Kucinich: Clinton, Edwards are rigging the '08 election

Source: New York Times

It is a "conspiracy to rig the presidential election," says angered Democratic presidential contender and Congressman Dennis Kucinich, after hearing a verbal exchange between Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. John Edwards suggesting that future debates should include fewer candidates.

Says Kucinich, "in a democracy people get exposed to ideas and they make the decision for themselves."

While campaigning in Iowa today Mr. Edwards confirmed the topic of his discussion with Mrs. Clinton and sought to clarify his remarks, saying that he does not favor excluding candidates from the debates, but would prefer breaking up the field into smaller groups.

Mrs. Clinton, who was campaigning in New Hampshire today, declined to be specific about what she meant by her comments on Thursday. “I think he has some ideas about what he’d like to do,” she said, referring to Mr. Edwards, according to a dispatch from the Associated Press. A Clinton campaign spokesman said he would not comment on “a private conversation” between the two candidates.



Read more: http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Kucinich_Clinton_Edwards_are_rigging_08_0713.html

---

I am pissed at Clinton and Edwards too!!

and I can tell you he isn't fit to run a hot dog stand.

He's an attention whore who isn't even running a serious campaign.

which never missed a chance to take a cheap shot at Kucinich.

Put a Progressive Democrat in the White House! :kick:

Vote for Dennis Kucinich for President 2008

...nothing wrong with Cleveland. :)

and courage.

"Kucinich first came to national prominence in 1977 when he was elected mayor of Cleveland at age 31; the youngest person ever elected to lead a major American city. In 1978, Cleveland's banks demanded that he sell the city's 70 year-old municipally-owned electric system to its private competitor as a precondition of extending credit to city government. Kucinich refused to sell Muny Light. As a result, the Cleveland banks plunged the city into default for a mere $15 million. Kucinich lost his re-election bid in 1979. Fifteen years later, Kucinich made his first step toward a political comeback, winning election to the Ohio Senate on the strength of the expansion of the city's light system which provides low-cost power to almost half the residents of Cleveland. In 1998 the Cleveland City Council honored him for, "having the courage and foresight to refuse to sell the city's municipal electric system."

http://www.whosyourcandidate.com/d-kucinich.php

How about the Mainstream Conservative Media telling us only their hand-picked corporate lapdogs are "viable" candidates. Clinton and Edwards are upset because some other people have ideas and want to be president? I will not vote for either of them. Not that I was going to anyway.

No one anointed those people. They HUSTLED.

Sorry, I don't buy your thesis. The system may suck, but it's the system. Work within it, overcome it, show your strength by your ability to work it, and THEN, if you still hate it, after you are elected CHANGE it. If DK were SINCERE, that would be his game plan.

But DK sitting there, whining about a shitty system, not fundraising, not organizing a professional staff, not putting up with the meet and greet and flesh pressing to first get money and second, actually LISTEN to real people who pay fifty bucks to eat rubber chicken , but instead pulling "stunts" and feigning outrage to get airtime, well, fuck him.

He's NOT serious.

How about a handful of boozing Arab amateur pilots run by a guy with bad kidneys in a cave in Afghanistan taking on the world's best air force and hitting three out of four major targets?

Now that's a conspiracy theory!

I don't know which is harder to believe, the "official story" or the fact that so many otherwise seemingly normal people could believe it to be true.

never underestimate the power of professional propaganda

:applause:

I bought the bullshit at 7:30 when I was still half asleep, but the full context has been posted by now.

Bullshit will fly only so long before sharp eyed and fully awake DUers find the context and show it for what it is.

Dennis: I expected more.

I hope he can overcome inside the beltway syndrome.

MKJ

He got his 15 minutes. Mission accomplished

That's what struck me about their little aside. ;-)

Hekate

That's why Edwards is on Hillary's radar..... :eyes:

But they don't love it, obviously. Only people with lots of money count. Truth, brilliant analysis, principles, being right most of the time, voting the right way--FOR the interests of the American people--actually THINKING about peace and how to create a peaceful country and world, actually REPRESENTING the views of the great majority of Americans, these things don't count, and should be excluded, because they EMBARASSS candidates who are running not for president but for emperor.

He is right to cry foul. With the war profiteering corporate news monopolies the way they are, campaigns are just about the only moments when Americans can hear new political ideas discussed and debated. Everything they see/hear/read in corporate TV/radio/print is the same old tired fascist crap. A Democratic Party campaign should be alive with fresh ideas and faces, and creative, un-thought-of before solutions. Kucinich is the only one who really provides a fresh view. He makes the others look like the "centrist" (way pulled to the right) DLCers and "military-industrial complex" tools that they mostly are. THAT's why they want him excluded.

started a thread even:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1331416

:)

:thumbsup:

"A Democratic Party campaign should be alive with fresh ideas and faces, and creative, un-thought-of before solutions. Kucinich is the only one who really provides a fresh view. He makes the others look like the "centrist" (way pulled to the right) DLCers and "military-industrial complex" tools that they mostly are. THAT's why they want him excluded."


If the American people ever heard all that Dennis Kucinich proposes, so that they could compare it with the proposals of the other candidates, I believe he would win the nomination and the election.

If, after comparing his proposals to those of all the others, the voters chose someone else, I would conclude that this country cannot be saved.

Voting for anyone other than Kucinich is asking for another replay of "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss." More articulate than * no doubt but still corporate-controlled, bought and paid for.

Get a grip on yourself. Its not like you are going to get the nod.

It's just that he's so far behind in the polls, that nothing short of all the other candidates keeling over dead would enable him to win the nomination. Accusing people of a "conspiracy" when you don't have a snowball's chance in hell is just plain being a poor sport.

We are a long way from the first primary and Clinton and Edwards just showed their asses, er, their undemocratic attitude toward elections.

Not only are Clinton and Edwards conspiring to get all those pesky lesser beings off their stage, the media have been conspiring to marginalize all but their favored "top tier," even though Edwards is polling at 16% last time I saw a poll. How does 16% make him "top tier"? But this horse race is far from over and nobody should be shunted aside.

The media and the party do everything possible to marginalize Kucinich because he's the only one who's not bought and paid for by corporate interests and lobbies that control the media and party. Kucinich won't accept corporate donations so he lacks the gargantuan "war chest" some others have.

Every candidate deserves a chance to be heard, asked every question asked of other candidates, and given equal time to reply to those questions in a debate. The media could figure out a way to do this if they wanted to but they've been pimping for Clinton, Obama and Edwards for many months, if not a couple of years. There certainly have been years of discussion about whether Clinton would run.

If the American people had the opportunity to hear each candidate as described above and still chose one of the bought and paid for candidates, I would conclude that this country is a lost cause. But I have faith in the "common" people to be able to tell shit from Shinola so I have hopes that we could still have a chance, if the people are informed.

Having right-wing Democrats for political candidates is just going to continue to alienate voters away from the Democratic Party, and I'm quite sure that many Kucinich supporters are sick enough of the right wing of the Democratic Party as it is. So personally, I sincerely hope he gets the nomination. He would make an amazing President, certainly better than any this country has had so far.

...there aren't enough Dennis Kucinich supports to matter if that in fact does happen. Besides, do you really think HC will get the nod? Remember in 2004 when Dean was steamrolling everyone, raising crazy money, and then BAM! One 2 second yell, and his campaign is over. I think HC is this year's Howard Dean.

Now beam yourself up

she's like the kid that cheats in school but somehow gets the other guy who was equally guilty in alot more trouble. She's also selling Edward's out on their little "plan". Maybe Edwards will think twice before he tries to cut another deal with her.

and I lost even more respect for Hillary. Of course, I don't have much respect for her anyway.

She told it like it was. John went to her podium. She could barely hear John. You can tell if you watch the tape. She either wanted to talk to him more or not at all and will make a statement when she gets back from Texas......She's at a funeral.

about her votes in the senate. As for all you who think he is not relevant... well then YOUR not relevent either!

'cos he sure sounds paranoid!

I mean, it's one thing to criticize the idea, but to say it's some big conspiracy and that they're rigging the election?

:tinfoilhat:

he must be ruffling the right feathers

DLC hates anything or anyone that challenges the status quo on health care, trade, economic justice, and national security.

about this conversation. Dennis did not say anything until the media said HRC and Edwards were trying to limit the folks in the debates.....Then of course Cleveland Denn had to say that he over heard them....Watch the film of this, and see if Dennis even heard anything and if this is such a conspiracy between HRC and Edwards did they stop talking when Dennis and oh yes Obama appeared? Did HRC and Edwards change the subject matter when Dennis and Obama appeared? NO! Geez, what else is there to say this is hype of the media and of course Dennis cannot help himself....Oh and by the way, HRC did thank Dennis and Obama.....

I do thank you
Ben David

Edwards has a plausible explanation for what we thought we "heard" (read?) on Fox news. If they were plotting, they sure were stupid about it.

All this, my candidate is better than your candidate BS is really getting old. Talk up your candidate's good points, but dissing candidates because of rumors is more the repub way.

zalinda

people act so foolishly over nothing.

You're a good congressman and are good at keeping the feet of other Dems on the fire, but you aren't presidential material.

What a bunch of worlthless, hypocritical, mealy-mouthed smarmy tripe. If all of DU was like this all the time I wouldn't waste my time here.

Clinton and Edwards don't want people like Kucinich to be heard. Kucinich has every right to call them out on it. End of story.

withdrawal for 4 years running. They are also the same crowd that nod their heads in approval when Hillary says we need to keep a "residual" force in Iraq beyond 2009 to protect the oil, fight Al-Qaeda (which was not in Iraq when Saddam was in power), and defend Israel.

An occupation is an occupation!

and don't belong at a Democratic website.

:puke:

Could be freeps, could be DNC shills trying to intimidate.

I'm sick of DLCers. They're NOTHING but republican infiltrators to the Dem party. Well paid, I might add.

:kick:

are not only well paid to infiltrate the Dem party, but also to infiltrate DU.

I did mean DLC.

...I'm unimpressed with this man's whining and conspiracy theories about the other candidates. :eyes:

sample or indication of what we can expect in the days to come as the campaigns heat up. Yikes. I fear it may get ugly, really ugly. I'd like to hope not but it sure doesn't look like it.

and since nothing involving the Murdoch media empire ever happens by accident, I have to wonder as to how the mic being live was an unfortunate accident, the work of Providence, or a calculated move by Faux to damage both Hillary and Edwards.

Now, to the issues raised by Dennis. I think that we have a case of collusion rather than conspiracy. No matter what Hillary and Edwards have said or done, the corporate media is the one that will determine which views will be aired, and which won't. As they did in 2004, most notably the infamous ABC News "debate" orchestrated by the late Peter Jennings, the corporate media will have little incentive to have the voters exposed to subversive views such as single payer universal health care, or any views on the Middle East that run counter to what has been our foreign policy orthodoxy since 1948.

I will repeat what I posted earlier about how much democracy was damaged when the corporate media, in collusion with the 2-major parties, took the Presidential debates away from the non-partisan League of Women voters. Those that are old enough to remember the League-sponsored debates, miss those debates with the contrived and homogenized entertainment show that passes for debate today.

I never thought I would see this amount of Kucinich bashing here on DU.

As for the "free publicity conspiracy" charge that I saw? I suppose that Kucinich just happened to plant a false recording of Clinton and Edwards within range of an open mic, with the two of them standing right there and neither of them noticing that their voices were being broadcast?

They fucking said it. And the last I checked, this was supposed to be a fucking democracy, where we got to vote for the candidate that we wanted. You almost always have a bunch of candidates running in the primaries. What if some of the "front-runners" had gone with this approach before the '92 primaries?

Not only could they possibly be heard on mics, but Obama and Kucinich were within feet of them, why would they talk about marginalizing other candidates and possibly be over heard?

I'm sorry, but without Fox news putting up a "transcript" it is impossible to hear all of what they were saying. Edward's explanation of what was said rings true, the bits and pieces heard certainly support it.

So why was Kucinich blasted, because he threw the first punch, or at least it's rumored to be. That's the problem, everything about this "back stab" by Edwards/Clinton and Kucinich has first appeared in the "press", not from the candidates themselves. What a great way to divide and conquer. And every one of you who are so up in arms on both sides should step back and see how much you are contributing to the division.

zalinda

for all candidates. Of course, then the oligarchs couldn't buy the White House so they probably won't go for it.

I bet Dennis picked up a few people yesterday and I hope he picked up a few bucks, too.

which leaves Murdoch's gal and that guy that lost last time

"Democrats rigging 2008 elections"


..like we really need this crap!

Change the stupid format of the debate, if you don't think people are getting to hear the issues discussed. Don't separate the candidates, that's dumb. People are supposed to watch twice as many debates now? The whole idea is absurd. Just make the debates more meaningful, with better questions and more time spent on whatever issues are most important or would show the most variation in philosophy.

questions of each person. Keep clowns like Tweety from moderating. Also Ted Koppel, for whom I lost all respect when he essentially told Dennis Kucinich he should drop out.

No doubt he'd have said the same to Al Sharpton and Carol Moseley-Braun if they were not black, Koppel being smarter than Don Imus though probably no more sensitive to racial issues and other forms of bigotry unless it's aimed at him.

I don't get people who only care when their own ox is gored. I'm sorry Sharpton is not running this year because he made many good points in the debates. I think Koppel gave Howard Dean a hard time, too, but I may be remembering wrong.

Let's face it, the DLC decided on Kerry and it was a fait accompli before it began. This year, they no doubt want Clinton but may try to throw her under the bus if her negatives remain high.

over nothing.

Let's face it, okay? Faux News is NOT our friend--hasn't been, and never will be. If we hear something from them, it's a worthless piece of shit. Done. Over with.

I tend to believe if both Hillary and John E. gave the regular media an idea of what they were talking about, it would be satisfactory. As someone already said, they didn't try to stop their conversation when someone came near them--if they were conspiring, they would have gone someplace private. Neither Hillary nor John are stupid.

If people recall, in previous debates, not all of the candidates got equal time. If anything, Hillary, John and Barack got most of it, with the other potential nominees being short changed. I think what needs to happen is break it down and have like 3 1-hour debates, each group made up of randomly selected candidates. That way, the candidates will all get more time, and everyone's opinion will get heard.

Okay, now I'm not the only one to say this, and if it angers anyone, I'm standing firm on my own opinion. The REAL campaign is still, at the very least 5 or 6 months away, and by starting last year, it's obvious that there are going to be a lot of people whose opinion will be heard. As long as a candidate has money in his fund, he will be able to hold his own until the first caucus or primary. Between now and then, we are likely to see some people dropping out or cutting back on participation. We should appreciate that, and not blast it. Sometimes a lesser known candidate will have fresh ideas or shed a new paradigm on an old issue. It's important to hear what every one of them has to say for this very reason. It shows the worthiness of a candidate who is willing to listen to another candidate, and incorporate their ideas if they are good ones, and certainly a good sportsman who will acknowledge that.

NOT A SINGLE CANDIDATE, at this time, is completely expendable. Every one of them has ideas, a background fitted to a certain area of expertise, and moreover, enough intelligence to know what is acceptable, and what is not. As time and money begin the job of lessening the field of those candidates, we will find ourselves becoming impressed with the candidates who drop out gracefully, and how they present their ideas.

HOWEVER, we are all human, and we will often choose the candidate we feel is ideal based less on logical intercourse and more on how they appeal to us personally. In a perfect world, we would wait until the last possible moment to actually choose a favorite, but we know for the majority this is not how it works.

Knowing that, however, gives us a chance to make changes in our manner of looking at the candidates. But reading articles from Fox or watching Faux is NOT going to do that. So many times, Faux and Fox (yes, I know they're the same but one is broadcast the other is published, and it does show a difference) are quoted as a source around here, and it hasn't been until fairly recently that this has become an issue. We used to be able to distinguish what was a reliable source of information and what wasn't, and we need a refresher course in that very subject. Right now, the easiest way is to simply dismiss anything coming from the Murdoch or Scaife empires and their inherently right biased and nastiness toward the left.

I know some people have already made their choices, and that's okay. But please give everyone else that same leeway that you expect for your choice. Do we really want to sound like a bunch of fundies from the right who can tolerate everyone else's opinion as long as it matches theirs? A little respect for the opinions of others goes a very, very long way toward succeeding in our goal of winning the 2008 election. If we don't, then it's time to pick a country elsewhere in the world and plan on moving before January, 2009.

No longer do we have the traditional spread of primary dates, allowing a spoiler to suprise early and get some momentum going. Now the primaries have almost all been moved up, thus favoring those who can get the quick early money as opposed to the quick early votes. Thus corpporations exert ever more influence on our electoral process while we the people exert less.

This latest conversation between the two top corporate Democratic candidates simply reaffirms how undemocratic our electoral process has become.

that the Democratic Party did not deserve the work that DK has done for them. The responses on this thread confirm that thought.

Anyone who wants to run can run.

Their very attempt looks elitist and like they believe some of the others could come out from behind. It's not like the election is close anyway, in time. It's so far off we have no idea who will be on top when it will count for something.

Kucinich could be a threat to them by then.

God forbid, Ron Paul could possibly be even considered "electable".

I just want to cry. I read something earlier today about sheep, I also read another open letter to Michael Moore that I'd really like to know more about. CFAR? anyone?

The fact that I'm a 42 year old pear-shaped white guy has nothing to do with it.

:eyes::eyes::eyes:

He wrote to them asking them to participate in a one-on-one debate with him “on the most critical issues facing the American people”:

“Rather than a mere forum restricted to 60 second answers that must avoid any critique of the history and positions of other participants, I am challenging you to a debate in the classical style. With America’s constitutional democracy shaping and defining the essence of our government, the American people deserve no less.

“If you are truly seeking debates where there are fewer participants and where there is more meaningful and serious discourse, this is a great opportunity for us to join together in an open discussion on behalf of the American people.”

Go, Dennis, go! Speaking truth to power/money again!

This is great, too.

“One argument would say that the presidency is for sale, and the other is kind of a Forrest Gump approach to politics, which says that if you have name recognition then you win without a campaign,” Mr. Kucinich said in an interview. “But in a democracy people get exposed to ideas and they make the decision for themselves.”

He added that if the campaigns had already been talking about changing the format of the debates, they owed the public an explanation.

Go here for more of the NY Times's "Caucus Blog," only some of it is at Raw Story (not that there's anything wrong with that, as Seinfeld would say; it's just cool to read it all, plus the comments -- many, many people agreeing with Kucinich and wanting him to win, a couple for Ron Paul and the obligatory "I live in his district and he's no good" post. And one delusional guy who thinks Holy Joe is the only guy and asks "Is he still a Democrat?" :rofl: Lots of people saying they will only vote Democratic if Kucinich is the nominee.)

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/07/13/open-mike-moment-sparks-debate-about-debates/

Thanks for this thread, Sushi Bandit!

Edited to fix bolding -- <'b> does not work properly!

I find Kucinich's word choice to be very unfortunate. I like you Dennis, but you really are beginning to sound like a whiner. Nobody likes a whiner.

- but I think that "rigging" might be an exaggeration. No doubt Hillary and Edwards are attempting to trim the field to their own benefit but - HEY - this is politics and it's a rough business. As much as I hate to admit it, no party is immune to underhanded shenanigans but it is certainly disappointing and discouraging.