January 22nd, 2008
01:30 PM ET
11 years ago

Clinton, Edwards hold private post-debate meeting

Clinton and Edwards met for a private meeting after last night's debate. What was discussed?

Clinton and Edwards met for a private meeting after last night's debate. What was discussed?

MYRTLE BEACH, South Carolina (CNN) - What were they talking about?

Hillary Clinton and John Edwards met privately backstage following a very contentious Democratic presidential debate in this coastal city, sources with both campaigns confirm to CNN.

The meeting took place in the Edwards campaign green room.

One of the sources said the meeting happened by chance and the conversation consisted of light chatter. The source added that Clinton did jokingly take a jab at Edwards about his beating up on her during the debate. In fact, the real fireworks were between Clinton and Barack Obama.

An Edwards source noted that it was not surprising the two senators met backstage.

"That happens back there,” said the source, who said it has happened “more often” with Obama. “It’s tight quarters – we’re all on top of each other.”

The question is - with only two weeks before Super Tuesday - what else was discussed?

Related: Clinton, Edwards team up on Obama at debate

- CNN’s Candy Crowley and Mike Roselli

Filed under: Hillary Clinton • John Edwards
soundoff (617 Responses)
  1. John, NC

    It is obvious that Edwards is running for VP. He would not even carry his own state, just like before.

    January 22, 2008 12:30 pm at 12:30 pm |
  2. Jessica, Michigan

    I realize there's tension between clinton and obama – rightfully so, its a heated contest and theres a lot at stake, but outside this race none of that needs to matter.

    As an Obama supporter Id rather have Hillary as the VP than Edwards...and IF Clinton gets the NOM, i would feel 100% better knowing Obama was there to keep her in check. I would suspect, Clinton supporters would feel the same – considering their concern with Obama is his experience.

    Clinton would bring her experience to the table – Obama would bring his hope and optimism, and together...real change will occur.

    Frankly, im surprised more dem's dont see Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton as the best route. Edwards could become whatever Karl Rove is to dubya. All 3 can be in the white house...I dont see WHY we cant just look at the big picture, rather than whats 2 feet in front of us.

    January 22, 2008 12:30 pm at 12:30 pm |
  3. Anonymous

    I've just read the blog and frankly, there is nothing to this picture. What I would like to see is all the news organizations really take into account what matters to the American people and to start looking at everyone's records in an impartial way. The media is not supposed to have an opinion, unless it's in an editorial. It is supposed to report on the facts, so start digging into the facts. Also, the Democrats need to address specifically the issue of illegal immigration as it is a major problem and companies are getting away with disenfranchising it's own citizens. And yes, the CEOs are walking away with millions at the expense of workers and that has to change.

    January 22, 2008 12:32 pm at 12:32 pm |
  4. Rob

    Plotting the demise of the Democratic party, no doubt. When are Democrats going to learn that nominating fanatic liberal Republican bashers is NOT going to win the White House? As a moderate Republican, I would seriously consider voting for Obama. At least he promises a breath of fresh air and the possibility of reaching across party lines. Clinton and Edwards offer nothing but the same old stale Democratic finger pointing, whining and devisive partisan politics. Democrats beware! I, and like-minded moderates and independents will NEVER vote for a Clinton/Edwards ticket.

    January 22, 2008 12:32 pm at 12:32 pm |
  5. Rose

    Hillary/Edwards sounds like Mondale/Ferrarro 2008. Another losing ticket. If Edwards the loser joins the "forces of status quo" then he is not only a loser he is a desperate hypocrite as well.

    January 22, 2008 12:33 pm at 12:33 pm |
  6. Nicky, Phoenix, AZ

    CLINTON/EDWARDS 08? This would be great......

    Maybe Edwards will drop out and endorse her....

    January 22, 2008 12:33 pm at 12:33 pm |
  7. Jay Graham, Dallas, TX

    I think the Obama before Iowa is totally different than what I see him today. The rock star status by the media and big endorsements are all going in his head. Hillary showed her body language when attacked. But, this guy thinks that everyone should listen to his golden statements as if he is the one who can authoritatively talk and not to be questioned on his records, and statements. Media should not give Hillary and Edwards meeting or Obama-Edwards meeting any big importance. But, if Obama's attitude is like "give me the nomination" without crtitsizing me, I would rather vote McCain than bringing this junior senator.

    January 22, 2008 12:33 pm at 12:33 pm |
  8. Gene Bayer

    Last nights debate was nothing less than a preschoolers playground event. Is it toomuch for these people to act like adults and deal with these petty personal issues out of the public eye.

    When are we going to get real reply's from these people. They are all artist at deflecting a question or the answer thereto. All of the canndiates refuse to speak in anything more than punch line rhetoric. As a concerned voter I would like to heear detailed answers to the questions most concerning me about our country. Its obvious why congress "Will Not" pass a balanced budget amendment....they'll never do it...they can't.....because then they will have to make hard fiscal choices the results of which will probably cost them politically.

    Why are we even having a discussion regarding the imigration issue. If we are a nation of laws then let's enforce those laws.... "Congress will never do it" again due to the political cost. They are more concerned with their precious political carreers than with saving our country.

    When are we going to hear a discussion about bring manufafcturing jobs and expertise back to America. That is how you sure up our country. At the end of World War II America was the envy of the world. We manufacturered high quality products and exported them around the world. Today....greedy politicians and unions leaders have all but destroyed our ability to produce anything in this country. DO you hear any conversation on this from the Republicans or Democrats..."NO". They are afraid to address the issue because they know it will be politically costly to suggest some of the realities. Instead, they continue to pit poor against rich an age old battle that emotionally gets everyone on their side. What they should be discussing is the fact that misguided goverment programs to a large extent are the probelm. Misguided tax policy, energy policy, education policies and much more. I am not certain but I believe the US is now 11th or 12th in the world in eduacation. We are grossly behind the Chinese in engineering students and the sciences. A fact that is already hurting us globally.

    The bottom line ot all this is that to this voter it would seem that if we adopted policies that encouraged and developed a "renewed" manufacturing base in the United States for all levels and products that we would bring back the much needed revenue base our country needs to grow and become the envy of the world once again. Unions need to understand that they must make concessions if we are to comete in a global economy. I believe most americans are willing to do what it takes if these ego maniac politicians would simply move aside and let us work. Stop penalizing productivity....reward it.

    January 22, 2008 12:34 pm at 12:34 pm |
  9. Mark C, Asheville NC

    You're all a bunch of morons for thinking this non-story means anything. The "source" himself said it was just smalltalk. It was a slow news day. They needed a headline and didn't care if it was misleading.

    January 22, 2008 12:34 pm at 12:34 pm |
  10. ReallyExciting

    This is a silly attempt to convince people they may be talking a combined ticket. John Edwards numbers are not strong enough to enhance Hillary's ticket and she is way to smart for that. Her running mate will be someone strong in their own right, they will bring something unique to the overall ticket. John is a nice guy but doesn't have any steam in this election.

    January 22, 2008 12:34 pm at 12:34 pm |
  11. Megan

    I can't imagine anyone reading these blogs does not know that every campaign uses its operatives to get out their point of view. But what is said in the blogosphere has little impact on what happens in the voting booth. Some people will never vote for someone with the last name Clinton, there are others who would rather die than see a Black man in the White House. I think when all is said and done the GOP will win in November even with their weak candidates. There is too much hatred in the Democratic party right now to even fathom that they could come together in the end. That is the fairy tale.

    Do you really think Clinton backers will get behind Obama if he is the nominee? Do you think that young voters and Independents who have been inspired by Obama's message will throw their collective support behind Clinton (or even show up at all for that matter)?Do you think Clinton or Obama would eat crow and give the keynote address at the other's nomination?

    Both sides are now in too deep and no one is budging.
    To think this election seemed like a slam dunk, if you will, for the Dems, but as the economy grows weeker, tensions in the middle east continue and Democratic candidates continue to highlight the weakness of each other, another 8 years of GOP rule might just happen.

    January 22, 2008 12:35 pm at 12:35 pm |
  12. James

    To accept any position from Clinton would be career suicide for Edwards. Hopefully, he's too smart for that.

    January 22, 2008 12:35 pm at 12:35 pm |
  13. Chloe, Austin Texas

    This is a sad day indeed, if the last hope, populist, champion of the poor goes the way of Darth Vader.

    January 22, 2008 12:35 pm at 12:35 pm |
  14. J.C.

    If these two do run together Obama will run independent and the Democrats can kiss the independent vote goodbye. If you are democrat and are not voting for Obama, you are a fool and you are practically spoon-feeding the republicans another election. Can democrats learn from the past? Does not look like it as long as Hilary is leading the polls.

    January 22, 2008 12:36 pm at 12:36 pm |
  15. H.Aguiar

    It looks like CNN is very "interested" in pushing Madame Clinton to the Oval Office.
    Why ?
    Good journalism is practiced. It is not sufficient to simply say it.

    H. Aguiar

    January 22, 2008 12:37 pm at 12:37 pm |
  16. Art H

    Also, after all the hoopla about how Hillary would be a divisive and polarizing figure, who will simply not be able to work with republicans, her senate record shows that she has been actively and successfully working across the aisle with Republicans in moving things forward, with a combination of toughness, firmness and diplomacy.

    Her first election victory in NY could have been termed as a fluke but her RE-ELECTION from NY with an overwhelming majority, shows how much the people liked her way of functioning, regardless of the painting of a Hillary presence on the political front, as a "disaster".

    So much for all the brouhaha about Hillary's polarizing influence !

    January 22, 2008 12:38 pm at 12:38 pm |
  17. John, Pittsburgh

    Hey guy who responded to me. Yes I am a very strong Christian and I never voted republican. Being a Christian doesn't mean being a fool. Throwing money at the poor and homeless isn't going to solve the problem. Did you really compare John Edwards to Jesus. I'm sure Jesus would not have spent $800 on two haircuts. Jesus also said that we have to work.

    January 22, 2008 12:38 pm at 12:38 pm |
  18. Greg in OH

    Everyone here is the truth:

    We are in this situation because during the Clinton administration (2nd term), Clinton repealed the banking laws that were put in place after the Great Depression to avoid the same issues happening ever again and not have another depression. This allowed the banks to get into the mess they are in now. If those laws were not repelled, then the banks could not have been in this situation. Deregulation during the Clinton administration could cause us to go into a deep recession and maybe even a depression if bad enough.

    The law repealed was Glass-Stegall, this openned the door for Citigroup to have it large merger.

    January 22, 2008 12:38 pm at 12:38 pm |
  19. Debbie B.

    I thought John Edwards won the debate. He really wants to help the poor in this country, and make a difference that will turn this country around. I think he will make a great president.

    January 22, 2008 12:38 pm at 12:38 pm |
  20. Hispanic for Hillary

    Why is it during the other debates when it was more than obvious that Obama and Edwards sort of "teamed up" to attack Hillary it didn't matter. But when Obama is questioned about his voting patterns and other issues - it's all over the media and implyed that he's was picked on. Obama and Edwards really want us to believe they have "perfect" political records. When they get criticized and/or made to explain - they get defensive and resistent. I wish Obama would have been pressed to further explain his comments regarding Ronald Reagan. I'm 56, and I remember the Reagan administration and his "trickle-down economics." I also remember the Iran-Contra Affair. The Reagan Administration was found to have illegally sold arms to Iran to fund the Contras in Nicragua– which was outlawed by an act of Congress. Oh, but he couldn't remember approving it. And Obama praises him and puts done President Clinton. He'll never get my vote!

    January 22, 2008 12:38 pm at 12:38 pm |
  21. Lou

    Your headline for this story was disingenuous. Using the word "secret" got everybody to read it and then there was nothing to it. If you had to run this story (which you didn't) the headline should have been: "Clinton and Edwards chat after debate." Of course, you would not have had as many takers but it would have been good journalism.

    Now what will happen is every blogger in the world will pick up the headline and add "details" to the story. Other news media will pick those stories up and then Fox and CNN broadcasters will be doing a story on the backroom deal between Clinton and Edwards to cut Obama down to size or some other nonsense. Of course, everyone will cite everyone else and there won't be one shred of real reporting in the whole process.

    Don't they teach Who, What, Where, When, Why and How in journalism school anymore?

    January 22, 2008 12:39 pm at 12:39 pm |
  22. Tatiana

    oy vulnerability on obama's side? yea, it's because he has to be reduced to the sort of dirty and AWFUL politics billary espouses. think before you all type your stupid remarks, what kind of character and person are you supporting? are you willing to support a wizened old dirty hag cause I mean, that's your choice right? every barb and taunt last night caused me to feel even more distressed about what is going on in this country.

    god, it clearly was a bait on billary's part and obama, while he had to defend himself, is slowly going the way of washington politicians. it's a sad sad thing to see and what's even more sad to see is that he clearly does not want to take part in this kind of tawdry back and forth.

    and honestly I'm this close on giving up on you dumbos. elect the clintons again, whatever. but just think when you do place that vote of the possibilities, of young people being inspired, of people from all over the country uniting and giving the Democrats a chance, of the world actually respecting us.

    but you know what, whatever, I hope Mr. Obama leaves this arena and does his thing for Illinois and Congress and goes back to his gorgeous family and is happy. he at least deserves that and while I used to believe this country deserved it too, I'm not so sure about it now.

    p.s. edwards is a phony but again, whatever

    January 22, 2008 12:39 pm at 12:39 pm |
  23. James

    Most people are missing the point about both Edwards and politics in general:

    Edwards wants policy concessions...as the most progressive of the three...if he can get enough delegates to hold the balance of power at the convention...he can ask for that. If you watch him enough you'd notice that he is consistent on his policy and attacks either as appropriate, but with respect. The longer his message gets heard...the more likely this is. He would make a great VP for either candidate if he can't sneak inbetween them and with his campaign funding and media exposure problems...that is unlikely.

    I think it should be clear for anyone who actually read his policies and watched him speak and debate that he truly believes that his message and policies is more important than him personally.

    Secondly...most people in politics are friends off the stage except for the wing-nuts. I mean they have been travelling around for over a year now and are in the same party...it is a bit of a show and game to them...and they must get along on a certain level. You can make your sports analogies here, but I remember that when I was involved in politics in college that I found the guys in the other party to be more fun than my own and would often go out and party with them and have fun drunken debates. They never convereted me to the right at all and I didn't convert them, but people are more than their politics and there were some people in my party who were twits as people.

    Edwards is clearly the most likeable person of the three and I don't know how either Obama or Clinton wouldn't chat with him after a tough debate. I debated in college and anyone who took them personally was considered a novice at best. Real politics is just the big game on a much larger stage.

    BTW: Clinton taking Obama to the woodshed was a necessary evil. This was the first time anyone challenged him without him being able to fall back on cue cards. This was not the type of Republican Swift Boat attack that is sure to come for any candidate or the type of much tougher personal attack that will come up once it is the Presidential Republican vs. Democrat debates. The under-reported stuttering and stammering, with pauses, "uh"'s and the visibly shaken image Obama gave off even an hour after the big opening fight with Clinton was much more telling than anything else and remember that Nixon lost the debate to JFK because he looked nervous and shifty on TV and sweated too much. Obama is no JFK...at least not yet and his inexperience showed through....better now then later.

    January 22, 2008 12:41 pm at 12:41 pm |
  24. Becky

    People –

    Is our country ready for a Clinton/Clinton joint presidency? Aren't you afraid that the first woman and first black on the ticket will give the country back to the Republicans? Race shouldn't be a factor in this day and age but I think it still is, unfortunately. The Republicans have almost single handedly brought down this great country of ours. The people of this country who elect the president have one shot and that's our vote. After the winner takes office it seems to be all over because we can't get them out for 8 years, no matter what they do. That's a long time and having said that I think it's very obvious "We, the people...." have very little say in running our country. Congress certainly doesn't pay any attention to us either. We need to take back what is ours.

    Let's all continue watching debates and make up our own minds and not listen to the press as to who our next President should be. Most importantly, let's get out and vote. More people say they like John Edwards than are actually voting for him. John – go out and get your vote – work harder! Hillary and Barack need to stay on topic during the debates and get away from the personal attacks because we don't care about that. We want to know who can run this country and get us out of this mess.

    January 22, 2008 12:41 pm at 12:41 pm |
  25. Tyler

    I have to agree Megan. However I do believe that the Democrats may come to realize in November that they just need to deal with it and just vote for the democratic nominee. We dont need another 4-8 years of a republican in office. We have seen how the last 8 years have gone.

    January 22, 2008 12:41 pm at 12:41 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25