Political Punch

I agree with Clinton/Edwards. We need a leader for the Democrats. We do not need 1000 voices with fragments of thoughts dividing the party, nor do we need swaying on "our" values. Confusion and division will help lead to another decade of evangelical, neo-conservative, hate mongering, right winged politians for the wealthy. Because of our (Dems) vast ideals we allowed seating of neo-cons to the Supreme Court which will effect our Nation for YEARS to come. Get behind our Democrat Leaders and quit dividing us.

OK lets split up the debates into 2 groups

one with the best politicians money can buy
and what ever is left in the other

Yeah, Betsy, give him a chance!

Maybe Dennis is the next comeback kid..... Give him a chance Betsy.

Betsy,

By your logic, um, Bill Clinton would have never been president. He was not a 'serious' contender. He got nominated by a miricle, hence, the title "come back kid." I would like to meet the next come back kid, I want to hear what he has to say.

I'm ticked off by what Hilary and Edwards said, but I don't really find it surprising. I honestly find it refreshing that we have such a range of candidates in these early debates. Mike Gravel is my new personal hero... he's willing to roast the other candidates over the fire for their carefully rehearsed doubletalk or obfuscation.

Bill Richardson, Kucinich, Gravel, and other non-mainstream candidates provide a welcomed and interesting contrast to mainstream. We need more viewpoints, not fewer!

Honestly, everyone needs more time to speak and eliminating the rest of the competition isn't a good way to accomplish that.

Betsy - Do you realize that this is the beginning for Obama Hussien, Hillary Rodham, and John 400$ Haircut that they want to silence ANYONE that disagrees with them. See the Libs had an agreement not to talk bad about each other the rule was made by the 3 socialists for all the libs, and then in the debate the others atacked the 3, that is why they are mad. If you consider the big whig then you ignorant.

Chris 98% of the lib party are trial lawyers, so voting for them gets you a lawyer.

What I think is they should do with this many candidates is have an American Idol type debate, For the primaries have 3 people from their party ask questions to one at a time, but all them before it is broadcasted so each give answers to the question and not responding to each other.

Much to do about nothing! I agree with Hillary and Edwards. Dennis is just trying to make this a scandal so that he can get his 15 minutes of fame. He still doesn't have a chance in hell of becoming the next president. Only serious contenders should be allowed in the debates.

Why are we heaping criticism on the Democratic contenders and making no mention of the fact that only ONE Republican candidate made an appearance at the NAACP Republican Presidential Candidates Forum?

I find the exchange between Hillary and Edwards to be disgusting. I would be equally as outraged if any of the Republican candidates were caught making similar remarks concerning their own Presidential contenders. Who are they to decide who is serious or not? The American people have a right to hear the views of each and every one of the candidates. Individually, we will decide who we agree with and who we do not. We will determine whose vision is relevant. I am a Democrat, who is glad that Hillary and Edwards have been exposed. They have shown their true colors, by expressing their desire to censor those of opposing views. In other words, they want to suppress democracy. I applaud Kucinich for his statement. We, as Americans, Republican, Democrat or Independent, should not tolerate those who attempt to rob us of our rights to free press, free speech and free thought. It is arrogant and dangerous behavior. In the last several years we have seen an erosion of our rights, I have had enough. Democrats should contact the DNC, Republicans the RNC, tell them not to allow the suppression of any of the 2nd tier candidates.

This is exactly what most politicians (Lawyers) believe (pick a side... D or R). They are the chosen ruling class in America and will do anything to retain and expand their power!

When will the people in these blogs realize that it's not really a contest between the Democrats and Republicans... It's our FREEDOM versus their power! The more tax money we send to them... the more power and control they have over us!

It appears we have sadly forgotten two very serious lessons... One of long ago and one more recent...

1. The Boston tea Party

2. Sept 11, 2001

Don't worry Dennis Kucinich it's call favortism, or just let them bring down there own domain, it's like reading a carton funny and when I heard it on my news station wow. Buy the end not one will win the race there all be filing bankrupcty. We need a new candiates someone put on a job fair for our next president. I love it!

it does not surprise me, just when i started feeling good about the polls, the dynamic duo comes up with this. Why ? rsny

I agree with Cat the debates was being trivialized by Mike Gravel and his crazy rantings. He is just taking uo time that could be better spent hearing the views of the serious candidates such as Hillary, Obama and Edwards.

Wow, Hillary really stepped in it this time. This is just what lots of folks thought her true nature was. It will be interesting to see how this plays out later on. Not to say I am a big fan of the current debate setup, but there is no way to spin this as anything but a black eye for Hillary and Edwards.

Kucinich is always right on!!
Dennis KUCINICH is the only canidate with "NO STRINGS ATTACHED" to corporate money or lobbyists!! He is the ONLY candidate who not only voted against authorizing the invasion of Iraq, but also rallied 125 members of Congress to do the same!! Kucinich is the ONLY candidate who not only is advocating a SINGLE-PAYER (not for profit) health care system, but has co-authored the H.R.676 bill for this health plan!! Kucinich is also the ONLY candidate with the courage to stand up and author the Articles of Impeachment of Cheney (H.R.333)!! NONE of the other candidates will even consider supporting impeachment!!! WAKE UP PEOPLE ... Kucinich is the ONLY one who can save our country and the world!!!

Stop kidding yourselves Hillary Clinton is a very dismissive person. She demonstrated this in the early 90's when she was asked to lead the healthcare initiative. She decided to ignore key individuals from the opposition and the medical profession and as a result there was a tremendous missed opportunity to begin the transition of the nations healthcare system. When President Clinton demonstrated a laspe in judgement with Monica, she blamed a right wing conspiracy. There is a pattern here that is very similar to the current "President" declare yourself the leader, collude with Edwards and dismiss others. Such arrogance should make us all wonder about her character. As a lifetimember of the "D" party I will never support her in the primary or heaven forbid in the general election. The Clinton's need to go the way of the Bush's and ride off into the sunset. ENOUGH OF DIVISION in our country.

I'm waiting and hoping we meet truly qualified candidates before we vote in November 08. It's still early!

After a few debates, many voters have eliminated some candidates in their minds and would prefer to hear more-- from fewer candidates--from their remaining choices, that is. I am one of them. As I think back, though, I have a far from perfect record for picking eventual winners this early in a primary campaign. My guess is that Sens. Edwards and Clinton have been less than perfect, too. And they know it. Thus, for those two to conspire to squeeze out rivals who they can label as marginal is to eliminate a potential winner!! It's self-centered, self-serving, and deceitful. Never mind the spin that their political machines will float as to what they really meant--they were caught disenfranchising voters. They should have been in a back room with cigars--and no pesky microphones to reveal their arrogance. They're frontrunners?? Whew.

Edwards has released a statement saying he is thinking of groups of 4 each randomly chosen. Whether or not this is what was meant originally. I think it is a good idea. Personally I am sick of the 'rais your hand' answer format. Also as a candidate gets into the meat of an idea ot proposal they are cut off.

Another idea is for a couple of them at a time to do a REAL debate and post it online. Their websites and youtube. Anyway, I do agree 8 is tomany to have a debate. In fact it is barely a 'question and answer session' Seems more like a group interview.

While it was not tactful what Edwards and Clinton spoke on was correct the number needs to be limited when both the democrats and republics have eight to eleven candidates running for the nomination of their respective parties (not to mention all the third parties that are out there) and each debates is to short does not capture the messages of any of the candidates, when the president a debates being wee will only see to nominees speak. We should begin to limit the number so the debates can capture the message of the candidates so the American people can actual place their faith in someone.

I think Clinton and Edwards were out of line. Apparently, Clinton was certainly meaning for her people and Edwards people getting together...as Obama and Kucinich left Clinton gives her "thank yous" to them as if they were doing her a favor...give me a break, her arrogent attitude I believe will get her in trouble as well as her husbands. When you look at Hillary and Bill remember you are looking at a Washington Machine...they are for themselves...they always have been. I have now heard Hillary change her stance on the Iraq War 3 times, only to please votes...she blows with the wind. The conversation only confirms again, Clinton will do and say whatever it takes to win. I don't about you I cannot trust this in a person, even though Hillary has her strong points, I don't trust her or her husband.

This is terrible, but not surprising. Our system is so convoluted . . . media and people behind the scenes (in parties and in campaigns such as Clinton's and Edwards') decide who the public sees, and therefore who will get the nomination. In no sense are ideas and character weighed fairly.

Candidates need more time to speak. The problem is with the set up of the debates. Have a continuous debate, give them X amount of time to answer, if they go on a tangent, cut them off and soon they will talk themselves out of the debates. People won't stand for this. In the general election, GIVE THE CANDIDATES TIME, run it consecutive days, if they don't stay on issue, cut them off. This is not hard, i came up with this just sitting here. Come on, with a little thought process and organization something can be accomplished

stop with the $400.00 hair cut comments and bashing hillary! its all over used and annoying. Try something original.

Interesting that neither the Edwards or Clinton campaign have explained what the reference was to... speak up candidates... What were you referring to?

Let me know when they start playing to "hand-picked" audiences who agree with every word like someone else we know and you'll pique my interest. Until then, stop the Hillary bashing. it's getting old.

Sens. Clinton and Edwards must have been out to lunch when they discussed this, since their "conclusions" show them as shallow, arrogant, opportunistic egotists. I wholeheartedly agree with Rep. Kucinich's sentiments, but I would also add that these "town hall meetings," or "forums," or whatever you want to call them are as far removed from true debates as a cheeseburger is from filet mignon. At best, these spectacles are chances for candidates to present quotable soundbites for the next news cycle and to attempt to throw verbal roadblocks in front of their competitors. Significant issues are only discussed in the most cursory of terms and specifics are never mentioned due to very limited time constraints: "Candidate X, tell us how you'd end the war in Iraq, and remember that you have thirty seconds in which to answer." In comparison, "Final Jeopardy" seems to be an eternity!

Another hit job on Hillary Clinton- Are you sure that's what they were talking about? Even if it was- we do need serious discussion- not just superficial talk about the issues- Of course Dennis Kucinich wants his chance in the sun-he has had that- we all know he's anti-war- Many of us would like to be on the grandstand and have an opportunity to speak- But that's not reality- This is an important election and the American people deserve a chance to hear more than a sound bite- Hillary has handily won- by most measures, the previous debates. Her poll numbers have gone up-why would she want to change what works for her unless there is for a bigger goal of what's best for the American people? All those who do not support Clinton are jumping to the conclusion (you may note that John Edwards started the discussion first) that she was talking about the set debates- maybe they want to look for another private forum with a smaller panel? Thanks for giving the readers a heads up on who you're going negative on by the ugly caricature accompanying the piece. Way to go Jake-

This is so stupid come on ABC what gives nothing else to report in the news. A Conspiracy now anything to do with area 51.

Direct quote from Washington Post: "After the forum, Fox News microphones picked up Clinton and Edwards discussing their desire to limit future joint appearances to exclude some rivals lower in the crowded field....." Fox News, huh? Need I say more?

Sounds like Hillary and Edwards don't want to talk about real issues. You know the ones Kucinich and Gravel talk about: The BS war on drugs, corporate trade sellouts like NAFTA and the WTO.

Is any one surprised - See Socialist want to Silence anyone who does not agree with them, Hilary, Obama and 400$ Haircut man are taking lessons from Chavez/Castro/Marxism/Stalinism.

Scary that they want to silence members of their own party, imaging what they will do to independents, Republicans, blue collar Dem's, and Conservatives. They want to get rid of the Constitution and put in place the Book of Marxism.

This is Proves it all, no matter how much Koolaid they try to fdrown it in.

Im with the Kooch on this one.
In the words of Mike Gravel, these top tier candidates frighten me.

I'm with Kucinich on this one. The more the merrier.

John Edwards reminds me of a used car salesman with his expensive haircuts! Every cynical, phony, greedy salesman is obsessed with his hair, because he thinks that if he looks perfect, people will believe his lies. But Edwards is a trial attorney who made his fortune suing people and companies, so he is a step below used car salesmen. Does Edwards really believe the American people will vote for him? And Hillary Clinton reminds me of an angry, but stoic wife who stays with a husband who repeatedly beats her up, because she thinks there is some great reward at the end of her personal suffering. Hint for you, Ms. Clinton: the only reward you get for staying with an abusive spouse is personal embarrassment!

How do you know they were talking about limiting the number of CANDIDATES? Did anyone ever decode a full transcription? Or hear back from the campaigns? You're jumping to so many conclusions. Why couldn't they be talking about limiting the number of debates...or number of audience members? This is silly.

I'm for it.

I would like to see smaller debates, not
fewer candidates necessarily, if in fact if this is what John and Hillary were talking about, why jump to conclusions.
The debates so far have been lousy when it comes to content by each candidate, they don't have a chance to talk, every
thing is rush rush, it's annoying, like
a contest, answer this question in one
minute or less, who ever thought of this forum is an idiot. Each person should be given a minumum of five minutes to express their thoughts on a
question. What's wrong with wanting
that, if Dennis K., was upset, too bad.
He gets his two cents in so if the others feel they need more time nothing
is wrong with that. There is no conspiracy, don't be ridiulous.

I think they should limit the forums. I'm tired of hearing Gravel....he makes the party look bad with all his crazy rantings....Hill was right, people like him aren't even serious, and the forums are just going to be trivialized as long as these kooks are up there spewing their obscure views.

This is not what the public wants to hear. We DO NOT want our candidate choices to be limited, espcially when the best candidates in this race, appear to be "dark horses".

This is precisely why neither of these candidates is on my list of options.

We do NOT need any more lawyers in the government.

Neither.