Can you hear me now? Oops!

In Monty Python's "Life of Brian," those spectators arriving late for the Sermon on the Mount find themselves too far away to understand the distant speaker. "What did he say?" one asks. "He said," a neighbor responds, "'The Greeks shall inherit the earth.'"

One wonders what George Washington and Abraham Lincoln really sounded like. Not until around 1900, when this newfangled recording equipment was invented, does society begin to capture the voices of its famous people, mainly politicians--Teddy Roosevelt, William Jennings Bryan, William McKinley. As the microphone magnified the audience, however, it also magnified the dangers.

Even today politicians, who are fully accustomed to having microphones shoved into their faces constantly, sometimes forget those things are always listening. Remember George W. Bush sharing an epithet with Dick Cheney about a certain reporter in the crowd? The CNN announcer going to the ladies room while her portable microphone was still on?

Well, yesterday at the NAACP forum in Detroit, microphones captured a cryptic exchange between Hillary Clinton and John Edwards. The forum was actually over. Ex-Senator Mike Gravel had just gone on denouncing Bill Clinton's free trade policies. Edwards walked over to shake Clinton's hand. She forgot about her lapel mike. It was still on and transmitted the following...

"Our guys should talk," says Clinton. "We've got to talk because they, they are, just being trivialized."

"They are not serious," Edwards responded.

Clinton agreed. "You know, I think there was an effort by our campaigns to do that. we got somehow, you know, detoured. But we've got to get back to that..."

So what is it the Clinton and Edwards campaigns need to get back to cooperating on? Our guess is jointly working to marginalize the cantankerous claims of the hopeless Gravel campaign. But we'll have to wait and see.

--Andrew Malcolm

Comments

[Mark Kraft]

They tried to plot together to give the boot to candidates with a lower poll rating, as those candidates were most effectively anti-war, Clinton and Edwards being the two who are most vulnerable to the charge of getting us into the Iraq war, due to their voting/cheerleading record.

Edwards said:

"We should think about at some point... maybe some time in the fall, we'll try to have a more serious debate with a smaller group of people."

Hillary agreed with Edwards, saying:
“We’ve got to cut the numbers of these, because they are just being trivialized.”

Edwards responded:
“And they’re not serious. They’re not serious.” He then walked back to his podium.

Hillary caught up to him and added:
"I think there was an effort by our campaigns to do that, but it somehow got detoured. We’ve gotta get back to it."

Barach Obama and Dennis Kucinich then walked over to where Hillary and John were speaking, greeting them after the debate. Hillary, fresh from her conspiring (especially against Kucinich), then proceeded to greet and gladhand them, while telling Senator Edwards in parting:

"Our guys should talk."

And these hypocrites are supposed to reform the political system for us? Truely sleazy. If there is any justice in this world, this should be their Howard Dean "yaaargh!" moment. It would certainly be more justified.

[Joe Justice]

There's nothing sleezy about this (or hypocritical... please look up the word because there is nothing hypocritical about this).

Anyone who whines about this mini-conversation is incredibly naive, especially living in the world of Bush-Cheney secrecy.

It seems pretty obvious and transparent that Clinton and Edwards and other major candidates would feel this way, and I don't blame them.

It's still a free country; if Bush can disregard the voters, why can't Clinton and Edwards want to disregard nut jobs like Mike Gravel, who only exist to provide soundbites and offer no serious ideas.

[Mark M]

Clinton and Edwards both voted for the Iraq War resolution and the Patriot Act. Clinton voted for it's renewal in 2006. When is the left going to wake up and realize that the Democrat "front-runners" are no better than the current administration in office. I think Kucinich's and Gravel's politics are misguided but frankly less so than the corporatist warmongers running both parties right now. Yes that includes CFR members Obama, Clinton, Edwards and Rudy McRomney on the "right". When are we going to start electing politicians that aren't bought and paid for and aren't shoved down our throats by the old media? These people are such pandering fakes. When are we going to wake up and stop enabling them and their monkey say monkey do the opposite type of politicking.

[Conrad Elledge]

Well of course they would ultimately prefer to limit the discussion to a single person and that in fact is the purpose of the whole process so there are agreed ways to do that which traditionally is by vote of the people and not secret agreement of the front runners. Yes, it is hypocritical to ask to be elected to lead a democracy and then take steps to limit that democracy and really what is so nut job about what these candidates have to say. I personally see more merit in Kucinich's impeachment effort that in Clinton and Edward's support of the war and the patriot act. I am thinking broader debates would actually be better for the people. Oh, by the way, has anyone seen that Nader guy around anywhere. I guess the repugnicant cause is so hopeless there is no sense paying him to weaken the democratic side this time. Conrad Elledge

[Lynn]

I personally feel very frustrated by the format of the debates. There are so many candidates, it makes it impossible to really get depth to the answers so they all sound the same, except for the eccentric Gravel. I think it would be wise to have smaller debates with fewer candidates. I think it was unwise for this to be discussed on the spot, making it look like a very public conspiring of two of the top three. Now it will be politicized by the media instead of offered as a possible solution to the unworkable format of these debates which don't really get to the meat of anything.

[arduous]

I really don't see the problem with this. I agree completely with both of them that I would rather hear longer policy answers from the four top front runners, rather than having to devote so much time listening to people with little to no shot of winning.

[TuNnL]

I would rather hear longer policy answers from ALL the candidates. But mainly I want to hear from the candidates like Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel on the left, and Ron Paul on the right. For once, I hope the American public is fed up enough to give the anti-establishment candidates a chance. A fresh start in the Oval Office is long overdue.

[Erik Gould]

Before you give Sen. Clinton, and Sen. Edwards a pass Consider this, what would the outcry be if Republicans made the comments? Can you honestly say that you would feel the same way?

(Ans: Sure. The GOP field is even larger than the Dems and was reduced by one realistic longshot just an hour ago. See item above, Jim, we hardly knew ye.-AM)