DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum Kucinich rips Edwards on debate remarks

An angry Dennis Kucinich lashed out at John Edwards on Friday, saying his Democratic rival showed "a consistent lack of integrity" by suggesting fewer candidates should participate in presidential forums and then trying to explain his remark to reporters.

"This is a serious matter and I'm calling him on it," Kucinich, an Ohio congressman, said in a telephone interview Friday. "Whispering, trying to rig an election, then denying what's going on and making excuses. It all reflects a consistent lack of integrity."

Kucinich's comments came after Edwards and Hillary Rodham Clinton were overheard Thursday discussing the possibility of limiting the number of participants in future presidential forums.

In an exchange captured on camera and open microphone by broadcasters after an NAACP forum in Detroit, Edwards approached Clinton onstage and whispered in her ear.

"We should try to have a more serious and a smaller group," Edwards said, and Clinton agreed.

"Our guys should talk," Clinton said, complaining the format had "trivialized" the discussion.

Kucinich, who typically polls in the low single digits, clearly felt the slight was directed at him. All eight Democratic contenders took part in the program, including Barack Obama, Bill Richardson, Chris Dodd, Joe Biden, Mike Gravel and Kucinich.

Later Friday, Kucinich sent letters to both Clinton and Edwards challenging them to one-on-one debates, the Kucinich campaign said.

"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," the letter said.

Both Edwards and Clinton were asked about the exchange Friday, and offered different explanations.

In New Hampshire, Clinton seemed to lay responsibility on Edwards.

"I think he has some ideas about what he'd like to do," she said, adding she liked participating in the forums.

For his part, Edwards told reporters in Iowa that he wasn't in favor of barring anyone from future gatherings. Rather, he said he wanted to see them separated into two groups of four each, chosen randomly.

"The result would be that we would have a much more serious discussion and people would actually be able to see what the differences are between us," he said.

Kucinich called Edwards' explanation "disturbing" and said he planned to contact Edwards and Clinton immediately to demand an apology.

"I accept their offer to participate in a debate with just the two of them," Kucinich said. "John should be happy with this, since he wants a small group."

Kucinich's bitterness toward Edwards was somewhat ironic, given the boost he gave Edwards in Iowa when they were both running for president in 2004.

Kucinich, who is very popular with a small but ardent group of liberal activists, asked his Iowa supporters to back Edwards if they didn't meet voting thresholds in any of the state's precincts. That effort increased Edwards' final delegate count in the state, putting Edwards within striking distance of winning the caucuses that year.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My guess is they don't accept his invitation. I've never liked Hillary and after reading this, I dislike her even more. Both her and Edwards suggested smaller formats but when asked about it, she blamed Edwards on it. Talk about accountability.

linkaroo

We need to stop laughing at people like Kucinich and Ron Paul and champion them...even if they're out of step with their party or have no shot at winning or one thinks they're crazy, their presence is important.

Not only do I feel it's important Phil,but I feel it's critical.

If we ever expect to bring about political change in this nation,we have to listen to people who think "outside the political box" we're all trapped in now IMO

I'm suprised that anyone is suprised concerning the 2008 frontrunners whether they be Donkeys or Elephants. They expected the small fry like Dennis K.,Gravel,Chris Dodd and others to have fallen by the wayside by now.
Edwards is the most disgusting as he is just about out of the running himself but feels he can out liberal everyone but old Dennis won't disappear. Hillary believes that she should have the nomination handed to her because of her pedigree and loyalty to Bill...she hates the Obama money machine and wants to close this thing out soon.
Hillary and Edwards rail against the elite in America who hold too much power and wealth and who also don't suurender their power to the government. While Hillary and Edwards complain about those elites they act the same way with the rest of their sides other contestants.

Take it from someone who lives in his district and who lived in Cleveland when he was Mayor: Kucinich is a joke. He's running for President like I'm running for President ... all he's doing is filling his campaign coffers with federal matching funds so he can media blitz the next opponent in his congressional race. He is not a serious candidate. Edwards and Clinton have a right to complain, but it's interesting to me that Hillary gets a pass while Edwards is painted as the bad guy.

"..Edwards and Clinton have a right to complain, "

What do these 2 have a right to complain about?

It's called the First Amendment ... candidates like Kucinich, Paul, Dodd, Tommy Thompson, et al, know they have no shot at the nomination. It's just ego for some, and money-grubbing for others.

Kucinich did not even run an ad campaign in his last election and got re-elected.

With him in the race he actually divides their party. Is this his 3rd run/attempt at Presidency? Laughable.

"What do these 2 have a right to complain about? "


"It's called the First Amendment ... candidates like Kucinich, Paul, Dodd, Tommy Thompson, et al, know they have no shot at the nomination. It's just ego for some, and money-grubbing for others."

Dave- come on man! Do you really feel that Hillary or John Edward's Free Speech Rights are being suppressed by the inclusion of the second tier candidates? If the frontrunners have these rights why not the second tier players?

BTW, Hillary and John Edwards are the 2 most ego driven candidates in the race.

Did anybody on these boards vote for Dennis and could they explain why? I feel he is a country wide joke and an embarrassment to Ohio.

"If it moves, tax it. If it doesn't move, subsidize it." is not thinking "outside the box" ... its the same-old, same-old from tax-and-spend dinosaurs like Dennis Kucinich.

Ditto for Ron Paul and his isolationism ... it's hardly "outside the box" to preach a policy that is over 100 years out of date and that runs counter to the reality of a global economy that we all live in - like it or not.

Where is Pat Paulson when we really need him?

Kucinich is alright and if he could somehow beat out Clinton, Edwards, and Obama I would vote for him.

But, if what likely will happen, happens, (Clinton, Edwards, or Obama wins nomination) then I will be voting for a third party.

hey Pitt,

whether we like it or not, America is addicted to cheap ass goods from Asia.

I do my best to buy American durable goods type items, but it's getting harder and harder to. Americans decided that it was more important to have a cheap computer then to let a guy in an assembly plant keep his job. We've also been importing a hell of a lot of oil from the mideast for a long time, they have us by the balls like nothing else.

therefore, we can't deny that we are part of the 'global economy'.

for the record, I voted for Bush, but now I don't agree with his policies, and I don't agree on how he is running things at this time. I have no idea who I would like as president at this time.

They do have the bulk of the oil,but they also have a lot of sand. That is also why I qualified my statement to "most of the world". Because yes,oil is a huge bargaining chip which we don't control. But food is.


My real point in all of this is,let's just say that 15% - 20% of Americans have had their jobs harmed and in turn the lifestyle of their families greatly compromised by this "global economy",Ron Paul could easily invoke the emotions of those voters.

So if at a later time,he runs as an independant,it could sway enough GOP voters,especially those moderates who have more of a "tendacy" to vote GOP,to lean their support in favor of Ron Paul. I know some people myself who,while being union members,still voted GOP. They just weren't liberal minded enough to support some of the more liberal democrats that often times get their partys nomination. And in a great many cases,I agree with them.

It's people like that who could change the outcome of a presidential election to help the Democrats to win.

Much like the fact that Nadar is talking about running again. That will naturaly hurt the Democrats.And I'm not in favor of "total isolationism". But a wide open global economy buying good where their labor costs are under $100 a week,make it very hard on American workers. So it is a very hot topic among a lot of people to one extent or the other.

JMHO

yeah, my line of work has been hit hard by cheap labor, and management seems happy to settle for cheap crap that doesn't work then pay somebody with a clue to make it.

gotta love the 'slash expenses at all cost' makes me want to get out of corporate america forever.