Edwards walked over to Clinton and told her they "should try to have a more serious and a smaller group" for a fall debate. Clinton agrees: "We've got to cut the number, because they are just being trivialized." She agrees with Edwards again when he, presumably referring to some of the lower-tier candidates, says "they're not serious."Ok. Front runners hate to give non-entities like Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel air time during debates which is often the only notice they ever get. But that's not the interesting part of this story. The interesting part of the story is after Kucinich found out about the whispering campaign he went public with his distress which required a response by both Clinton and Edwards. Result? They both lied. According to the WashPost:
Clinton then mentions to Edwards that she thought that their campaigns had already tried to limit the debates but the effort got "detoured" and "we've got to get back to it."
And in Iowa, Edwards said "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 candidates each, chosen randomly." It was typical Hillary to immediately blame someone else. It wasn't her at all, don't you see? She loves having Mike Gravel and Chris Dodd clogging up the arteries of debates. It is Mr. $400-a-haircut Edwards who wants to cut out the little people - even though his entire campaign is centered around his abiding adoration of the Bill Richardsons and Joe Bidens of the national economic debate. The mikes were open and their words had been recorded. Hillary, unguarded, is still Hillary: Demanding, self-centered, willing to throw anyone over the side to further her career. Edwards, as he has done throughout his public career, re-cast his position into something which had no bearing on what he had previously said. Meanwhile out in San Francisco comes word that the woman most admired by the American Left for making George W. Bush feel uncomfortable has decided to switch targets. Cindy Sheehan has announced that she is going to run against Nancy Pelosi in the Democratic primary for the 8th Congressional District in California if, according to Reuters, the California Democrat fails to endorse impeachment proceedings against Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney by July 23. It happens that July 23 is the date of another demonstration scheduled for Your Nation's Capital. "If Nancy Pelosi doesn't support articles of impeachment ... by the time we get there, then I will announce my candidacy against her," the Washington Post reported. Ok. Sheehan has as much chance of beating Pelosi in a primary in San Francisco as I do. But that's not the point. The point is, this may well turn into another of those "Be careful what you wish for; you might get it" deals. The American Left has been working hard to begin a drumbeat for impeachment of Bush and/or Cheney. If MoveOn.org and its brethren want to raise some serious money and generate some serious news, they should look for a Cindy Sheehan equivalent not just in Pelosi's district, but in every district of every senior and mid-level Democrat in the House. Think about the scramble if MoveOn gets someone to run against everyone from Henry Waxman (CA-30) to Charlie Rangle (NY-15) to Barney Frank (MA-04) to John Conyers (MI-14). The excitement which was generated among Washington elites over Sheehan's antics in Crawford will soon turn to very serious tsk-tsk-tsking if she becomes the poster child for challenges - no matter how under-funded - against America's best known Liberals.
Clinton, in New Hampshire, seemed to lay responsibility on squarely on Edwards. "I think he has some ideas about what he'd like to do," she said, adding that she liked participating in the forums.
And you wonder why I love politics.