carlos Osorio, Paul Sancya))

He didn't say anything about reducing the number of debates as you have been saying all day, DMC.

And it looks like she threw your candidate under the bus:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3375305&mesg_id=3375305

not the candidates who attend them. The beginning of the conversation was cut out and it was unclear what exactly they were talking about.

Instead, he's trying to give this BS explanation that he wanted to just split the groups up. And then his supporters are running around saying this is just Fox News spin, but anyone can just pull up the video on YouTube and hear it for themselves. It's obvious what they're talking about.

And now I hear that Edwards was suggesting to Hillary that it might be better to have randomly picked smaller groups at these forums so that a more serious discussion can take place as opposed to having all 8 of them show up everywhere.

Go do your slimework on your fellow Republicans and leave us Democrats alone.

Oh, and it's clear ti me that the group with the most money gets the Presidency. Do you have a problem swallowing an honest statemen?

He now says that he was talking about dividing it into two groups. I guess one "serious" group and one "not serious" group.

He's just another polytician.

Lost respect? Heck, I have GAINED respect for John Edwards, and I didn't even think that was possible since I already respect his policies and his character greatly.

But let's look at this analytically. Why are we making a judgment based on a few snippets of a conversation? Wouldn't it be better if we had been able to view the whole forum (debate) and see what might have prompted Edwards to take Clinton aside and talk with her? I have only read about how Gravel was in the debate. I can imagine he was a real "rabblerouser". I'm sure there are rules of decorum for the debate or if there aren't then there should be. Even in high school debates, you are not allowed to attack by calling others names or using derogatory language. I don't know for sure, but I can imagine Gravel saying things like "this bunch of losers", or "those clowns over there", or even worse like "they're murderers" (for voting for the war) - okay so he probably didn't say that, but maybe you get my drift. Kucinich, while not as inflammatory as Gravel, might have crossed the line of debate decorum also.

Edwards is on record as saying that he would like to see the 8 split into groups of four chosen randomly. This makes perfect sense to me. He did say in one of the intelligible snippets of the hot mike conversation that he would like a smaller group. Now too many people are assuming that he meant to exclude some of the 8 by that comment. Some are even nitpicking and saying that he didn't say "groups". I think it is entirely plausible that he meant a smaller group at an individual debate and that fits with his explanation of splitting the 8 into 4 each.

But you know what about all of this? I don't even care. Running for office is cutthroat - you have to be tough - because you can have the best ideas and policies in the world - but if you can't play the game - then your great vision may never come to fruition. John Edwards is a fantastically good person and a true patriot who is not motivated by blind ambition. I believe his motivation comes from the experience of losing his 16 year old son Wade - and he wants to make America a better place to live for all the other teenagers who will inherit the direction of this country. So please - you may not want to vote for him - but I hope that people here can find some respect for John Edwards.

I don't think The Kooch is electable, But he does a good job at keep other Dems on thier toes.

I was hoping for an Obama/Edwards or an Edwards/Obama ticket, not any more after this crap from Edwards.

he'd have just decked her.