Looks like Hillary is throwing Edwards under the bus

From the latest AP dispatch on l'affaire open mike:

<Both Edwards and Clinton were asked about the exchange Friday, and offered different explanations.

In New Hampshire, Clinton seemed to lay responsibility on Edwards.

"I think he has some ideas about what he'd like to do," she said, adding she liked participating in the forums.

For his part, Edwards told reporters in Iowa that he wasn't in favor of barring anyone from future gatherings. Rather, he said he wanted to see them separated into two groups of four each, chosen randomly.

"The result would be that we would have a much more serious discussion and people would actually be able to see what the differences are between us," he said.>

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8QBT8HG0&show_article=1

---I like how Hillary is portraying herself as a non-participant here! Then again, Edwards leaves himself open to this kind of treatment because he initiated things. The media could call her bluff by asking her what she meant by, "We've got to cut the number" and "they're not serious." As for Edwards' proposal to have two groups of four debating, that could quite possibly be the most unworkable idea ever.

With that I'm shutting this box down.

:hi:

The media are always playing "gotcha" with Democratic candidates. In my opinion, the Democrats running for president are being remarkably polite and considerate of one another. This is a non-issue.

Edit: typo

of "not liking democracy"

Some people are just flat out buffoons

Did it look to you as if Kucinich actually heard a bunch of it? He's standing so close behind Edwards.

he's overflowing with indignation on this: "Whispering, trying to rig an election, then denying what's going on and making excuses. It all reflects a consistent lack of integrity."

I do.

"I helped him in Iowa" - Kucinich about Edwards, just now on Hardball.

Yes, Dennis, you certainly did, so don't be a hypocrite about being ganged up on or excluded by your former co-conspirator now.

Democratic Presidential hopefuls, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y.., left, listens to John Edwards, center, as Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio approaches after a forum at the NAACP convention in Detroit, Thursday, July 12, 2007. Kucinich responded angrily Friday to a conversation overheard between Hillary Rodham Clinton and Edwards, in which the two spoke of limiting the number of candidates invited to participate in presidential forums. The Edwards-Clinton exchange was picked up by several broadcasters on an open microphone after the NAACP forum in Detroit on Thursday. All eight Democratic candidates took part in the program, including Barack Obama, Bill Richardson, Chris Dodd, Joe Biden, Mike Gravel and Kucinich. (AP Photo/Paul Sancya)

Don't think Kucinich has said he overheard anything, though.

where Kucinich is just behind Edwards' other shoulder. I haven't read where he says he heard anything, either, but he sure seems to have been listening. Thanks for the pic.

Democratic Presidential hopefuls, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., center, listens to John Edwards, right, as Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio approaches, after a forum at the NAACP convention in Detroit, Thursday, July 12, 2007. Kucinich responded angrily Friday to a conversation overheard between Hillary Rodham Clinton and Edwards, in which the two spoke of limiting the number of candidates invited to participate in presidential forums. The Edwards-Clinton exchange was picked up by several broadcasters on an open microphone after the NAACP forum in Detroit on Thursday. All eight Democratic candidates took part in the program, including Barack Obama, Bill Richardson, Chris Dodd, Joe Biden, Mike Gravel and Kucinich. (AP Photo/Carlos Osorio)


Democratic presidential hopefuls from left, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton,D-N.Y, Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, John Edwards and Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill. greet each other after participating in a forum at the NAACP convention in Detroit, Thursday, July 12, 2007. (AP Photo/Carlos Osorio)


Democratic Presidential hopefuls, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-NY., left, and John Edwards, talks during a forum at the NAACP convention in Detroit, Thursday, July 12, 2007. Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio responded angrily Friday to a conversation overheard between Hillary Rodham Clinton and Edwards, in which the two spoke of limiting the number of candidates invited to participate in presidential forums. The Edwards-Clinton exchange was picked up by several broadcasters on an open microphone after the NAACP forum in Detroit on Thursday. All eight Democratic candidates took part in the program, including Barack Obama, Bill Richardson, Chris Dodd, Joe Biden, Mike Gravel and Kucinich. (AP Photo/Paul Sancya)

:rofl:

The groups of 4 are chosen randomly, not by dictatorship. The problem with the debate formats with 8 candidates is that is becomes a soundbite game show, not a forum to discuss serious issues. I think Bill Moyers should host these forums.

and candidates would inevitably feel marginalized if they were paired with the weaker field.

like Hillary and Edwards. At least he wouldn't be ignored.

LOL. Right. :sarcasm:

:woohoo:

Initially some of the talk about this debate centered on how much better Obama did this time around. But that quickly disappeared when FOX invented a faux scandal around this issue.

Obama may come out a little ahead in all this, but less so than he probably would otherwise have done.

Good stuff.

Obama is the only top tier candidate that was not involved in this.

The way she Flips/Flops (Hell she will turn against her own mother if it would get her elected).

Funny how people are trying to wiggle him out of any part in this...

However, this is political junkie, talk radio fodder...the average voter could give a rats ass about this I am sure!!!

Edwards just wanted to do something in the fall. Hillary wanted to get their people on it now. That certainly doesn't absolve Edwards, but I'm not sure who Hillary is trying to kid pinning it all on Edwards.

none of this has to do with how they will vote.

If John Edwards likes to eat boogers in his spare time, but votes for what I want him to, he's got my vote.

I could care less about this horserace crap for eternity.

Sure, the debates might be more meaningful if there were fewer participants (and besides, calling them "debates" is already a bit of a stretch).

But the traditional metrics for deciding who's "top tier" and who's not are polling and fundraising, both of which are influenced by the amount of publicity one receives. If you appear in a debate, you receive publicity and then are more likely to increase both numbers. If the "lower-level" candidates are removed from the debates at this early point in the process, their "lower tier" status will become self-fulfilling.

How do candidates earn publicity prior to the debates anyhow? One would hope it's because their messages are compelling and their campaign organizations are well run. But that's probably naive. It's more likely because they have pre-existing name recognition or, even more importantly, because they have become media darlings for one reason or another. The net result is the major media play way too much of a role in determining who's in and who's out.

The ominous result of starting the campaign so early on a national level is that thanks to the restrictions imposed by the debates, potentially viable candidates will be eliminated before they have a chance to gain traction. If a similar approach had been taken in 2004, the "top-tier" candidates might've been Lieberman, Gephardt, and Dean.

...Hmmm...what could she have possibly been talking about? Gee, that's a tough one, I don't know,... wait a minute, I've got it -- I'll bet she was referring to those living below the poverty level in the U.S. Yeah, that's it, she probably just wants to stamp out poverty and felt like she better tell Mr. Edwards all about it.

It must be exhausting manipulating and massaging everything that goes down to serve as internets fodder and ammunition to use against fellow Democratic candidates.

The only thing I know for sure is that if the players involved in these inadvertent on-mic comments were changed, so would the rhetoric, and those complaining would be among the first to rationalize and offer up excuses for their candidate.

This is the same conversation about the same issue that happens every single election. I think the gist of the comments had more to do with a crowded stage than seeking to stifle debate.

in 1992 - when he and Kerrey were in trouble for Kerrey telling and Clinton laughing at a joke - when they didn't know there was an open mike.