Vintage Clinton!! I deserve to govern because I'm better & smarter than the others!

“You cannot explain how you will end the War in Iraq or solve the climate crisis in 60 seconds,� Schultz added.

I beg to differ. Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul says more in 60 seconds than any other candidate can say in 5 minutes.

Ron Paul 2008!

There needs to be a movement in this country for equal representation for Presidential candidates from the media.

The things the media is doing to the "second tier" candidates is damaging the electoral process and needs to be stopped.

How much attention has been given to Ron Paul, who raised 2.4 million dollars from 100% private donations? None, the media has been trying feverishly to make him disappear.

As it stands they are depriving you of your choice to vote. Who makes "tiers" of candidates? How can that be fair and democratic?

Influence is what drives these debates and those candidates vying for a nomination. The Dem. political machine as much as the Rep. political machine will always try to put the candidate with the most pull-charisma,contacts, and resources-in position over a well intentioned and intelligent underdog. Long ago has democratic elections become skewed sadly. As much as it's a great idea, it's become convoluted with the driving force of the two big political machines in the U.S.

Wow, there are a lot of ways that could be interpreted. It would figure that the MSM would not take that as "The media running this debate are not serious about these candidates, they are trivializing them, and they (the media) are wasting everyones time"

At least, thats how I read that exchange.

The MSM is going to do everything in their power to make themselves look important by tearing these people down, in spite of the fact the MSM gave up actually doing anything important a long time ago. Stop falling for it.

We're all jumping to conclusions based on something we overheard out of context? Are we back in 4th grade? I would rather not vote for anyone who leaps to conclusions on so little information. I've lived in Texas for over 20 years and Ron Paul seems like a nice guy but 60 seconds is too short to provide a substantial and informative response. That's just common sense. It makes sense to gather as much information and research on our own to make informed, thoughtful decisions rather than fly off the handle on conversations we overhear partially.

Kucinich is a joke.

This is a tough one. I agree with the notion that the media tends to create celebrity politicians and doesn't give better attention to underdogs; however, how many underdogs can we allow into a debate before the pool becomes diluted and we are reduced to sound bites? Actually, we're already at sound bites.

Ha ha ha! Wow this is priceless.

How could they not know there are live mics on stage? lol

To be fair though…seriously, how many candidates have given REAL answers during the debates besides the usual cliche answers, no matter how much time is devoted?

So far Mike Gravel who can't even raise enough money to qualify and Ron Paul have made second tier candiates look like champs in comparison to the front-runners.

I agree with the gentleman that made the comment from Washington. Ron Paul for President! He is a real american that will make real changes and is not connected with the Masons, Trilateral Commision and the others that are trying to destory our country and bring it into the New World Order.

Hillary's very serious about what her team has determined the public wants to hear. Edwards is a joke.

Biden has much more serious things to say than these spoiled block-heads.

Does that mean if Kucinich is nominated, he'll debate the Libertarian, Green, and Reform Party candidates? Somehow I doubt that very much.

This isn't news. End of story.

So when Bush has an open mic it is a swear word, or other Republicans it is racial slurs.

But the leading Democrates, its campaign stragedy - how to get better policy conversations, because the number of canidates is trivalizing the debates. — so why the outrage? Personally I feel better already, even if I prefer one of the canidates not at the top of the pack

Non-story.

I think the democratic party is probably the worst thing for America at this stage (a very close race, though, with the republicans), but that said, their so-called front runners are clearly the worst. Richardson, Biden et al. are a lot more interesting than these hand-picked politicos. God save us all from Clinton, Edwards, and Obama.

The elitist cannot handle fair competition. This is apparent after 6 years of an unelected criminal dictator named dubya. I fear we shall see many more shenanigans before this is over. It is the ones we dont see that worry me. A return to paper ballots is the only hope to gain some resemblance of democracy in the U.S.

THIS IS WHY NO ONE SHOULD VOTE FOR EITHER OF THESE FOOLS! They're no better than Bush and his cronies in trying to shape how they choose to engage with the general population! I can't stand politicians who chafe at having to really compete to gain the positions they desire. If they feel minimized by having to debate people who have less of a chance than they, who therefore can be more challenging in their statements than other "safe" candidates feel confident in expressing, then it is time for them to quit playing it safe and SPEAK THE TRUTH OF THEIR HEARTS!

I don't normally comment on things like this, but I have a question. What went on in the conversation before the portion that we are currently hearing?

In the article accompanying the transcript, the author states the following: "The two Democratic presidential hopefuls had an unscripted moment Thursday at the conclusion of the NAACP candidate forum where they were overheard talking about how to thin out the number of candidates participating in these presidential events."

How does the author know this? There is no mention in the recorded conversation that they are speaking about, "…how to thin out the number of candidate participating…" Is there more to the conversation than what we're being given? I haven’t watched the full coverage of the debates where this has taken place. Has anyone else?

As far as I can tell, these sentences are completely open to interpretation. To jump on either candidate with accusations of corruption or versions there of is a little premature without context. But, that’s just my opinion. Thanks for listening.

Hillary has many sides, my friends. Those who take her on face value get hurt. Beware the Dog.

60 SECONDS TO THE MINUTE, 60 MINUTES TO THE HOUR, SO THAT WAY YOU HAVE 60 PEOPLE THAT CAN TALK IN AN HOUR. DO YOU THINK A PERSON CAN GET THEIR MESSAGE OUT IN THAT TIME. IT'S A NO STORY

The problem is that these two candidates are carping for preference in attention, and not on ideas. Some of these "lower-tier" candidates have much more to say than these "top-tier" candidates.

How can either of these candidates claim to be more serious than Joe Biden who is the only candidate who has provided a coherent plan on the Iraq War?

What makes John Edwards think he's a more serious candidate than Bill Richardson who in some polls is showing stronger(not that the polls matter) and who has much more experience with foreign relations? I'm sure Edwards would love to divide the debates into smaller groups, but I'm afraid he should be included in one of those "smaller groups".

I think this is big news especially with Hillary's ridiculous "candid" reality-T.V. program hoax.

Do you really want someone as president who wants to have a stranglehold on political debate?

I'm surprised at Clinton on this. After all she did deny carrying on an overheard conversation in a senate elevator saying "we (as in- Clinton and her gang frustrated by talk radio) need to silence these talk radio host". If she denied that and said that she was not suggesting silencing her completion when the mike was left on, Well……. her denials are good enough for me, how about you? But then, I was born yesterday.

They want to have a stranglehold on what we are permitted to hear.

If Edwards wants to divide the Democratic debates into smaller groups, I'm afraid he's going to have to participate in one of those "smaller" groups.

What makes his think he's on the "top-tier"?

So typical of Queen Hillsry to believe she can run the debates.

If the media is not going to let all who are running for the presidential nomination in each primary debate then limiting the number of democratic candidates should not be a big are hurt anyone’s feelings. In many case a third party candidate dose not have a chance at winning the general election they are often more qualified and more knowledgeable about the office of the President think back on Theodore Roosevelt, and Ross Perot.

Forget the coversation. It's partial and has been blown way out of proportion, now we are debating on what they ment, insted of when we get our troops (my drinking buddies) back home. As far as the amount of candidates go, my personal opinon is there should be dozons of runners so everyone of them really have to put themselves out to be heard and work that much harder to be outspoken and really call the attetion of the people who they work for.(WE, the people.)

What makes them better than the others?

One turned their cheek when it was time to push universal healthcare and the other madde their money from healthcare lawsuits.

I would like some time in the debates - oh, yeah, I forgot, wheelchair access is not provided to the stage.

Well, aren't they right? Who deserves to be on the stage? Those who have actually polling numbers, or have raised a certain amount of money…what is the cutoff? Whatever it is, there has to be one, whether it be money, popularity or endorsements….something has to be the cutoff, and that eliminates a lot of candidates right then and there.

Duncan Hunter, Gravel, Dodd, Biden, and a few other GOP candidates are out for one of the main reasons…

Ouch! thats gotta hurt, that really hurts Hillary she spent soooo much time trying to show a softer side to her and that she's likeable. I really dont see why people are so caught up with her. probably because they think bill clinton will just take over on the low but hillary will just have the title as president. Im sick of them and when Bill gets caught for cheating again then what? OH WE SHOULDNT HAVE TRUSTED THEM CLINTONS…please get over the clintons and vote obama 08′

This little peek at Hillary just reinforces my belief that she is capable of deceit, lying and only in this race for her own self serving reasons. Why in the world would Edwards even speak with her? Is he also like her?

Delete the two unelectable frontrunners and their equally hopeless colleagues at the other end, including Kucinich and Gravel, and let's get down to serious debate on specific issues with the rest of the real candidates.

Imagine that, Hillary having a brain cramp. If she follows Hubby's political formula she will say it was fabricated and patched sound bytes
produced by the opposition to undermine
her credibility.

Wow, there's a lot of frothing at the mouth here over a few words without context. But, coincidentally, it's pretty indicative of the level of political disourse in our country. How about getting the full story before jumping to conclusions?

At no time did I hear them mention the name of another candiadate the word "they" thus can't be conclusively linked to a particular candidate or a person in general. They could have been a reference to actual political issues that John and Hilary were discussing as far as we know. It is amazing the propaganda spin the other side attempts to put on statements that are taken out of context and then expects both Democrats and Republicans to believe it. It may be news to them but I believe voters of both parties are intelligent enough to know the difference and won't be brainwashed by such falsehoods

Clinton: "We got to talk because they are just being trivialized."

I don't know, Clinton and Edwards could be talking about how the media trivalizes these candidates, such as Kucinich, even though Kucinich has some good ideas on how to lead the nation.

And once again, the media is focusing on a small, ultimately insignificant event while ignoring the issues facing our nation, and it's not clear what they are actually reporting on. What is "that" that Clinton is referring to in this overheard conversation? Organzing smaller and more comprehensive debates? Or excluding other, less popular candidates? Unless we can hear the beginning and the context of the conversation, this is, in my opinion, ultimately a vague non-story.

When neither Democrat or Republican really stand for true US Values, what difference does any of this make? There isn't a single candidate anywhere worthy of the title President for the next 4 years after Bush leaves office. NOT EVEN Ron Paul, whoever he is!

When candidates start supporting a platform that takes into consideration business AND social care, then I'll be impressed. When candidates start talking about domestic AND internation policy on equal terms, then I'll listen. When a candidate supports equal rights for every single citizen of this country WITHOUT EXCEPTION, then I'll listen. When the Constitution of the United States once again reigns supreme, then I'll listen.

Everything else is self-centered prattle. Every single candidate is wealthy and elitist. They are so far removed from the people, it's down right terrifying!

Maybe Hillary should be the first to bow out of the next debate, huh? Oh yeah, she never meant that SHE should get cut out. Forget the arrogance, she just isn't that savvy or polished.

I think this qualifies as the definition of a "non-story".

An imagine what we would hear if the mic was there most of the time?

This indiscretion on John and Hilary's part is all the more support for the idea of all candidates having to run on the same amount of money. I think I read recently that it would cost twice as much to win the presidency in 2008 as it did in 2004. Being a top fund raiser does not make one a top leader. After all, don't we know about as much of what Dennis Kucinich (who is running on what the government will give him) would do if he were president as we do what Barack, Hillary, Rudy, or Fred would do if they were president? It would also take some power from large interests and put it in the hands of the people. I don't agree with Dennis on much, but I think he has this part right.

OH BIG DEAL! They were discussing political stratagey. So what? Politicians from the local dog catchers on up make deals and discuss how to minimize their opponents. In the last several years we've heard racial slurs and derogutory remarks caught on open mikes. Other than a candid view of what goes on behind the scenes, I fail to see how this even compares.

[...] Clinton, Edwards caught on open mic At the conclusion of the forum, Edwards approached Clinton on stage to talk, and the two expressed frustration over the number of candidates in the debate forum and the time allotted for answers. While Clinton and Edwards did not specifically mention any candidate by name, Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, posted a scathing statement on his website condemning his two rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination. “Candidates, no matter how important or influential they perceive themselves to be, do not have and should not have the power to determine who is allowed to speak to the American public and who is not,” Kucinich said. “Imperial candidates are as repugnant to the American people and to our Democracy as an imperial President.” Ain't much, all in all, but think how bad it could have been. Steve Stephen Ryberg Playa Maya: Your beachfront home Don't blame me — I used to just have my Playa Awards 2005 Best Read banner here! [...]

Clinton IS smarter and better. What's wrong with that? It's TIME for someone smarter and better.

It's really unsettling listening to some of these comments. As some resemble comments one might hear from University Students during a King and Queen Campaign. One would think comments on a Presidential Campaign would warrant at least more mature statements.

Many are quick to criticize one candidate or another for not stating how they would handle issues. Yet,
they make negative and critical remarks about Candidates without stating their reasons.

Watch Bill Clinton's Video on time.com. He makes more sense on all the important issues facing American today in five minutes than anyone I've heard speaking in this Campaign or this blog. Yet, the majority on these blogs do nothing but bash the Clintons. American lost a Super Intelligent, Esteemed Politician when Clinton left office. We should all pray America may be blessed with another Bill Clinton again. As with what I'm reading here there aren't many putting character, intelligence, Leadership Capabilities, or International Diplomacy, ahead of party preferences.

I saw Edwards in pasedena and he is the perfect limo liberal, I could tell that the real poor people that were watching him in the overflow video room just had glazed eyes. A couple of buiness types were looking at me as if to say do you believe this guy?
No I don't.
Nor do I ever trust the Clinton. Ever.
Backslapping with Cheney, yea you are a woman but it doesn't make you better.

Ron Paul is the only, repeat only candidtate who has integrity, smarts, and may I say humilty, something that lacks in all the other candidates.
I would suggest the citizens of this country pressure strongly their so-called representatives to let this man have a fair playing field. Your children's future is at stake.

And where do you suggest we get the full story from? I sure hope you don't mean from Clinton and Edwards themselves. I can only imagine what they would say. We are dealing with politicians here. What is a full story? What is the truth? But unfortunately with the media today, can you trust the context of a sound clip either? With Miles O’brien's loaded and prejudiced questions that attacked Mike Huckabee today on the
Situation Room I thought I was watching the Fox News Channel interview Barack Obama. Will there ever be an unbiased media station we can depend on that won't, however subvert, try to advance either a liberal or conservative agenda? I was embarrassed at the tone and disrespect Miles showed today in his interview with Mr. Huckabee, who I thought did very well to keep his cool under an intense barrage of antagonistic questions. But I’ve asked a lot of questions and haven’t given the answers. I don’t know the answers. Sorry, another question: Does anybody?

Wow. Maybe Hillary and John could run on the same ticket–President and vice-president. Then we could eliminate those two candidates by voting for someone — anyone else!!

Imagine that, wanting to eliminate an opponent. FYI, that's the how the game is played, you morons. Dick Cheyneys's F-word outburst on the Senate floor was much worse and I'm sure you repugs weren't whining about that.

Its too bad that Dennis K is so upset over what he heard on this little bit of media eavesdropping rather than jumping up and down over the government's illegal program of listening in on everyone.

Now the Democrats, too
It's not surprising that the Democrats are starting to do the same thing the Republicans are, which is censoring candidates saying things that they don't like to hear. This has been happening to Ron Paul for a while

Seriously, I am really ready for a woman president - but why Hillary??? How can you trust the fate of a nation, a nation with nuclear weapons and world influence, in the hands of a woman who can't successfully manage her marriage. It's hard to trust someone you can't respect.

If you truly believe that she can bring any prosperity beyond the mess that Bush has brought, you're either an overconfident fool, or a naive one. These candidates, like many politicians, gave up long ago operating from an altruistic sense of duty - hell, millions of illegal immigrants would have amnesty right now if the American people (yes, legal citizens) hadn't reminded these fools in Washington that they WORK FOR US!!!! More of you need to start pressuring your Congressional representatives instead of letting fools like Hillary tell us what we want!

Its funny that everybody is blamming Hillary for this. Whether or not the story is actually true (clearly its been edited), its still plain to see that Edwards approached HER. People are so quick to hate this woman (I have no idea why), but come on people… she did not instigate this. You are giving her too much credit.

Teresa Teater of
Oregon City,Oregon,I'm a Stronge Edwards supporter,I worked for Kucinich,and Edwards and Kerry in 2003-04,and again now again in 2007 for John Edwards & Elizabeth, when they have come to Oregon.
The amount of Money & votes required to run a campain, is siphoned off of the serious Presidential contenders when the (sorry to say, the small canidate)steps in and takes no serious stance and really doesnt gets out there and fight for his/ her Presidency.
It's a bid letting war out there to run for office,and face it, the people with the track record will be the big contendors.
Personally, If a canidate has never held office during a war time,and comes from mostly anti -war background, I wonder if that canidate could successfully run a better non pre-emptive war strike at all.
You have to be able to know when to go to Battle,even if it's to run for President.
Slinging arrows at Clinton /Edwards for speaking their truth's on open mic's ,are arrows under the Bridge.
The rest of you need to get on the bridge , and stop giving the Republicans your Power,by petty "in fighting".
!!!!!GO JOHN EDWARDS !!!!!!
Keep the Mic's open….

That is pretty arrogant stuff
Ms Power Hungry and Mr Good Hair
They deserve each other
Meanwhile Obama keeps looking better
Maybe he just seems more down to earth than these career lawyers

As a matter of full disclosure, I am a Republican.

I've got to say, I don't think this is a big deal. To be honest, I think Clinton and Edwards are right. The second tier candidates on both sides of the isle are a total joke. For every Kucinich or Gravel on the Democratic side the Republicans have a Hunter or Tancrado. I don't usually watch SNL, but they hit it on the head when they had the "irrelevenat" candidate debate a few weeks ago.

I'd much prefer to see the top 3 or 4 candidates provide more in-depth responses instead of hearing these nut-burgers go off.

As Clinton said, "lets talk, lets chat, lets have a dialogue." I completely agree. Let's talk … without these second rate candidates.

And to all you Ron Paul lovers out there, get a life. I'm tired of seeing your "Revolution" banners all over the Denver Metro area. You guys are total losers. Paul doesn't even register 1% in the polls. Go back to your computer games and graphic design classes, and leave the real campaigning to people that actually have a shot.

If you play the tape 11 seconds prior to what is shown above, you will hear Edwards mention how people are reacting to the 7-11 franchise promotion of the Simpsons new movie and all the hub-bub of Abu as a stereotype.

I'VE GOT A GREAT IDEA TO THIN OUT THE CANDIDATES! Lose these two…

After two consecutive terms of Dubya is this what we want for our country? Kucinich is right to speak of "Imperialism" as politics for the little guy has all but dissappeared. If you are not a multi-millionaire then fat chance of even getting a chance to have a voice! Well except through blogs and comments of course…

What has happened to America???

Honestly, Who can remember any more than 3 of them anyway. Clinton, Edwards and Obama. Drop the rest already. I agree with them. Who cares about the rest of them. They are just entertainment leading up to the serious debates.

I understand what they are saying, they want to be able to explain themselves with something more than sound bites and really get into some real debate and complex messages. But the canidates like Kucinich have way more to say than they do , and really deserve more of an ear than any of the folks with all the money who we've already heard enough from. Hillary isn't as bad as her image, but she will lose against any GOP cannidate.

I disagree with Ron Paul on some major issues, but he is the only politician of either party with the cojones to go on the debates and tell the truth, and for that kind of leadership , I am switching parties this time for the first time. The Dems need to win this to clean house, we need it badly, but Ron Paul is brilliant, which is why the media is trying to down play him so hard. He is what the GOP needs , and they just can't see it.

What a waste of paper, saliva and typing for comments taken out of context. Report real news like who is not doing what in Darfur and how many people are suffering and dying because of the world's indifference.

Get constructive and report new that exists instead of creating news that doesn't.

ADDED MEANING! Amazing mind-reading on the part of the journalists and networks who cooked this up into a story out of nothing. Is it possible that these two candidates were discussing their frustration about the way this format DOES trivialize the debate and nothing substantial can be said or heard?

Wow when I first watched this clip I thought they were talking about the media or the people who ran this event. The more I read what you people are saying I am tempted to change my mind.
But no, I think they are talking about the media trivializing the debates and other candidates. Its funny how people jump to the worse case scenario conclusion, that Edwards and Clinton are trying to exclude some candidates.
Remember people, that is how we got into this war, the administration looked for worse case and ran with it. Lets give this a day or two over the weekend to play out. Edwards and Clinton are not the evil doers.

Big deal! Shows an aggressive move on her part to take on anyone one on one and be allowed to go more into detail. Here I thought I was going to read something our incompetent president in office now would say or has said.

Some of you seem to be confused or have been in a cave for that last 7 years. Because where you put Clinton's, your really meaning to say Bush. But it's ok, because we will survive the worst president in our nations history and move on. So lets be proud of that and we can tell our grand kids why the nation is still in ruins when they take over paying off Bushes mistakes decades to come.

Clinton and Edwards show their true colors as elitists. God help America (and, by extension, the world) if either of them get elected.

these are the candidates, so get used to it, all u Ron Paul supporters get real he doesn't stand a chance. As for me democrat is the way to vote after this administration's stringent devotion to corporate America and not it's real/average citizens.

Hitlery caught being dirty again. I am surprised by Edwards, I didn't think he was that low. O'well, go Ron Paul!

Why even worry about this drivel? Its going to be either Giuliani or Thompson in '08 anyway. Its a shame we now have to fight these pinkos on our own soil.

"The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism, but under the name of Liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program until one day America will be a Socialist nation without knowing how it happened."

Norman Thomas - Founder, ACLU

They're either having an affair OR Clinton's thinking of making Edwards her Vice President.

I listened to this recording, and I have no idea what they were talking about. If the article read that Clinton and Edwwards were talking about how poor Chris Dodd and Kucinich was being denegrated by the press, it would be just as plausible - meaning one could still not say for sure. Okay, they were talking about the debates, this does not make it a Cabel. They want to win, politicians are unfortunaly all about being the alpha dog if they want to win in our horse and pony show - if not we would have writers, scientists, and professors up on that stage too expressing serious ideas and thinking outside the box.

The only real candidate for President is Dr Ron Paul. He is totally transparent and honest, and practices what he preaches.

I find it ironic that the two candidates who voted to give Bush a blank check for this mess in Iraq are now now privately thinking about steering OUR political process to their ends. The polls show Hillary unelectable or in a dead heat (Boy, we need another one of those) and Edwards has no experience other than his small-town guy makes good story.
Richardson's experience and common sense aproach will win out. Just like it did for 69% of the voters in New Mexico.

To all you bloggers that claim the conversation is taken out of context or not clear. There are other videos and recordings of the same event online with a more complete conversation and they were definitely talking about cutting out the "others".

Now Democratic leaders are trying to figure out how to make their exclusion of their OWN party's candidates more palatable?

Vote Green! Support open debates! Support Instant Runoff Voting!

Who freaking cares?

This show how much we are in need of a third party.

Who cares…this is a non story..

One commenter wrote "Vintage Clinton!! I deserve to govern because I’m better & smarter than the others!"

Do we really want a president who is worse and dumber than others? Or one that is afflicted with false modesty? Our leaders are supposed to be better, more able, more focused and driven.

I'm sure that , in its true context, this exchange was solely about free health care, reducing global warming, withdrawing from Iraq, impeaching Bushitler, offering amnesty to illegals, freeing the Palestinians, lifting Cuban sanctions, and giving The Bono what he needs to save Africa.

Cmon, What else would noble leaders talk about?

Gossip, news, non-story, call it what you will. Politics has just become an entertainment industry to the news media. What better way to sell product. (I mean report).

The media is killing this election. Haven't you noticed that only the candidates with the most money are getting air time? If you talk with the general public, no one has heard of Kucinich, Gravel, Biden. Why is that? Is it because they don't have the money, the media is slighting them?

I guess the democratic candidates just proved how stupid they truly are. This is politics 101 - make sure your mic is off before making comments. They both failed. This tells me neither candidate should be campaigning - they definitely can't be trusted. Really dumb Hillary - but what else should we have expected from her.

Dennis can't be allowed to be around to speak the truth at these events…. They fear him because he is the one who cuts throught all the BS and makes it more difficult for them to avoid the really important issues.

If only someone like Dennis could get elected- but it will never happen because of this kind of political sabatosh that is as old as politics it's self.

They marginalize what he is saying, but if people would just listen to his wisdom they would see he is making more sense than anyone else on the Democratic side. And is the cadidate who is most "for the people".

If you are unfamiliar with his opinions I encourage you to see what he has to say. Do not judge him on how he is portrayed in the media- they is biased beyond ridiculous.

Dennis Kucinich speaks for me and my family and shouldn't we have SOME representation?

Non-story. How about reporting on how only one Republican, Tancredo, showed up for their turn on the same stage. Check out the piece, with photo of Tancredo alone of the stage, on the Huffington Post. That sends a loud message about how the Republican candidates feel about civil rights, and is a much more important story than these nothing open-mic comments.

There was nothing critical to the direction of this nation discussed. The focus needs to be returned to the problems that have been created during the past seven years.

They may be socialist democrats but that’s the way communism starts - no room for other ideas and if someone has one, squash it! I think the top runners should be excluded from some debates so we can actually hear and see what some others have to say. Declare a media blackout on the party elites. Its time we the people take back our government!

Chris from Pittsburgh, stop drinking from the Mon. Our "leaders" are supposed to be Americans just like us. When they start thinking they are better than us and they know what we need. Isn't that kinda what that little war back in the late 1700's was about.

We the people of the United States in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice etc. must clean house now! We need a third party beholding only to the people. We need real debates that are televised on numerous channels that are free to participants. We need to eliminate lobbying as a profession. Any candidate that employs any relative in any way should be censured and not allowed to run again. Somehow we need to get money out of politics from the federal level right on down to the state,city and county level. We need to separate money from government and we might get some truly good people running for office. We need a third party with a candidate that has some integrity and brilliance. I fear for the future of the country on the downword spiral that we are in.

Liars and cheats, the both of them. Exactly what we've come to expect from politicians.., and the media.

I read nothing in that brief exchange that indicates what Clinton and Edwards were discussing or in what context.

Let's not allow the media to manipulate us in this way.

Kucinich shouldn't worry or get too defensive, it is not his nature. He has a following, young and old, fed up with what has become of our once beautiful country. We have gone broke under this administration. College was once affordable-I'll be paying my student loans when I'm on Medicare thanks to Bush. Kucinich will have my vote no matter what!!! My husband and I can't even afford a baby because of insurance in this country and we couldn't afford to send our child to college. We are middle class people and tax paying homeowners. We need someone as far left as Bush is right to repair all the damage he has done as president(actually that title belongs to Gore, vote for vote). I am so sick of these true politicians and their scams, lies and "politicing". Shame on Hilary, Edwards, and Obama, they make me vomit.
Kucinich for change, peace, truth and a planet we can actually live on and breath in.

I for one am not a Hillary Clinton fan but this is NOT A STORY. I see no reason for 10 or so people running from 1 party. One of the few times I agree with her. Put a little more time on the REAL stories!!

They are both dirtballs that should not be president.

Wow, some comments survived talking about Ron Paul. I had my comments on some other posts deleted by CNN and they were not objectionable at all. Merely suggested he was one of the very few politicians that were honest, moral and fiscally responsible. Most are dirtball lawyers that lie and cheat constantly and don;t have an honest bone in their body and sell their souls for votes to anyone telling them what they want to hear and have no intentions to help anyone but themselves. Hillary is one of the worst. That she has ANY appeal whatsoever says a lot about too many of the gullible American people.

I seem to recall a little used phrase,"for the people, by the people," somehow these two have long ago forgotten that they were elected not divinely appointed and can just as easily by elected out, after all that is what everyone of my ancestors fought and died for when this country took on the largest, most powerful military power and won our freedom, freedom from imperialistic, egomanical self-righteous "candidates" such as these. And anyway, everyone, who decides to run for office has the constitutional right to be heard by the American people, and no-one, including Hilary Clinton and John Edwards has the right to try and take that from them!!!!!

LOL, my comment was removed. Guess they didn't like me calling politicans crooked. Maybe it's because I called CNN's favorite politican crooked?

Are you all seriously unable to see that every move Clinton has EVER made, has been to get HER back into the Whitehouse? If it takes "acting" like she's human, she takes classes and then does a photo op. There is a reason so many WOMEN are against her also… She's not a person you can trust. The funny thing, I haven't decided WHO I want for President yet, nobody has really stood out and impressed me. Although, I will say, I have decided on one candidate and that is being scared to death of what Clinton can do to this country if given the chance. PLEASE, I BEG YOU ALL, DON'T LET THAT HAPPEN!

"government by the people; especially : rule of the majority : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections : the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges" Webster's Dictionary. Definition of Democracy, Hey Hilary and John, You seriously need to read up on the whole Democratic process and what it stands for, cause, baby, heaven help America if either of you are elected, you will in one fell swoop have taken us back to before the Revolutionary War!!!

Hillary will be much worse for our country than the current administration!! I really don't care who wins this election, as long as it's not her!!!!!!

Just a few thoughts.
I am a Hillary fan, and by not being real with me and the public, in this instance I am put off, nobody likes to be manipulated.
Edwards was inching into my vote with his pre-campaign work in Katrina relief, this sort of thing, sweat equity, in a cause does indicate a part of the real measure of a man and does get reported, but if it is just for the cameras we'll get the phoniness; free public recognition is a good thing for any campaign.
I still have heard nothing that diminishes my high regard for Kucinich, and now he is helped by an underdog status.
As I recall Bill Clinton came on as a dark horse from the rear when he first was elected.

The solution is to have more debate time, say one question for all the candidates, with time for a real discussion and rebuttal of ideas, also this would showcase unscripted responses, ability to negotiate, intelligence and originality, mental nimbleness, and compromise all important requirements in a President. We could have a new question each two or three days, some just one party, some everyone together, even minor party and independents, but a real debate or discussion so we really understand who we are voting on; democracy with such a large public depends on transparency and honesty. A process like a series of job interviews, candidates may not like it; but they are asking to work on our behalf and we must measure them honestly so they will do as asked or forfeit running.

Isn't it a little strange that is was Fox that left the mics on? Were they hoping to catch something a little more damning?

THIS IS AMERICA, THE LAND WHERE ALL WILL BE HEARD. HOW DARE EDWARDS AND CLINTON TRY TO CUT THe APPLE PIE INTO TWO HALVES. I HAVE DEMOTED CLINTON AND EDWARDSON MY LIST OF CANDIDARES

Are we really surprised? The attitude reflected in this conversation reveals how most politicians view the American public - we are not quite intelligent enough, or sophisticated enough, or observant enough, so we can be manipulated and controlled for their greater good. God Bless journalists and the news. Even at its worst, it shines a light on these behaviors and gives us all a "head's up".

AT LEAST YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT JOHN EDWARDS! KEEP IT UP! INCLUDE HIS STAND ON THE REAL ISSUES NEXT TIME!
THANKS!!

I'm sorry, but isn't that what it's all about…narrowing the field? Give me a break!

The VOTERS narrow the field, not the candidate.
The VOTERS ick the candidate, nto the other way around.

They're right that the debates are a joke. What they don't get is that the "fringe" candidates are the only ones providing real answers, off the script, that inspire thought. You want to break it into groups? Okay — Clinton, Kucinich, and Dodd. Obama vs, Edwards. Like that?

Instead of letting the Central Party's preordained candidates cut their rivals from the debates (exactly what the Democrats-Republicans do to third party challengers), let's make the debates longer. Four hours, seat them all around a table. Ask a question and let fly. One good thing that could be stolen from the shoutfest tv shows.

http://scorpionbowl.blogspot.com

Hillary is the second most dangerous to come down the pike in the past eight years, When are we going to have real debates with questions that are not scripted so the candidates can approve them beforehand. Lets have a real debate where they have to field real questions from real Americans. They want more than 60 seconds to speak? Well we want more that the same old rhetoric for answers. Maybe Fred Thompson or someone else will speak the truth.

All politicains should be required to wear costumes that show them to be the clowns that they really are.

They're both right. Unless you stand a serious shot of winning the nomination, don't waste my time.

I agree with Kucinich. And I appreciate seeing/hearing all of the candidates in one forum/debate. Let's work to keep Hillary on the Hill and let's send Edwards for another haircut and wardrobe makeover. Gee, Obama looks better to me every day!

I think it is great that Clinton is trying to monopolize the campaign, who cares about demacracy anyways, surely not the American people. I'm gonna vote for her just because she's a woman and why break up a generation of people in the white house with a name other than Bush or Clinton? When will Chelsea be able to run? And what ever happend to Jeb's nephew? Let's have Barabra run as the first Grandmother or how about Bush's daughter's as the first twins. We really do not even need to waste our time with campaigns anymore. It's not a two party system, its a two family system. God bless America…

Umm they were right.

Im not even a Clinton or Edwards fan. But right now there are serious canidates being forced to debate hopeless canidates in the Democratic party.
Right now you have 3 strong leaders in the race and 2 others with a chance(Biden and Richerdson). Beyond that no one else has a realistic chances barring a world changing event.

The Republican party isnt quite the same story. The average Republican voter isnt happy with any of the canidates.

"At no time did I hear them mention the name of another candiadate the word “they� thus can’t be conclusively linked to a particular candidate or a person in general. They could have been a reference to actual political issues that John and Hilary were discussing as far as we know. It is amazing the propaganda spin the other side attempts to put on statements that are taken out of context and then expects both Democrats and Republicans to believe it. It may be news to them but I believe voters of both parties are intelligent enough to know the difference and won’t be brainwashed by such falsehoods

Posted By Andy Eaker, Boone, NC : July 13, 2007 7:58 pm"

Again, nobody can show specifically who they were talking about and until they do I'll believe they were actually talking about issues. Don't be manipulated by media pushing their own agenda.

Since when does Propaganda become news?

How can you expect MS. President Clinton to secure our intelligence when she can;t evenm secure her own confidential opions on an open mike? What a Joke! We are doomed!!

"I believe we should have one America where everyone is treated with dignity and respect. Where everyone has exactly the same opportunites to do well" . John Edwards (http://youtube.com/profile?user=johnedwards)

This statement is inconsistent with the words spoken 'off camera' and captured on an open mic , words between Sen. Clinton and John Edwards.

Is this not hypocracy?

Bush would never have invaded Iraq if it wasn't for Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Cheney, etc.

Who is the president does make a difference, but also who are the people around them.

whats the big deal. i agree, get the guys with less than 1 percent support out of there. the debates are so boring otherwise.

Does anyone else find it unusual that a small inconsequential story like this one would generate 71 comments so far? Most political stories I've read generate a response in the 20's tops. It would seem that one candidate or another is directing the "tenor" of this debate.

Why both are back stabbing their own fellow Senators behind their backs, is both of them seeing each other behind closed doors ? why the whispering to betray their own.

This IS so news! Anyone who says otherwise has no idea that the word "vet" means something other than the guy who looks at your dog.

I was embarrassed by John Edwards in 2004. And I want to hear less of him today. But, he is right. We need to narrow the field and hear more from Democratic candidates who actually have a chance to win the election. This is a serious election. No time for also-rans who had their chance and failed.

Fox News and other outlets document this little plot. It is not trivial. Look at the number of comments. Integrity, fairness and judgment are important. Obama has these qualities. If you think experience tops everything, draft Dick Cheney. He has more tham any of them. Mr. Vice President..Obama, by the way, unlike Hillary takes no donations from Federal Lobbyists and is the only candidate to disclose his earmark requests.

Its emblematic, really. Clinton especially is worried about Obama. Clinton supporters have for some time been talking of a somewhat concerted effort between Clinton and Edwards to battle the charisma powerhouse that is the unseasoned Obama. This conversation is exactly as it appears–Clinton has wanted to reach out to Edwards for some time in order to offset the popularity of Obama. She sees Senator Obama as her main opponent for the Presidency, and feels that Edwards would make a sound running mate. Ah, to be in the top tier of Presidential candidates.

I'm glad they got caught. They deserved it.

The coverage regarding the conversation between Edwards and Clinton is boring at best. Where is the coverage describing the GOP candidates' performance at the NAACP forum? (Oh, that's right, only one of them showed up).

Hillary and John didn't say anything worth hearing, LOL.

These out of context snippets are just juicy sirloin tips for the media to gossip about, to bring attention to their station / website / menu.

Private conversation in front of an open mic is a mistake, granted, but humans are prone to those. But its the humans that LEARN from their mistakes that are moving forward, unlike the current "humans" in the White House.

America is ready for a change, and the replublicans WILL be ousted in 08 - DESPITE the petty gossip from the media.

GO DEMOCRATS !!!

It is interesting that Hillary fans cite this as a "non-story". Where is your sense of democracy and fairness? Hillary just shot herself in the foot big-time. Good luck to Obama.

Didn't All the Democrats blow off the "Black caucus" debate because it was on Fox? Gutless cowards who are afraid of a few tough questions (See Bill Clinton and Chris Wallace).

Republicans will show up at the racist NAACP debates when the minorities show up at the KKK debates, same type of hate and lies between the two groups.

This is a story because Kerry, Clinton and Carter were all considered second tier candidates who eventually got the nomination.

The phoniness of these two is right there to see if you open your eyes and watch the whole clip (NOTHING out of context) as you can see these two schemimg and Kucinich comes over and in mid whisper Shrillary says "thanks Dennis" for the debate.

Insert knife in back, twist, repeat, it's what the shrew does.

This would have been the lead story in the MSM if it was Republicans trying to weed out the candidates way to EARLY in the process.

I am sure Gerald is right andd the main reason Clinton fears Obama is that he projects authenticity. He is the real thing. No makeover can give that to Hillary.

Here is why you want to have a multiplicity of candidates: It keeps the top tier on their toes, more issues brought up, more depth of coverage.

The top tier becomes the top tier because they rose above the others in platform and public appeal. The fewer the candidates, the narrower the perspective.

Some of those second tier candidates are the only ones keeping tougher issues on the table an out in the open, so they are doing the whole democratic process a HUGE service!

I distinctly remember a time when our President said a swear word on an open mic, but it was quickly downplayed by the media and the Republican political bulldozer. Yet, most of you are using this time to attack Hillary. As far as I'm concerned, Hillary is the best choice for 08. I've been in contact with Senator Obama's Chicago office asking for help from him for my son because of the abuse he suffered while in Illinois at Navy boot camp. I was turned down several times. My family learned what the true meaning of the Audacity to Hope means. Nothing. I contacted Senator Clinton's office and they are looking into how to help my son return home. You see, he didn't get to begin his A School training, he was admitted to the psychiatric hospital and has been there since May 12. The navy has now said he is of no use to them, having scored a 97 out of 99 on his ASVAB, and he is now a shell of his former self. I'm going with a candidate who tries to help everyone in this country. And for our family that is Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton!

Well, I think we just got a sneak peak at our next 'appointed' (not elected) President and Vice President. Since when do rival candidates discuss colluding with each other to eliminate other competition that makes them look bad?

If this were a serious race, don't you think it would be dog-eat-dog?

If I didn't hopelessly believe in the dream of America, I would almost view this as Clinton KNOWING (not thinking) that she will be next President and Dean will be VP. She is clearly suggesting that she has sole discretionary power over what the DNC does, and the whole debate process is just a pony show. That is until someone goes off-script and ACTUALLY challenges them and makes them look bad. They need to removed from the show.

You do not need to remove 'fringe' candidates. If their view is unpopular, they will lose the funding on their own and drop out. That is the way it should be. If they remain running, it is because their views are popular.

Since when did we become a decidership?

Michael,

Maybe that is because the NAACP is an ethnocentric organization that seeks to segregate people based on the color of their skin and needs to be eliminated to end racism?

But, then I bet you thought the patriot act was actually patriotic and the Net Neutrality Act was actually Neutral, right?

You know what's worse than NOT voting? Voting uninformed.

Friends don't let friends vote stupid.

And BTW, CNN is actually making it sound better than it is. They cut out all the substantial parts from the recording and left only enough to make it seem confusing.

Context? Try listening to the ENTIRE exchange. These two were clearly talking about having other candidates removed from the debates and off the primary ballots.

They were colluding with each other to manipulate the election, which in a truly free country would be illegal. And it is illegal, but I won't hold my breath waiting for them to be held accountable. Just a preview of more to come…

As I said before: If the 'fringe' candidates are NOT popular, they will drop out on their own. That is the way it is supposed to work. The only people that can decide a year and a half before the election who is credible and who is not is the people, their money, and their primary votes.

When a few people decide this for the majority of us, we have ceased to be a free country and might as well stop wasting money on campaigning.

Is Hillary afraid she can't get elected fairly?

I'd love to see Gravel and Kucinich squeezed out, and I'd love to see Dr. Paul squeezed by the Republicans. Then, perhaps, two of those three could come together to fight these two parties in the general election. ANYBODY ELSE BESIDES ME SICK OF BOTH THE REPUBLICANS AND THE DEMOCRATS? I've been pleased with these three gentlemen so far — I just don't understand why they're running in the parties they're running in. We have to free ourselves of this stranglehold these two pitiful parties have on us! Bring on the independent/third party!

Given who it was, I am just surprised that profanity and vulgarity was not overheard as well.

I say, grade the candidates on a curve (like high school class grades are sometimes averaged). If the candidates know up-front that the top poll and bottom poll candidates will be dropped from the competition at a certain date, they will participate fairly and equally. Also, put a smaller cap on contributions that limits how much money a candidate can use to promote his/her ideas. Say, "You have until May 1st to raise up to X amount of money and then THAT'S IT!" Lastly, standardize debate questions to have simple yes or no answers with the remainder of 60 seconds dedicated to the "why" portion of the answer. Any further explanation of ideas can be provided on candidate websites or newspaper ads.

All of you who think 'this is who the candidates are so get used to it' I ask that you take 2 minutes, visit ronpaul2008.com, and watch the video "Freedom is popular"

Ron Paul is not in the top tier of candidates, but he has more money than John McCain from this quarter, specifically from individuals who have seen that he has good ideas and appears to be someone you can actually take at their word. Just check out the video and decide from there

Hilary and John caught on tape!!! Hey stupid, if you want to cut a back-room deal, then get a "back-room". Geez, how dumb can you get?

In front of open-mics the two discuss how they can get rid of the other candidates. Candidates that are bringing up very important issues in the debates. Important issues these jerks just don't want to debate. So, just as they are strategizing on how to kick DK and others out of future debates these two fascist smile and shake his hand.

Remember this the next time you see these fakes on tv shaking the hands of voters they are trying to court. They'll shake your hand, then stab you in the back.

Sen. Clinton wouldn't need to worry about answering how to end the Iraq war in 60 sec. if she hadn't voted for giving this lunatic Pres. the authority to go in there in the first place. As usual she wants it both ways… I guess whatever it takes to chinook the american public.

If you think these insignificant comments are bad, you would freak out if you heard what they say when they are really alone…

Such a shame. This is a country where all can participate in the political process. These two idiots are in fact being so bold to say others should not run. Having a check and balance is what we want not stilted communication. That is why there are primaries to choose the ultimate candidate. Behave Hillary and Edwards!!

Poor Dennis. What he fails to say is when is opponent, Barbara Anne Ferris, wanted to debate him at the Cleveland City Club, he declined. Why? Because he knew she would pulvarize him with the facts. And the facts are he has done nothing for his district since being a Congressman. This guy is nothing but a grand-stander. How can anyone take him seriously?

[...] to America's. One where you should be allow to run for president, and one were your not allowed. CNN.com - CNN Political Ticker Clinton, Edwards caught on open mic « and the video Video - Breaking News Videos from CNN.com makes you wonder how fair they would be [...]

The media makes celebrity politicians, because our society is a fast food democracy… we want the media to bear the responsibility of knowing what's going on in our government and with our presidential candidates… whatever happened to going your American butt to the free library and reading up on the history of some of these candidates? Unfortunately most won't do that, so they'll pick whoever the celebrities pick or who is most charismatic or good at talking and there goes the country… read up on your political issues and your political candidates and don't speak on the media… you wouldn't rely so much on their coverage if you were really seeking to use and appreciate your freedom.

[...] Clinton and John Edwards a previous democratic candidate in 2004, as implied by comments made on 'open-mic' between the two. In short I don't see the possibilty of Obama as a running-mate, better to [...]

[...] thought John Edwards wanted fewer people at the debates? A few months ago Edwards and Clinton were caught whispering after the NAACP debate about cutting the number of participants at the forums. When asked why he [...]