Elizabeth Edwards: How about believing me?

Recommended.

I believe her. ;)

insert basic common sense into the world of vapid superficial punditry? How dare she. . .?

/sarcasm

The current format of debates is far less than lame. It requires major revision. I couldn't agree with her more but wouldn't want to see the alleged "lower tiered" candidates ignored by the stupid sycophantic media any more than they are. So it's a conundrum really.

I saw her in Raleigh when John was running for VP.

I knew the damn media (and the Hillary haters) were twisting this. John was collateral damage. I used to like Kucinich - but IF he was using Fox's spin solely for his own gain, I say shame.

But then again, I haven't heard that he actually SAID that. Just that "his campaign said if they did say it" which somehow is getting out as HE HEARD THEM SAY IT. :shrug:

Of course, one poster was saying "Hillary blamed Edwards" - but when asked for clarification - I got nada. I've seen nothing on that either. Anyone know?

Oops - digressed again.

Elizabeth is quite a woman!

that candidates are measured by their sound bites. Right or wrong, this is why Clinton is shining why Obama lags. She has mastered the art of the one sentence response while Obama - like most of us - wants to talk in complete sentences.

she's mastered the art of entire paragraphs, pages, and dissertations. Don't expect her to "shine any less" - though yes, Obama may shine more than he has been.

I think the "sound byte" killed John Kerry's campaign.

I wanted to strangle him. ANSWER THE DAMN QUESTION! Quite saying the same damn trite phrases over and over again. Get excited. Get passionate. Speak from the heart. While he did that *some* - especially at the beginning - towards the ends - that's all we heard. Sound byte. Sound byte. Sound byte. Give me some substance.

to attend a debate where other candidates actually agreed to come (although he may not consider them 'serious' enough candidates, I don't know), the all-Iraq debate, he choose to ignore it....

She maybe telling the truth, she maybe covering for her husband. But what's up with, every time Edwards gets caught saying something stupid or incriminating, he sends Elizabeth to clean it up. This reminds me of the whole gay thing a couple of months back. He says something homophobic, then she comes out and clarifies "Oh no, that's not what he meant, he meant this...." When we didn't by that he finally says his opinion on Homosexuality(that it's a sin) won't affect America and then the campaign sends her to Gay Pride to tell everyone how SHE doesn't have a problem with homosexuality.

IMHO she's a better candidate than her husband.

ELIZABETH EDWARDS 2008!

for Hillary, I wonder if you'll feel the same way.

But I haven't really been paying much attention to their campaigning together.

as far as I know. It will be interesting to see the response on DU if he ever does though.

he could pick up a phone and reprimand someone for statements against Hillary, like Elizabeth did for John.

I don't think I would assume that he was told to do so.

I think she's an intelligent, admirable woman who can, and does, make up her own mind. I think her popularity is as advantageous to the Edwards' campaign as Bill's is to Hillary's, so I would hope that the same enthusiasm would accompany a statement like this from Bill as is shown to Elizabeth now. I don't think it would play out this way though.

I guess it would depend on the person's personal opinion of Bill Clinton and their opinion of Elizabeth Edwards.

I didn't read anything sexist in what he posted.

See this thread for background http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3376264

When he actually had a chance for a serious debate that other candidates agreed to (although not the 'top tier' ones), he declined as did Obama and Clinton.

Maybe it was the one issue thing he didn't like...Maybe he wants more substantial discussions, but not that substantial? :shrug:

with an idea or two. Stand by.

Do I like the idea of having real debates with more substance? Absolutely. It that's what's Edwards is promoting, that's great. And if he wants smaller groups where all candidates would participate with all other candidates based on some form of random system of rotation, no problem there either.

The question on the table is whether either he or Hillary sought to exclude certain candidates from participating with them. I see no answer to that question in Mrs. Edwards' statement. Do you?

John said he doesn't want to exclude, so Elizabeth is saying he didn't want to exclude.

it's still a non-denial denial ...

it does not indicate whether that position is consistent with the conversation he and Clinton had.

Nice little avoiding the whole issue of what he and Hillary were talking about.....Of course we don't get a transcript of the exchange in Iowa, just a reporting of it so we don't know exactly what Edwards was asked there and what exactly he said....

I hope Ed Schults asks him what the conversation with Hillary was about and I hope he gives a straight answer, although if he and Hillary were indeed discussing excluding other candidates, I doubt he'd admit it, especially knowing that people are up in arms about it.....

The soundebite debate style doesn't help my candidate, either.

Would Clinton's supporters accept debates where she is not there?

This said, I still disagree. There is no question the debates are lousy, but the main reason is that there are not debates, they are 5mn stump speeches where the candidates' assertions are not discussed and where organizers try to cover all grounds (including the Paris Hilton's side) in an hour.

Open the format to real debates with exchanges, where positions can be challenged, and it will be a great progress, that will may be allow small candidates to show what they are able to do.

I don't think so. Does anyone thing anyone would listen to Edwards or any of the other candidates go into great detail about their healthcare plans? No, they would change the channel. Refer folks to your website for the numbing details.

What would be more effective would be to allow the questioner to follow up when the question has been dodged ot not been fully answered by the candidate.

Answers need not be limited to 30 or 60 seconds--although you can say a lot in a minute and certainly in a minute and a half.

I agree with Edwards: let's limit TV debates to serious candidates, but I wouldn't like to have been caught discussing limiting them, however. Elizabeth Edwards just provides a story to cover her husband's faux pas.

There would have been no reason to shake hands with Obama and Kucinich and send them merrily on their way. They are two other candidates who would have had a legitimate interest in participating in any attempt to work out a solution. The debates as they are, are not really functioning very well. But Edwards apparently thought he somehow had a better shot with Clinton than the others, that he needed her weight to carry it through, maybe.

As to the plan itself, it's a good idea to consider, random selection of participants in a smaller group. I am not sure how realistic it is for sponsors, who will want the top Dems and may not get them in this plan. But I like it well enough. I think Biden's idea to limit the debate topic so that all candidates have time to give in-depth answers is actually better and more practical. There's something about splitting off and dissipating the energy of the field that bothers me in the Edwards plan.

I don't buy that this is what John Edwards was talking about with Hillary. It's such a bad idea that he couldn't have thought about it for long before realizing how bad it was. Elizabeth even asks if people have better ideas, as if she knows how bad it is.
This would double the number of debates and potentially split up the top contenders. It would be much easier to just exclude a few fringe candidates, which I suspect was his real plan.
I'm also getting tired of Elizabeth coming out to defend John every time he screws up. She's wearing out her good will.

She's an Edwards supporter too you know :D

Should I stop defending JE on DU ?

It's like she just comes out to do damage control. That's not blogging. The way she titles it "How about believing me?" is so insulting.

She is not pure as the driven snow, and everything that she says isn't necessarily so just cause she said it. She is a political wife who's husband is running for the highest office in the land for the 2nd time in their lives, and she will use her "Charm" offensive whenever it is required to "smooth" things over......and I will say that there is nothing wrong with her intent.......but I don't believe that what Ms. Edwards was talking about is what Edwards and Clinton were discussing; breaking up candidates into different debate camps.

But thank you Elizabeth nevertheless for informing us on what your hubby "meant" to say......

They have the $ to buy it. Good Goddess ya'll we're on the frickin' internet and so are they. I am quite sure that the percentage of people who will vote in the primaries who count on the debates as their only source of information is infinitesimal. Just keep repeating you web address. All of these Candidates agreed to the format. Blame them.

If the goal is smaller debates, why not make that a public discussion, instead of a whispered conspiracy between only two of the candidates? Why not be open, honest, and transparent?

because it doesn't address the fundamental problem of insurers (and inefficiencies) in the basic benefits equation.

the more I am beginning to wonder if he needs you to fight all of his battles for him?

You are a great woman, and I would proudly vote for you if you were running.
But, your husband lost me a long time ago.