Did you hear that Edwards and H. Clinton want to get rid of the less supported candidates in debates?

Question

After a debate Edwards and Clinton were talking to eachother and it was recorded on a tape they didn't know about.

Here is a link:
http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/

On it it says:
"John Edwards and Hillary Clinton were caught, unbeknownst to them, calling for an end to having the lower tier candidates at the debates. Hillary Clinton called them "trivialized". John Edwards called them "not serious"."

Here is what they said:

"We should try to have a more serious and a smaller group," Edwards

"We've got to cut the number. ... They're not serious," - Clinton

Also, would you still support them after this?

Answer 1

That sounds like typical elitists. I do not support either one of those fools now. We need to get rid of corruption, not elect it into the highest office in the country.

Answer 2

With eight Democrats on the stage for the last debate, it is readily apparent that Americans are seeing an overly crowded and not getting the answers they deserve. Because we have candidates running who have even less chance of winning than I do, Americans are not allowed to hear substantive answers to questions. They are kept to thirty seconds or a minute if we are lucky.

Mike Gravel might be a competent, if gruff personality, but I can categorically state he wouldn't even win today as a Senator from Alaska if he were on the ballot. Dennis Kucinich is the angriest over what has transpired between John Edwards and Hillary Clinton. But, look at his confidence level. If he really thought he was going to win the presidency, then he would have no reason to run for reelection as a member of the House of Representatives--nice consolation prize for losing the presidency as he did badly four years ago. 9If I were his Republican opponent in Ohio, I would demand equal time on the stage as it gives Kucinich an unfair advantage.) Kucinich doesn't care--it's simply about ego and to raise a few issues that the major candidates are rasing themselves (witness all the talk awhile back about his love life after having declared for president the first time).

Joseph Biden and Christopher Dodd are serious members who should be content with being in the Senate because, for better or worse, that's all that they are going to get. Clinton, Obama, Edwards, and I would argue Bill Richardson are showing movement (i.e. a pulse). If they need a fifth, Al Gore could get off the dime and make the decision to run.

The Tavis Smiley run debate was good but was hampered by the time frame due in no small part to the inclusion of the also rans. Don't get me wrong; they have a right to be there, and after this fiasco, they will. But, the major candidates will suffer since it will not give them an effective enough forum to express their views and challenge the Republicans.

Ultimately, Republicans will have it worse as they have even more candidates.

Perhaps somebody should legally change their name to None of the Above. They might be the only person in America to unite the country.

Answer 3

I'm sorry I don't get it. Why should this surprise anyone? Are the top Republican candidates saying "the more the merrier", or did they do so in any previous primary election when there were lots of candidates?

They are running for office in a system run like "Survivor", in a country where candidates are marketed more like laundry detergent than leaders of the free world. Of course they want less competition. We know more about how good their personalities appear to be (not what they are really like), than about what their actual policies will be.

It's the same duopoly strategy that keeps us from taking any "third" party seriously.

Answer 4

Here's my 2 cents...

Ready?

Of course politicrats want to get rid of those "not serious". See, what they mean by "serious" is "official"...meaning endorsed by the status quo government. A very communist concept that states that anything not endorsed by the gubberment isn't trustworthy...or even safe.

But that's NOT what America was founded upon. We don't ask for permission from the government to be trustworthy or "serious". So what if someone's not endorsed?

Trust is trust not an "official" endorsement.

Screw clinton and edwards.

Answer 5

I would never support Edwards, and especially not Clinton. The Clinton's are supposed to be some of the nastiest people (extremely rude to the help in the white house, rude to the secret service) and their ideas to make America a better place scare me, and don't make sense. Thanks for posting the link - I had heard about it, but hadn't been able to find it.

Answer 6

Edwards is such a dunce. After he helps hillary get rid of everyone but himself and obama, he's in the next round of cuts.

Answer 7

Edwards maybe. But I would never support Hilary Clinton. She is too much of a socialist.

Answer 8

I read that.

Personally anyone who supports either of them is a bit blind.

Please see the movie

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173

I like Kucinech. I am voting for Ron Paul, but I do like Kucinech (he and RP are friends)

Answer 9

Yes

Answer 10

Hillary stifling free speech??? OH NO. She is such a LIAR just like that husband of hers.

And both of them are SOCIALISTS