Why are Clinton and Edwards so afraid of competition. They should welcome the diversity of ideas into the debates. Let the voters see all of them in these public forums where the amount of $$$$ the candidates have been able to raise is not as important as the ideas they bring to the table.
After all Kerry wasn't a 'top tier' candidate at this point in 2004. Maybe if his compitition hadn't fallen by the wayside so quickly he would have been a stronger candidate against Rove/Bush

In response to ARA Charleson:

There is great chart in the July issue of Ballot Access News entitled "Which Presidential Candidates (other than Democratic and Republican) Would Have Been in General Election Debates if 'Rock the Debates' Criteria Had Been Used?" It lists how the presidential dabates would have looked for all electdions from 1856 to 2004. The 2004 debate, for example, would have been: Bush, Kerry, Nader, Badnarik, Patourka, and Cobb. That sounds much more interesting.

Vote Kucinich!

Al Gore is interested in preventing the destruction of the planet. He encourages people to share his movie with others, rather than buying their own. Does that sound like he is only interested in money? Al Gore knows that all the money in the world is not going to save us from an uninhabitable planet.

I was really interested in the common sense politics of Ron Paul, but I don't see an environmental policy. Big gap.

Ralph Nader's main thrust is product safety. He saved America from the Corvaire. That is fine, but that's certainly not my big issue.

Al Gore's issue is the environment. It is not possible for Al Gore to have committed all this time and energy to global warming, for all of these years, and secretly just care about money. That makes no sense. There is no basis.

HILLARY IS AN ANTI-DEMOCRATIC BIOTCH..SHE BELONGS IN THE BUSH MISADMINISTRATION

Dennis Kucinich, Gravel, Nader and Ron Paul are the only candidates running presently not on the payroll of corporate America. What I would give to see a ballot with only those names on it. Then Americans could have a real ideological choice in the 4 candidates rather than a choice of 2 K street employees. Al Gore is also on the payroll folks, do not be decieved.

This snippet of conversation is too vague to reaveal anything. Asking the two candidates for an explanation will only give the public an opportunity to judge how creative they are at lying.

I already have the opinion of Edwards and Clinton that they will do anything, and be anything to get elected. Edwards, however, is much smoother than Hillary. He has risen this far without provoking the animosity that Hillary faces. He is very intelligent, and capable of fooling many people. Everybody knows that Clinton is corrupt, power hungry, and stands for nothing except her own ego. Edwards is just more cautious.

Al Gore, please.

What is there to question?
Being in the political realms that both Partys now hold is one vast form of organized crime.
They are not illegal because they passed laws legalizing their activitys.
It is an occupaitonal choice that combines riches with power and thowe who get to the top position in any state almost always owe their souls to one family, Republican or another family Democrats.
There are at most 7 Honorable people who hold Federal elcted positions and Foremost of them all is the one man who holds views that the American populace will never allow to take place and that is Ron Paul.
Honorable does notallow one to, "be a thief, laying a willing page be they boy or girl or getting a BJ, passing bills to increase your power and a special interest power, making money of husbands militry contracts and then pretending you are anit-war, using your political power to edxclude any dissenters from your public talks,rigging ballot boxs' and voter registration, saying you are aginst a war and then voting to fund it, no Honorable does not include any of the above or many other if not illegal immoral.
You are told to vote for the "Lesser of two evils" by those two evils and you do!
What does that make you?
Everyone with a mind should understandf that thoe now in office and all their supporters beong to the one orgainzation of society, politics,and they care nothing about you or I but only for their political lives.
Why do we allow them to appoint themselves as our rulers?
Teh only recourse left is to "not vote for either party Independents or Greens", civl dispobedience, tax revolt, stop being deliberately ignorant and instead of acting like fawning idiots tel them when they lie that you know it is a lie and to get the hell off of their soap boxes before you kick the box out from beneath them.
the largest and most Brutal and powerfull dictatorship was not beaten by
Regan and his god swarior but by the Soviet peoples themselves. They stopped being governable, formed underground economys, deliberately slowed down at work, ignored the news cast and best of all stopped participating in politics.
1 party member per hundred thousand cannot run a country and that same ratio will work in this country.
Remeber though no matter the country those with guns, and theri will be many who volunteer, will fire upon their own people, torture thei own and steal from their own bu they can be beaten as the Soviet Peoples showed.
Stop believing all the politcal patriotic crap and maybe we will not have a needless war in future and a free country.

"We've got to talk because they, they are, just being trivialized," Clinton said to Edwards.

"They are not serious," Edwards responded.

"No," Clinton said in agreement. "You know, I think there was an effort by our campaigns to do that. We got somehow, you know, detoured. But we've got to get back to that . . ."

Question: What is the referent to "they"? Is it the same for both "they"s? Hillary worries that the first they are being trivialized. On the other hand, John states that the second they are not being serious. I see no connection between this untranslatable snippet and the claims made by ABC and picked up without any question as to their validity by all the commenters. And we are a group who don't trust mainstream media, remember? I don't want Hillary or John as my pres., but I also don't need to base my arguments on such flimsy evidence as that in this story.

NOTHING matters if we can't get those in power OUT.
It will take many small victories to

1)Repudiate the executive over-reaching of this president and vice-president and future pres's via impeachment NOW. (contact Speaker Pelosi at http://www.speaker.gov/contact and watch Bill Moyers Journal on Impeachment http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/index-flash.html

2)Win a majority of central and left-of-center in Congress.

3)Return balance to the Supreme Court.

Corporatism is a major problem - but it took it a long time to be entrenched and will take much to dismantle. Division among us will only serve the powerful.

We must unite to defeat the neocons. We haven't been able to get a real progressive leader elected in over 70 years that hasn't had some stain of money's power. Even FDR was filthy rich.

The organization in control of the actual Presidential Debates is the Republican and Democratic sponsored Commission on Presidential Debates. The debates used to be run by the League of Women Voters, who withdrew from control in 1988, issuing this statement:

"The League of Women Voters is withdrawing sponsorship of the presidential debates ... because the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter. It has become clear to us that the candidates' organizations aim to add debates to their list of campaign-trail charades devoid of substance, spontaneity and answers to tough questions. The League has no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public."

There is a separate entity attempting to retake control of the debates in order to make them more fair, called the Citizens' Debate Commission.

There are three (3) criteria that the CPD uses to select who will be in the Presidential Debates (taken from their website):

---

1. Evidence of Constitutional Eligibility

The CPD's first criterion requires satisfaction of the eligibility requirements of Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution. The requirements are satisfied if the candidate:

a. is at least 35 years of age;
b. is a Natural Born Citizen of the United States and a resident of the United States for fourteen years; and
c. is otherwise eligible under the Constitution.

2. Evidence of Ballot Access

The CPD's second criterion requires that the candidate qualify to have his/her name appear on enough state ballots to have at least a mathematical chance of securing an Electoral College majority in the 2004 general election. Under the Constitution, the candidate who receives a majority of votes in the Electoral College, at least 270 votes, is elected President regardless of the popular vote.

3. Indicators of Electoral Support

The CPD's third criterion requires that the candidate have a level of support of at least 15% (fifteen percent) of the national electorate as determined by five selected national public opinion polling organizations, using the average of those organizations' most recent publicly reported results at the time of the determination.

---

I have no problem with the first two criteria. They are perfectly reasonable as the first one is in our constitution and therefore must be adhered to and the second one allows the individual states to still have a pretty fair say in the selection of candidates. The third criteria, however, IS 100% CRAP. How would an average voter ever actually say he would vote for somebody from the Communist Party USA (who no longer runs presidential candidates), the Libertarian Party, the Green Party, the Constitution Party, or any of the other approximately one dozen parties that usually meet criteria number two at election time? In the 1912 election, Eugene Debs, running as the candidate for the Socialist Party of America, received 901,551 votes (6.0% of the total), but 0 electoral votes. In 1920 he again ran on the same ticket (from prison!), receiving 913,693 votes (3.4% of the total), but once again 0 electoral votes. Then, in our own time, in 1992, Ross Perot, running WITHOUT A PARTY BACKING received 19,743,821 votes (18.9% of the total), but 0 electoral votes. 18.9%! Perot was allowed into the debates, but after that election the rules were quickly changed, as the 1992 debates only required a 5% approval rating from the polls rather than the current 15%.

Who else thinks this is ridiculous? We should allow all candidates who meet the first two criteria into all presidential debates. That way we can hear a truly fair and balanced point of view and force the Republicans and their fake opposition allies (the Democrats) to be more honest, and (hopefully), fill the Oval Office with a "Third" Party.

*As a side note, this should also be true for legislative elections. There should be a rule that one party cannot control more than 20% of either house of Congress. In fact, we should just have a Parliament (if only...).

This thread points out the weakness of the left and why our "new" Congress has no power to stop the continuing erosion of the Constitution and Rule of Law.

Repeatedly, the left is splintered by divisions that really aren't big enough to matter. What does it matter if I'm 2 degrees further to the center than you? If we don't pull together we will lose to the far-right.

We have to get out of this crisis now by defeating SOUNDLY those who would be Bush's Mini-me's.

Now is not the time to begin to divide the only VIABLE PRACTICAL way to take back this country for the people.
I know that our values are not to be compromised. But we must try to find a common way to unite.

To nitpick a barely understood exchange between the frontrunners as Korporatism is a bit like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

If you don't like Clinton and Edwards, don't vote for her or him in the primary. But to begin the campaign with the derogatory name-calling will wind up with another close election and no real majority with any real power in the Congress.

Look at the reality now. Even with 45% of the people calling for Impeachment, Pelosi won't consider it because she "can't get the votes" from the GOP.

I've seen it before for years - there's a fight to be engaged against the real dangers, but the left fritters away their energies with infighting.

Listen! don't you hear it?
Stolen elections
Iraq
Torture
Illegal wiretapping
Signing Statements
Libby
Big Oil
Healthcare
and on and on

Let's get them out first -
Then hold the feet of the new administration into the fire.
Save the infight for peacetime.

Peace!

We need Kucinich, Gravel, and Paul to keep plugging away at the issues that voters want to hear about. If these public discourses are not debates then the subject matter for discussion should be wide open for consideration. This should be a real forum for expression of ideas that are not sound bites prepared in advance. With these public appearances by the candidates beginning so early in the race I think that the voters are going to be candidate weary by the time that real debates should begin.
I am already weary of polls and campaign coffers. So far there isn't anyone who is really addressing the issues that are important to me.

Ross Dreyer:

EXCELLENT post! I hope if the rest of you haven't, go back on this thread and read what Ross is saying... It's all about censorship of the ballot! It's been going on for years and has gotten so out of control that hardly any alternative voice can be heard above the din of corporate-controlled politicians.

If ballot access and open debates are not addressed by each and every one of us NOW at our state level, there will be no need to spend time talking about how good or important Kucinich or Nader's message is for America. It won't matter folks because they won't be heard in 2008! They won't be allowed on states' ballots or be invited to speak to Americans in national debates. We get fooled into thinking we actually have a say in the direction we want our country to move by getting sucked into these phoney beauty contests that corporate owned parties like the Dems and Repubs play out. HA! What a joke. It's all a sham, a circus to amuse the corporate elite and keep our own focus from what is really wrong with our electoral process.

It's all about ballot censorship!!! Correct it and we'll have a Kucinich and a Nader and other Greens and progressives toi choose from. If not...well...just more of the same...again. Haven't we been played with long enough?

I visited PJD's link to democracy now.

It's very apparent why these two corporate elites want Kucinich far, far away from televised debates...It's called integrity...something neither apparently has.

Quoting from the article on Democracy now - In response, Ohio congressmember and Democratic candidate Dennis Kucinich said: "No matter how important or influential they perceive themselves to be, [candidates] do not have and should not have the power to determine who is allowed to speak to the American public and who is not. Imperial candidates are as repugnant to the American people and to our Democracy as an imperial President."

Kick ass, Kucinich!

Another attempt to fuddle peoples perceptions and smear John Edwards i'd say.
Dennis Kucinich is a true democrat, but he shouldn't be jumping off the deep end so quick at another real democrat(John Edwards). It must surely be partly due to the formidable Edwards factor that DK is recieving more attention than last time. Dennis Kucinich and John Edwards are both strong due to their holding of democratic principles for the people, alot stronger than others who perhaps seem to be powerful, but it is John Edward's soloing that the bombast of the other full ensemble orchestras are finding hard to drown out.
But then again, i'm just a boogle....doo-whop, doo-whop.

Unless we all vote absentee, Xerox our ballots and count them ourselves in each and every precinct there won't be any free and fair elections, regardless of "who" is on the "ballot".

I will never vote on a computer, knowing the facts of what happened in 2000 and 2004. Just check out "Project Censored" if you want to know about election fraud in this country.

If we don't demand an end to computerized voting and start a move to count the ballots ourselves on a precinct level you can just stick the fork in. We're done.

I will continue to remind everyone of the day John Bolton pushed his way through the throngs of Americans watching the "count" in Dade County, Florida screaming, "I'm here to STOP THE COUNT!!"

Remember the Stalin quote: "It doesn't matter WHO votes, it's who COUNTS the votes that is important."

Yeah, Yeah, Yeah. Heard it all before. But this is unlike anything before. The planet is in peril, but all I hear from the so-called left is meaningless cliches. Get it through your ego-blinded heads that Kucinich, Nader, and the like are simply unelectable. Most Americans are still sheep, part of the bewildered herd. To salvage our rights, our planet, our future, it's time to get a grip on all of reality, not just the feel-good rhetoric of idealistic leftist pipedreams. Get behind a candidate who would have a hard time being a mouthpiece for corporate interests in front of the cameras even if he or she wanted to. For example, Al Gore seems genuine enough in spite of his flaws and past wrongdoings. Besides, with his anti-war speeches, anti-torture stance, anti-right wing media position, and his passion for saving the life of the planet, (just to name a few of his better qualities) he has let the cat out of the bag enough to make it very difficult to put it back in again. Team him with Obama, Edwards or many other mainstream candidates and he is electable and in a great position to have his feet held to the fire on all those issues. Back an unwinnable fringe candidate and I hope you find a safe and quiet place to continue your political masturbation fantasies until the earth is uninhabitable or until the powers that be find you.

Oh Yes, it makes a lot of sense to vote for a republican - especially after eight years of the shining example they now have in office. I think he and fellow pubs are the ones destroying this country Jess - or has that been ignored in your dislike for Hillary?

I can't believe this bs ! Who the H cares ??All these people (politicos) "talk" all the time - geesh! I can't believe this is considered news - even by some people here ??
and for those from OZ -
Hillary Clinton is not responsible for NAFTA

Several years ago, I warned my Canadian Friends to watch out for Bush. One of these days, I told them, he is going to look at Canada's resources and consider that you are just a minor barrier between the lower 48 and Alaska. Look up "Anschluss." Then Canada elected a Bush wannabe for a leader and now we have this "SSP" program starting up which will allow US Big Money to rape Canada's resources for their profit using cheap Mexican labor. I think it should be called the Greater America co-prosperity sphere. Similar to Japan's "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere." If you are old enough to remember WW-II, you'll remember what that was all about, and who got the prosperity.

I think Clinton and Edwards are just two more team players for the shadowy "Sugardaddy Bigbucks" characters that are actually running the show for their own profit. Naturally, they will try to marginalize anyone who is trying to change the well established system.

Remember, with rare (and often assassinated) exceptions, the American Politician has but one interest. To shoulder his way up to the public trough, and then to remain there at all costs. Once elected, what is the first and last plea? For money for the next election. When the ballots are counted, or not, as our last few elections have shown, the plans start for the next election. Favors are called in and paid back, promises made, and, oh yes, occasional legislation is thrown to the public as a sop. Rarely is there any real reform, real change. It is just business as usual.

I think the people are starting to wake up to it after the last election and the Bushit that has gone on since, but unless we can get some real statesmen in office, the only change will be for the worse, unless you are veddy, veddy rich.

I am so damn sick of seeing Hillary Clinton. If she gets the nomination, I'm casting a protest vote. And it will be for a Republican so as to keep her out of the White House. I would love to vote for a good independent, but that would be lost in a futile effort to defeat her.

TV news nowdays is nothing but a bought and paid for infomercial. They only tell you the things they want you to hear. I am done throwing my vote away on the least worst candidate. I am starting to think a Kucinich, Gravel third party is what I would like to see. It may be too late at this time to save our country but I will try till my last breath to never give up and always try to move things in the right direction.
Dennis Kucinich is a brilliant and courageous man and it may just be a pipe dream to think he can ever be elected. Screw the Oligarchy I want this to be the country I used to think it was.

WOW, This is the smallest tempest in a teapot I have ever seen!

Two candidates and their people are talking strategy and they would like to eliminate other candidates.

I didn't hear anything illegal or immoral here.

The media should talk about war crimes, crimes against humanity, corruption and unconstitutional actions by the current administration and the failure of the Courts, Congress and the media to deal with it.

There's not enough there to cry "conspiracy" amongst these two. Let's not overreact to imaginings of what they may have meant.

There is way too much REAL shit happening! Let's keep our eyes on the ball, heh?

saywhat asked: "Question: Will the real Hillary Clinton please stand up."

Oh she did that a long time ago when, as first lady, she said, "I'm not going to have some reporters pawing through our papers. We are the president."

If she was that presumptuous of her power simply by being married to the president - and before ever holding an elected position - just imagine how she'll be if she makes it to the Oval Office.

She is not to be trusted as far as she can be thrown from the podium, which actually applies to most of the presidential candidates... Democrat or Republican.

Much ado about nothing. Let's talk about what they think of SiCKO, instead.

There are many people who like Kucinich the best yet are supporting Edwards because they feel he is the most progressive candidate who is electable.
Perhaps now is the time to rethink that position. And now may be the time to cancel TV and what passes for mainstream media news these days.

Why not to vote Democrat. The Party is not interested in Democracy. From their point of view, I guess it's fair to suppress the upstart riff-raff who might have something to say about the way things are going in this country. They've got the money, and, as we well know, money talks. Ask Bush about that.

You people need hobbies... Clinton & Edwards can't talk to each other? Sheese :-)

ross dreyer--Hear! Hear! Well said on BITH posts!

woolfytoo--Haven't you learned anything here today? Go to the corner and on with the hat.

Bottom Line (Beyond hype, dollar horseracing, and "image":
1.) Edwards and Clinton showed their true dark colors into live mikes.
2.) Obama needed notes/cribsheets to participate in today's forum. NOT ENOUGH EXPERIENCE!
3.) Eliminate the two corporate cliche's and the cliche' wannabe and you get---Dennis Kucinich as "FRONT RUNNER"!
4.) If a candidate is pushed by the media, the rule is that you look elsewhere!

P.S. John C.--your last post's logic is as sound as a fart in a hurricane.

I agree with everthing you say, but the bottom line is that when the election comes, I will not vote for the third party, knowing that my vote will in fact aid the explicit enemy that is far worse than the phoney liberal candidate.

John C,

Three things:

1. I hope you don't pick your friends, partners, job, education, doctors, and other important things in your life with the same "least-worst" strategy as you pick your representative leaders. I thought America was supposed to be a great nation, not the least-worst. If you picked your friends and relationships this way, you would lead a sad, mediocre life indeed. I don't know anyone who wants to live in a sad, mediocre country.

2. You fail to appreciate the role of independent/third-part candidates throughout US history. Such candidates have historically been responsible for pushing progressive change on main-stream duopoly candidates.

3. You fail to understand the power of making your candidates earn your vote instead of giving it away for free. If you give them your vote without demanding anything in return (which is the same thing as letting them know that you have no intention of ever withholding it), they will ignore you because you simply don't matter. If you have the credible threat of withholding your vote, they are forced to listen to you. If you behaved this way at a car dealer, you'd pay at least sticker every time and would quickly be marked by the sales guys as a sucker.

Use the phone in a church when you call. just in case wedo end up with an Emperor, don't want theemporers mercenaries kicking our door down. Well, they likely will anyway.

I agree with Evelyn. What is the real news here? Of course they talk to each other. I also don't know that the speculative between -the -lines interpretation of their conversation is accurate. I really think some of you who respond with the same cliche anti-corporatist jargon had better wake up to the truth of the matter that the reality of the situation is what it is concerning money's hold on power. Nothing new about that. The difference in the upcoming election is that we need to make very sure that another Bush-like scoundrel is not elected because if that happens, we will be silenced, imprisoned or worse for our points of view. Even phoney progs allot an opportunity for us to persist in voicing our points of view. Perhaps at least long enough to get truth out to more people a little longer. I prefer that to a total shutdown of free speech, which I fear the current administration is on the brink of instituting, especially if they and their supporters are given eight more years. Nader? Gravel? Kucinich? They are sadly so far from electable that they really don't count for anything but a haven for those who have truly given up the fight to the enemy. If you think for one moment that the Bushie types are as far right as we can get, or that their policies so far are as totalitarian as they would like, think again. So we hold our noses again. It's better than being suffocated once and for all. The truly subversive thing to do, in my opinion is to work within whatever Democratic administration we can pull out of the ashes. We have a far better chance of keeping their feet to the fire than having the fire snuffed out totally.

Contract Telephone # 202-456-1111 and take a moment to ask that President George W. Bush resign the office of the President of the United States effective immediately

Nothing very unusual about that private conversation. All of the candidates likely talk to one another in private. Isn't there some real news to publiish? Maybe big news that some beauty queen had some pictures taken of her having a good time, or Elvis was seen in Michigan at a McDonalds.___ I hate the press.

Yes, democracy is more than two wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for breakfast.

If the wolves allowed Kuchinich to win the election, how long would it be before they ate him for breakfast? They didn't allow Bobby to even get to the table.

There's a well organized community, some might call it a gang, who've been calling the "shots" on multiple levels since 1941, and probably before. They've been working together as a "community" for over fifty years, and they don't give a fig about the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. Everything we find reprehensible, like murder, fraud and torture, are in their bag of tricks. This community is the foot soldier of Money, and it's the Servants of Money who certify who gets to the breakfast table . . . and who doesn't. It's pretty clear that Hillary and Edwards are running with the wolves.

people first... looks like the fascists are creeping into canada.... it started in our last election, when we elected a prime minister with his head up bush's axx.

Any legimate announced candidate should be able to be in the debates or forums. If any Democratic candidate moves to narrow the field and exclude someone else, they will have lost my vote.

Who is in charge of the debates? Are they rigged like the Presidental ones (see the Open Debates web page if you want that story) have been since the League of Women Voters stopped running them? Power brokers whether parties or media want to control the debate. The people want a real debate and have to demand it.

Gravel and Kucinich raise points that are worth pursuing. Shutting them up is completely unacceptable. Kucinich's plan for peace in Iraq is comprehensive. Where is the equivalent plan of the other "front runners"? Let them debate their respective plans.

Well, I've got a Jon Stewart for President sticker on my car. Does that count?

Well wolfytoo, we certainly wouldn't want new facts to get in the way of your bumper sticker. I mean, once it's on the car, it's hard to get off. I saw a guy the other day with an old Dukakis sticker on his car. Poor guy, I guess he's forced to write in Dukakis every election until the sticker comes off or he sells the car.

Edwards-Clinton would be a team I could really support. For months I've had a John Edwards for President sticker on my car. They are both compassionate, intelligent, accomplished, individuals, a far cry from the lame brain running this country for far too long.

If Edwards were the presidential candidate, he would temper Hillary's rather rightest philosophy, which she has on too many issues...flag burning, Israel, her early support of the war, etc. They both are in favor of universal health care. With their leadership, the US might finally provide its citizens this basic human right.

Let's hope their conversation to meet wasn't just to do lunch.

The only better team would be some combination of Gore, Edwards or Hillary, even if the same as in '04.

This sounds to me as if Edwards and Sen. Clinton are agreeing that the forums and debates are straying from the path of seriousness into ad hominem attacks and inconsequence. From the few fragments reported, I see very little upon which to hang a conspiracy theory.

On the other hand, Clinton and Edwards have already conspired against the American public when they voted to hand Boy George and Darth Cheney a loaded weapon in the matter of Iraq. Neither of them is stupid, which means they voted for the Resolution in full knowledge that the case for war was bogus -- and that Bush was a conscienceless upperclass soundrel -- as a means of holding their places in the Presidential queue.
Do we take this woman OR this man for our lawfully elected leader? I don't think so.
Al Gore. Name another.

It's not surprising that Clinton and Edwards have been caught explicitly scheming to exclude their own fellow Democrats, Kucinich and Gravel, from the debates. It's perfectly consistent with their and their party's actions in the past to actively exclude interesting, critical, and alternative voices rather than debate them on their merits (which, of course, they desperately want to avoid because Gravel has repeatedly made them look terrible). The Clintons and Edwards of the Democratic Party have been actively trying to silence independent and third-party candidates like Nader for years. The only thing new is that it has been caught on tape and that they are now so afraid of their own bankrupt positions being challenged that they are willing to go after their own party's candidates.

I just yesterday posted the following on a blog about the Democrats' efforts to silence Nader, but the same analysis applies to the Clinton-Edwards scheme to exclude Kucinich and Gravel, so I will post it here, too.

One aspect of all of this that I have found so perplexing and troubling is that many people who support the Democrat's efforts to keep Nader and other independent/third-party candidates (now even their own party members) off the ballot (either expressly in the case of Nader or effectively in the case of Kucinich and Gravel by excluding them from debates) actually consider themselves advocates of voting rights and free speech. This continues to amaze me as it seems so obvious that preventing candidates from appearing on the ballot (by whatever means) is as antithetical to voting rights and free elections as censorship is to free speech. Preventing candidates from appearing on the ballot is, after all, nothing but censorship of the ballot.

To be sure, some of these people fighting so hard to keep Nader and other candidates (including members of their own party) off the ballot (as opposed to championing their own candidates on their merits in free and open elections with real debates) are nothing more than hypocritical tyrants of various sorts hiding behind democratic-sounding rhetoric. There is really nothing to do with these people except expose them for the political bigots that they are.

More interesting and hopeful are the people who appear genuinely to believe in democracy, the right to vote, free elections, and free speech, but nonetheless support keeping Nader (and Kucinich and Gravel) and others off the ballot (by one means or another). If they truly believe in these values, how can they actually support censorship of the ballot?

Voting rights are usually thought of in terms of the right of an individual to cast a ballot and have it counted—i.e., if everyone can vote and every vote is counted, then voting rights are secure. Viewing voting rights in this manner allows the very people who expend tremendous time and energy removing Nader and others from the ballot (or excluding "not serious" candidates from the debates) to feel, at the same time and without any sense of hypocrisy, genuine outrage when minority voters are kept from the polls in Florida or voting machines do not accurately count votes in Ohio.

This notion that we have voting rights if everyone can vote and every vote is counted is fundamentally deficient. The right to cast a ballot and have it counted is necessary, but not sufficient for voting rights and free and open elections.

Voting rights and free elections require both the ability to freely cast a ballot that is counted and the ability to vote for the candidate of one's choice (which necessarily depends on the ability of that candidate to appear on the ballot). (And, the value of appearing on the ballot is necessarily dependant on the voters knowing the candidates and the candidates being able to communicate with voters.) If either element is missing, the right to vote is a sham.

Consider, for example, an election in which 100% of the people have the right to vote, 100% of the people vote, and 100% of the ballots are accurately counted, but only one candidate appears on the ballot. Under the usual conception of voting rights (everyone can vote and all ballots are counted), it appears that the right to vote is perfectly in tact. But this does not look anything like democracy. Indeed, dictators have repeatedly exploited this (deficient) conception of voting rights. Is it really qualitatively different when the field of political choices is limited to the same two parties again and again and again?

Why we continue to put up with this is amazing. Would we repeatedly (if at all) eat at a restaurant that offered the "choice" between one of the same two tasteless and stale dishes over and over again? Would we tolerate cable television that offered the "choice" between one of the same two boring shows over and over again? There would be open rebellion in the streets. It occurred to me at the store the other day that we have more choices in the type of deodorant and toilet paper we buy than we have for the type of candidate running for President of the United States.

To bring more people around to the idea that preventing candidates from appearing on the ballot is not consistent with their genuinely held views of the right to vote, freedom of speech, and democracy, I think we must develop a way of talking about voting rights in this dual context—the right to vote and the right to vote for the candidate of one's choice (i.e., ballot access). If we're interested in seeing additional candidates and ideas, we need language and frames to make this the issue explicit.

As the Republicans have shown recently and what my civil procedure professor said long before that, he who frames the argument and controls the language wins the debate. I just Googled "ballot censorship" and it returned only 3 hits! A search for "censorship of the ballot" produced none! Censorship is very difficult to defend if you support free speech. Why not take a lesson from the Republicans and call action designed to prevent Nader and other independent/third-party candidates from appearing on the ballot or to prevent Kucinich and Gravel (and others) from participating in the debates what it really is—ballot censorship.

ross.dreyer@comcast.net

God, let's not fool ourselves--all three of our leading candidates are charlatans of the highest order and I find Edwards' falsity the most egregious. We'll end up holding our noses and voting for one of them next November, unless Gore/Clark comes along. Per usual, anyone left of center has crappy options. Enjoy your pipe dream during the primary (for me, Bob Kerrey, Bill Bradley, Dean among them). Perhaps Kucinich this time. Then in November go vote for your favorite corporatist, or, worse yet, stay home or vote for Nader. It will never change. But please stop fooling yourselves. The Moveon embrace of Eddie on climate change was really hard to take. Like watching his debate in '04 on foreign policy--the guy is a nimrod.

fatfreddyscat July 13th, 2007 2:33 pm
"Ha, what nonsense my right testicle is further left that either of them."

Ouch.

Sorry, proofreading is everything... my previous thread should say "...the candidates choose who they want to vote off of the floor."

There are two possible scenarios here. If you go with saywhat and the whole mafia deal, here was the real discussion:

Clinton: "Take Kucinich on an airplane ride, and push him out the door, and in the meantime, I will take the old man (Gravel) out for dinner in downtown Manhattan and push him down a manhole."

Edwards: "Sounds good to me. My people will talk with your people."

Scenario #2

The Democratic caucus has now become "Survivor" and the candidates choose who they want to vote of the floor. The first to go will be Kucinich and Gravel. Richardson does not know it, but Clinton and Edwards are conspiring to lock him out of the building.

Either way, this whole thing is disgusting and stinks to high heaven. As far as I am concerned, Clinton, Edwards & Co. all can go to hell!

Who benefits from excluding from 'serious candidate' status anyone who can't raise a gazillion $$ to spend on (here's a clue...) AIRTIME?

Why is it, exactly, that we have these dialog-restricting, tough-question-avoiding, sound-byte spectacles ('forum' my tush!), rather than debates?

I voted for Johnny Edwards when he ran for the Senate in N.Carolina and said all the things we progs wanted to hear. He spent his entire tenure in the Senate running for president. He missed votes on everything he promised to do as N.C.'s representative in the Senate.

I guess he was probably better than the GOP opponent would've been, but I wouldn't vote for him again if he ran for dog-catcher.

I'm relieved there's no higher job for him to groom for if he gets selected Imperator (or are we still calling it 'electing Presidents'?)

Johnny E. also, as I recall, joined Al Gore in PROMISING the electorate that the votes would ALL BE COUNTED in the 2004 election. Remember that one? They caved like cotton candy in a thunderstorm.

Now I hear some progs (Michael Moore among them) hoping Al Gore will announce HIS return to the ring. Please, y'all, try to remember history just THIS MUCH BETTER than the fascists we're fighting, ok?

Why not shake them all up and vote KUCINICH in the primary?

Peach McD in Durham NC
Hasta la democracia...

Vic says "A mini-Leftwing conspiracy." Ha, what nonsense my right testicle is further left that either of them.

Hillary is no better than her husband. Bill Clinton and the DLC did more to pull this country to the extreme right than any of his Republican predecessors.

John Edwards is a corporatist pretending to be a populist.

And don't even get me started on Obama.

This reaks, of course -- but its only novel feature is that it happened to be caught on an open mic. In 2000, the NYT (reflecting consensus Establishment opinion) angrily denounced Ralph Nader's request to be included in the presidential debates. (In the actual event Nader not only was not allowed to debate -- armed guards insured that he wasn't even allowed in the building.)

This is nothing new in American politics. The game is played, and has always been played, to make sure that the final electoral "choice" is between two personalities, both of whom are 100% acceptable to the corporate oligarchy.

Is the Republican NAFTA the same as the Democratic NAFTA? That questioned needs to be answered... while keeping these in mind:
1) The Peace Corps was started by Pres Kennedy to empower poorer countries and promote goodwill, but by the time Nixon got hold of it, it was sometimes used as CIA covert operations fronts (moreso by Republicans Reagan and Bushdaddy) and for promoting American corporate interests overseas, and was subsequently thrown out of some countries.
2) What we commonly call 'welfare programs' were initially started by the Roosevelts to empower disfranchised economic and racial minority groups, but by the time Reagan was in office, employment retraining (CETA) was eliminated, and food dispensations turned to cash dispensations that could be used for other things, like drugs, which the Republicans' CIA/Mafia friends profit from. In short, the Republicans sabotaged welfare programs to create more chaos and take access to power and health AWAY from the disfranchise, and essentially promote genocide among people They Don't Want in the system, like the Nazis did.

These could be important questions in this debate, and also just where is Gravel really coming from and what is his objective in making some of the random statements he does? Alaska was for a long time a staunch Republican state. So how radical can Gravel really be?
Are there de-facto-Republican 'plants' in the Democractic debates? They have indeed existed in other times and situations, as the Republicans excel at covert operations (as Teapot-Dome, the Willkie Campaign, Watergate, Ronald Reagan, Iran-Contra, and the 2000-2004 elections illustrate).
At least one of our brighter Democratic candidates must know this already.
The Republicans will try to create as much chaos and infighting inside the Democratic Party as they can.... it has been and continues to be one of their more effective covert 'tactic' s.

After thought: Reminds me of two mob bosses trying to control their turf on some television show.....Not funny.

Hillary is now a political hack. She has joined with Fox news owner Rupert Murdoch in her efforts to become president and that should tell you something. Can she be trusted after this slip up?, I think not.

It seems that she is on the path to political subversion in attempting to limit the voices in presidential debate to Edwards and her own
(does this remind you of someone in office now?)

Once again we have another political hack who will do anything to be elected to office, even at the expense of our core Democratic value such as freedom of speech.

Question: Will the real Hillary Clinton please stand up.

Is this a leak to the press or what?

I thought big campaigns always did business like "I'll have my guy talk to your guy". I can hardly believe media savvy politicians would break impromptu news like this in front of a "turned off mike".

Ditto that warning about the Security and Prosperity Partnership between the governemnts of US, Canada and Mexico.

OUCH!!

I have Edwards stickers on my car, in hopes that he will help fend of Hillary Klinstone's attempt to keep the korporatists in power through the back door. I had hoped that, maybe, he and the other prog's would drag Obama back from the korporatist dark side and join with him to form a true progressive ticket.

This is an indication that Edwards may be slipping into the korporatist grip himself.

Boo-hoo...

A mini-Leftwing conspiracy.

Aside from the obvious collusion that takes place from the frontrunners; encouraged by main stream media, I have a problem with John Edwards contributors. To understand who these charlatans really work for, examine their campaign contributions.

John Edwards has invested millions in, worked for, and gets contributions from Humana. Humana is just another big money corpo with it's heavy hand on health care insurance, HMO's and big pharma. Not unlike Hillary Clinton. No wonders main stream media keep force feeding the same front runner names into people's consciousness...it's status quo. By so doing, they minimize the voices of Dennis Kucinich, Gravel, Nader and make damn sure that Ron Paul's message is only heard in a whisper. "Lower tier" candidates compete with a whisper to a roar.

So that is what they were talking about. They have no right to try to exclude other people from the debate, especially not Kucinich who is very serious about his positions and campaign.

"We've got to talk because they, (our weak, blurry centrist positions) they are, just being trivialized," Clinton said to Edwards.

"They (Kucinich and Gravel) are not serious," Edwards responded.

"No," Clinton said in agreement. "You know, I think there was an effort by our campaigns to do that (use our power and money to control the debates in our favor). We got somehow, you know, detoured (by engaging in a fair debate in which everyone had equal time). But we've got to get back to that . . ."

"Why isn't ABC reporting this?"

Because they don't want the people to see there are
other alternatives to the corporatocracy.

Mr. Zoya, I quote some other American citizen who said this first: "Be nice to us or we will bring your country democracy." I think you've just gotten a taste of the kind of democracy this government exports.

Looks like the fascists are creeping into Canada.

Democracy Now reported this morning that, in presumubly this same conversation, Clinton and Edwards also talked about coordinating their efforts to exclude Kucinich and Gravel and other candidates from any debates.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/07/13/1513209

Why isn't ABC reporting this?

"Where do you think NAFTA came from?" asked Gravel. "From the Trinity? It came from a Democratic administration."

NAFTA on steroids comin right up -- just in time for the 2008 election. We'll see just who's serious about taking a second look at it. In Canada, we're not even allowed to protest it: the US army won't let us:

MEDIA RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
July 11, 2007

RCMP, U.S. Army block public forum on the Security and Prosperity Partnership

The Council of Canadians has been told it will not be allowed to rent a municipal community centre for a public forum it had planned to coincide with the next Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) summit in Montebello, Quebec on August 20 and 21.

The Municipality of Papineauville, which is about six kilometres from Montebello, has informed the Council of Canadians that the RCMP, the Sûreté du Québec (SQ) and the U.S. Army will not allow the municipality to rent the Centre Communautaire de Papineauville for a public forum on Sunday August 19, on the eve of the so-called Security and Prosperity Partnership Leaders Summit.

"It is deplorable that we are being prevented from bringing together a panel of writers, academics and parliamentarians to share their concerns about the Security and Prosperity Partnership with Canadians," said Brent Patterson, director of organizing with the Council of Canadians. "Meanwhile, six kilometres away, corporate leaders from the United States, Mexico and Canada will have unimpeded access to our political leaders."

As well as being shut out of Papineauville, the Council of Canadians has been told that the RCMP and the SQ will be enforcing a 25-kilometre security perimeter around the Chateau Montebello, where Stephen Harper will meet with George W. Bush and Felipe Calderón on August 20 and 21. According to officials in Montebello, there will be checkpoints at Thurso and Hawkesbury, and vehicles carrying more than five people will be turned back.

Founded in 1985, the Council of Canadians is Canada's largest citizens' organization, with members and chapters across the country. The organization works to protect Canadian independence by promoting progressive policies on fair trade, clean water, safe food, public health care, and other issues of social and economic concern to Canadians.

certainly an interesting development...

we shall see.

Looks like ABC News has finally covered the "vast center-wing conspiracy":

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3373890&page=1

I was going to ask for a translation of Clinton's and Edwards's remarks, but Io Q. Lellity did so wonderfully. Thanks for that.

tics wrote: "This thread points out the weakness of the left..."

I have to disagree. This thread if nothing else sheds light on how, paraphrasing Kucinich, some of our candidates see themselves as imperialistic in their attitudes towards those who don't buy into corporate support. And it reinforces the need for drastic changes in how we select and elect our candidates for higher office.

And ARA Charleston:
Does it matter in the least how we "frame" our national electoral debates or who's in charge if our citizenry is denied access to alternative voices at the state level??? It's not the national debates...it's how candidates get there in the first place. And if the entire system is rigged from state to state to ensure that the status quo two party candidates are not challenged for votes by third parties or independents, then what's the sense in worrying about national debates??? Progressive voices will never be heard nationally because they were never able to get on enough state ballots in the first place. I've worked for independents and third party candidates in my state. I know first hand how the deck is stacked and the incredible odds alternative candidates are at to simply give people a choice. Ballot access from state to state is where everyone should focus attention. Fair and equitable access to the people for all candidates should be primary to anything else.