DNC Accused of Rigging Debate Schedule to Benefit Hillary Clinton

[virtualobserver]

We certainly don't want any pesky debates to slow down Hillary's Inevitability train.



http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/07/17/1403055/-DNC-Accused-of-Rigging-Debate-Schedule-to-Benefit-Hillary-Clinton

[Thinkingabout]

1. How in the hell are the debates rigged for Hillary. The candidates needs to run their campaigns and

sell themselves, have the record to back themselves, having experience and the ability to be president. The DNC doesn't need to try and match the GOP clown car. How many debates do you think people are going to sit down and hear the same questions over and over,

[virtualobserver]

6. They haven't even scheduled a debate.

In 2007 there were 5 debates by the end of July.

[Thinkingabout]

9. This doesn't indicate anything to show Hillary is responsible for the "rigging". Who would

think something like this. She sure isn't afraid of the debates.

[virtualobserver]

19. of course she is, she has nothing to gain and everything to lose

The DNC is responsible.

[Thinkingabout]

32. The loser will probably be Bernie since more issues will be exposed in a debate than Bernie is

giving at his rallies.

[London Lover Man]

49. We'll see about that.

I expect Bernie to completely demolish Clinton in the debates, prompting DNC to schedule more debates in the hopes of turning around Clinton's nosedive after that.

Bernie doesn't bullshit, and cuts through the bullshit to inform you the truth.

[Thinkingabout]

57. We have seen Bernie under the gun, the results are not good for Bernie.

Hillary is very strong and smart, she can handle herself.

[London Lover Man]

62. Um. When? Where?

And what context?

[Bobbie Jo]

106. Um, well here...

[London Lover Man]

117. Meh. That's nothing.

Hecklers gotta heckle, and Bernie's right because he's trying to deliver what he had to say.

When Palestine gets their own state created, let us know. Otherwise, the state of Palestine is a pipe dream.

I'm saying as a supporter of the two-state solution. It's the propaganda war that's pissing me off.

[Bobbie Jo]

119. LOL

No, sorry. He lost it there.

Temperament will make or break any candidate.

[Divernan]

93. OMG! Did he have to duck sniper fire in Bosnia too?

[still_one]

46. Wrong. She has as much to win or lose as any of the other candidates. The OP compares it to the

Last edited Sat Jul 18, 2015, 01:03 PM - Edit history (1)

republicans, as though they have their act so well together, but the facts are just the opposite. Fox, not the rnc, has already decided to screen out those in the first several debates that do not fit into THEIR filter. In this case they us poll numbers, which are not always the most accurate to determine who will be in the first debate. What would make it more frustrating to a republican candidate is that one of the best ways to introduce themselves to the American public is through the debate structure.

As far as I am aware, the Democrats are including ALL Democratic candidates in the primary debates, and excluding no one.

In addition, Markos Moulitsas has made his dislike for Hillary for decades, so while he is entitled to his opinion, it is not without bias

[virtualobserver]

53. They haven't even scheduled a debate....and they haven't

said what the “threshold” to participate is.

What have they done? Nothing.

[still_one]

74. That is more due to ineptness than some kind of insidious conspiracy that KOS would like you to

believe in my view.

The first primary will be in February next year, and I have no doubt that the debates will follow the last last scheduled debates which were:

August/September 2015: Iowa
August/September 2015: NH
October/November 2015: South Carolina
November/December 2015: Nevada
January 2016:
January 2016:

While this makes good fodder for KOS to insinuate that the DNC and Clinton campaign are rigging the debates, I believe it will become a non-issue within a couple of weeks when a schedule is announced, and this KOS can claim credit for it I am sure

[virtualobserver]

76. I don't believe that it is ineptness or a conspiracy

just politics-

[still_one]

77. we disagree that is all, but understand your position and view on this

[Arkana]

56. What evidence do you have that Hillary's afraid of debating Bernie

other than your own bias?

[virtualobserver]

60. it is common sense, no frontrunner wants to debate until they have to.

If Hillary wanted to debate, 2008 Hillary Co-chair and current DNC chair, Debbie Wasserman Schultz
would have scheduled it.

DWS is Hillary's Randi Weingarten in the DNC.

[Arkana]

65. That's your evidence?

Innuendo followed by "HURF DURF WELL HILLARY'S JUST A BIG OL' SCAREDY CAT"?

You don't like Hillary Clinton, ergo she must be afraid to debate your candidate because she hasn't asked the debate schedule to be altered.

Better question: why would you WANT Hillary to control the debate schedule in such a manner? Wouldn't you prefer she stayed out of it?

[virtualobserver]

66. you are blowing this out of proportion

she isn't cowering in a corner.

she simply knows that every debate is a risk, frontrunners prefer to avoid risks like that.

I don't care what Hillary does, I want the DNC to schedule the debates.

[yeoman6987]

81. Hillary did pretty well in 2012

She won a lot of votes. Her only mistake was not taking the caucus' seriously. If there were primaries in every state, I believe Hillary would be finishing up her second term. She will take the caucus' seriously this time.

[virtualobserver]

86. she did,... the reason that we had early debates in 2007 was that the DNC was divided.

she does not want to debate Bernie now.....she doesn't want him to have any additional exposure.

[GoneFishin]

124. Yep. The biggest factor that she has in her favor is he is the lesser known, so are his policies.

Once his policies and name gain exposure her vague non-committal responses will be laid bare.

Unless of course the DNC imposed ground rules prevent certain hard core policy discussion, which could happen.

[Jim Lane]

72. There's good evidence from 2006 about her attitude toward debates

The conventional political wisdom is that front-runners should debate as little as possible, because a debate can give a trailing candidate an opportunity to shake up the race.

In her Senate re-election campaign, Clinton had a primary challenger from the left, but had a big lead over him in the polls. She adhered to the conventional wisdom and did not debate him one single time.

In her current campaign, Clinton has a primary challenger from the left, but has a big lead over him in the polls. There's good evidence for the inference that she would prefer to debate as little as possible. The tradition of debates in presidential campaigns is well established, so it would be very difficult for her to get away with not debating at all, but certainly she would not want two dozen debates as there were in 2008.

Clinton would prefer minimizing the number of debates. The DNC, which is heavily pro-Clinton, is, for the first time ever, attempting to limit the number of debates, and is setting a limit that is substantially lower than the number held during last open contest.

To say that Clinton is "afraid" is a loaded word. I'm not pretending to speculate about her emotional reaction to this or anything else. The totality of the evidence suggests, however, that the DNC is motivated by its pro-Clinton bias, and is acting to help her campaign.

My guess is that there was no express communication from the campaign to the DNC asking for such a rule. There didn't need to be.

[jeff47]

82. Debates were what turned the tide in 2008.

Could be coincidental, but the start of the debates is where Obama passed Clinton.

Since she's running a campaign of "Do the opposite of what hurt in 2008", limited and late debates makes sense.

[George II]

107. She could very well put the final nails in the Sanders campaign coffin?

What's the point in delaying these debates?

To put it in your terms, if she has something to lose, wouldn't it be beneficial to have them as early as possible so she can overcome any mistakes she makes in them? If they're later and she screws up, the screw ups are more likely to be remembers on primary day.

Seems logical to me.

This is all fake controversy to take yet another false jab at her.

[virtualobserver]

109. no, the frontrunner can never afford to stumble

it isn't a slight to Hillary personally....anyone with a large lead in the polls prefers to avoid debates.

[yikes1]

120. debates

Bernie is all down with debates, so lets go. All she ever does is very scripted media pieces.

[Snotcicles]

24. Nobody is claiming Hillary is responsible for the rigging. nt

[Thinkingabout]

29. Officials at the DNC knows Hillary strong and do not need their help to rig debates.

Sounds like the Bernie camp is trying to rig the debates.

[virtualobserver]

34. Bernie is trying to rig the debates by actually having one n/t

[Thinkingabout]

38. Gotcha, six is more than one, huh.

[virtualobserver]

48. and zero scheduled debates is less than one n/t

[Snotcicles]

55. You forgot Gotcha. nt

[virtualobserver]

64. If Bernie takes the lead in Iowa and New Hampshire.....the one thing I do know....

Debbie Wasserman Schultz will be scheduling debates out the wazoo.

[Snotcicles]

69. I think her character has been compromised. Willfully. nt

[George II]

111. Not to worry

[whatchamacallit]

10. Bernie's message is strong, mindshare is his Achilles Heel

He needs exposure! The DNC is taking him out.

[Thinkingabout]

28. You don't think he can say what he wants in 6 debates? If Bernie needs the exposure then the

amount of campaign funds is not adequate in giving him exposure. Six debates would give exposure, 26 would not be listened to anyway. If he can not do the job in 6 then 26 debates isn't going to help.

[whatchamacallit]

36. It depends on the scope, format, and moderation of the debates

Obviously it also matters how many Americans can and will watch at the chosen times. Arbitrarily limiting the number of debates decreases new exposure for all participants, and favors those who already have it.

[Thinkingabout]

41. Do you think it will take Bernie 26 debates to expose him?

[whatchamacallit]

70. You can quit this anytime now

Last edited Fri Aug 7, 2015, 01:22 PM - Edit history (2)

No one is buying it.

1) It's been pointed out to you that simple math says the fewer the number of debates, the fewer the aggregate viewers. People work late, have long commutes, make dinner, forget it's on... If they catch two that's pretty good.

2) No one is demanding we have 26 debates, that number simply serves as a stark contrast to what we have scheduled now, which is 0.

3) The format, scope and number of debates is important. Evaluating candidates requires more information than an encapsulated "message" or bullet point list of promises and desires. Even if the same policy ground is repeatedly covered, I learn something new in every debate. Often new details of their positions emerge in subsequent debates. Then there are the intangibles; how poised they are responding to hard questions and challenges, their ability to stay focused and succinctly deliver their message, how well they think on their feet... so yeah, more is better.

[Snotcicles]

22. Sounds like you fear robust debates also. nt

[Thinkingabout]

23. I don't, I also don't need to hear the same information 26 times to be able to understand

what is being said. Who needs 26 times?

[think]

37. Not everyone sees every debate. And most people don't hang out on political debate forums

so they don't know & understand many issues that effect them. Even here where people are debating the issues every day it's apparent people don't always understand the issues. I know I don't understand all the issues as best as I could and I still learn much here everyday.

With so many complex issues of great importance shouldn't the Democrats be doing their best to get information and their views out to the less informed general public as much as possible?

And with 6 debates it will limit the exposure of ALL the Democrats as whole to get their message out.

6 is a far cry from 26 especially when the DNC doesn't even have the debates scheduled this far into the primary season.

[Thinkingabout]

44. In today's electronic world there are many avenues to record or download the debates. If

people are interested they will listen to the debates. I don't need 26 debates and show a DNC clown car campaign. Not hearing the debates is not a problem if one is interested.

[A Simple Game]

114. Exactly right, so I don't see what your problem is.

Not hearing the debates is not a problem if one is interested.

You solved your own problem without knowing it, If one is interested in not hearing the debates there is no problem. Doesn't matter how may you don't watch if you are not interested in watching them to begin with. Lots of people like you don't want to be informed voters and they let someone else make their decisions for them.

Then there are the voters that want to be well informed so they can make the best decision possible so we should let them have as many debates as possible. You and other low information voters on the other hand shouldn't care because you don't plan on watching most anyway.

[Thinkingabout]

121. "Your problem". I am very informed, I don't need 26 debates to become informed.

Perhaps you post should go to low information voters, I do my research.

[A Simple Game]

122. You do your research but would deny others the ability to do theirs.

How democratic of you.

Also having your mind made up is not the same as being informed. How do you know what will come up during a debate? Then again perhaps that is the problem for you and Hillary, afraid of what may come up.

[whatchamacallit]

40. That assumes all pertinent topics will be covered in every debate

and that every American will be able to watch them all.

[Thinkingabout]

45. The more issues which comes out in a debate is going to go against Bernie. He does not

address a lot of issues.

[Snotcicles]

50. Now you are starting to argue for more debates? nt

[Snotcicles]

52. If you aren't, thanks, but we will take our chances. nt

[Thinkingabout]

58. If Bernie will gain more exposure from debates, the those debating will also gain exposure.

You don't think they are going to allow Bernie to talk nonstop do you?

[Snotcicles]

61. We welcome full exposure of all candidates. That is why we are steadfast behind Bernie. nt

[think]

54. What issues has Bernie Sanders NOT addressed? Please feel free to name them.

[Thinkingabout]

59. Do you really think the speeches he is giving addresses all the issues. I would think most know of

other issues, this may be the reason Bernie will fail in debates, issues which he has been leaving out maybe not to expose his position on those issues.

[Snotcicles]

63. Like what? Every interview I have seen he has never failed to throughly answer a question

as a matter of fact he often expands on the issues in question.

[George II]

91. They're not rigged, this is a poorly pieced together hit piece using "anonymous" sources....

....from old articles (May 2015)

[olddots]

2. the esteemed establishment has established it's corporate nature

of non democracy .

[Scuba]

3. Makes sense. Bernie will crush her in the debates, and both she and The Third Way know that.

[whatchamacallit]

4. Really, wtf is going on?!?

I'm sure the crew will be here shortly to provide patently absurd justifications and excuses.

[artislife]

17. They're h e r e....fade in creepy music. nt

[Metric System]

73. That GIF has creepy covered. Yikes.

[artislife]

75. Not as much as yours nt

[Metric System]

79. That's not a GIF.

[artislife]

84. Still scary

[bravenak]

125. lol

[MannyGoldstein]

5. More ham-handed Third Way garbage

Another assault against the little people.

[Thinkingabout]

11. link

[boston bean]

7. A Kos Diariast says DNC rigs debate schedule...

no proof, no smoking gun, not a damned thing but innuendo.

ooohh republicans have theirs scheduled... hell, someone needs to call the FBI on this conspiracy.

[whatchamacallit]

14. He provided facts though

and they add up to either incompetence or manipulation. You choose.

[virtualobserver]

15. the proof is that they are not scheduling debates

are you claiming incompetence by the DNC?

[99Forever]

8. Clinton politics as usual.

same old, same old.

[Agschmid]

13. Some things never get old.

[PATRICK]

12. Like polling

This issue is so old and undealt with it almost seems fresh. All parties game the debates. Giving it 100% to a third party like the league of Women Voters seems to have gone with the wind. Dealing with media unfairness might make this sort of control generally pragmatic anyway.

Pretty good use of the frontrunner express so far without appearing too arrogant or fearful. This is one of the many false backdrops in the election game that still is of benefit. They are not really debates in too much of the sense of the word. Real debates for the real people of course are one of those issues that only get mentioned to push the chances of challengers.

When Kerry in substance and style crushed the bumbling wired Bush the effect was pissed away in the media response. In Gore versus Bush pretty much the same. The whole process needs big change from donors to donuts.

[LWolf]

16. These are certainly legitimate concerns.

I'm looking forward to the update to this article when DWS responds to the email.

This morning, I sent the following email to the DNC and a copy directly to Debbie Wasserman Schultz. If I hear back from either of them, I will update the diary with their responses.

2016 Democratic Presidential Debate Schedule
Could you please give me any and all details you have on the scheduling of the Democratic Presidential debates?

I am writing a story for the DailyKos pointing out the fact that at this time, no debates have been scheduled and no plans have been forthcoming.

The RNC has already scheduled it's first debate that will occur on Aug 6th, and other debates dates are already scheduled.

Although I understand 6 debates are planned, you have yet to actually schedule a single one. It takes time to organize a debate. It is important that our voters hear the positions of our candidates and hear them debate their proposals with one another.

Much of my research indicates there are some who believe the DNC is intentionally manipulating the debate schedule to benefit Hillary Clinton. Those claim that the reduced number of debates and the late scheduling is meant to deprive lesser known candidates of "less screen time" with the voters.

As much as I would like not to believe the DNC would engage in such tactics, all visual appearances seem to indicate that is exactly what is occurring.

Please respond at your earliest convenience. Our democracy and the integrity of our election process is at stake.

Thank you for your consideration and responses.

[JaneyVee]

18. Oh boy, more woo.

Wake me up when there's a smoking gun. The election is almost 2 years away. No one wants this starting now. Plenty of time.

[Vattel]

21. 15 1/2 months is almost two years?

[JaneyVee]

35. That is plenty of time. I think the author is...

Looking for controversy where there is none.

[Vattel]

39. I agree that the author is jumping to conclusions.

But I am glad a spotlight is being put on this; that will make it harder for the DNC to get away with something if it turns out that they are up to no good.

[99Forever]

31. Your watch is running slow.

[Doctor_J]

20. She's the establishment candidate of choice, so it's inevitable

It's also pretty silly since she'll win easily without cheating.

[HooptieWagon]

25. DWS rigged the Fla primary in '08 to help Hillary.

It's not a stretch to predict her doing the same with the '12 debates.
The crowds and social media attention that Sanders is drawing is scaring the crap out of the Third Way Corporatists that control the party. They severely underestimated the anger of the base, and probably didn't envision Sanders ever getting above 5%. They're living in a DC/Wall St bubble. Right now, at DNC HQ, there's no doubt a lot of finger-pointing and "who the fucks idea was this?".

[corkhead]

26. this little tidbit sums it up:

Apparently, they just haven't decided what criteria to use to eliminate our candidates participation, but hey, they're working on it and they'll let us know when they decide! With only five candidates running, I'm really have to wonder why they want to eliminate any of them.

No reason to wonder, it is obvious. The DNC has already chosen their candidate and they don't give a shit what the electorate thinks.


Sidebar: It is amusing to read the comments on that Kos thread, looks like they have their own parallel universe primary wars going on.

[Vattel]

27. Ugh, why not wait for threshold critieria to be announced before jumping to conclusions?

I am willing to bet big money that Sanders will satisfy the DNC's criteria for being in the debates.

The fact that the debates will start later than last year and that there will be fewer of them is worrisome. It is possible that the DNC is strategizing here to boost Clinton, but the evidence of that is pretty scant right now.

[Le Taz Hot]

30. It's obvious at this point.

Anyone who doesn't see this is either willingly not seeing it because they're tied so tightly to Clinton's cult-of-personality or they're just plain, well, how shall I put it, not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

[HassleCat]

33. Why would they not?

The DNC is closely associated with Hillary Clinton, and I'm sure they figure, "What's good for her is good for us." This is not based on any particular animus to the other candidates, but more one the feeling that Clinton will be the nominee, and whatever they can do to help her helps the party in the general election. Yes, of course there are those who would like to swat down the annoying fly Bernie Sanders, who keeps landing on the fried chicken at the Clinton picnic, but they figure they're just doing the right thing by trying to minimize his opportunities. People get intensely invested in their candidates.

[whatchamacallit]

43. So you're cool with them subverting the democratic process?

[HassleCat]

51. No

But the Democratic process is not democratic, if you get my drift. The twists and turns of the party mechanisms are highly undemocratic, always have been, and probably will be. The system is rigged to reward loyalty above principle, etc. It's also very friendly to "smoke filled room" bargains, quid pro quo, and all sorts of other stuff we regard as shifty. That's not the way it should be, but those are the rules, and we have to live with that.

[restorefreedom]

42. they need to set a schedule

and stop using "we are figuring out our criteria" as a cover.

dws is trying to shield hillary from a debate with bernie and omalley for as long as possible.

fine, deb. just postpone the nosedive.

[London Lover Man]

47. That is no surprise.

I'm all for prodding DWS to do her effing job. Dump the exclusivity rule, and get the debates underway, like ASAP. And schedule 20 more.

[antigop]

67. " I urge you to contact both the DNC and DWS directly"

Last edited Sat Jul 18, 2015, 01:35 PM - Edit history (2)

from kos:

I urge you to contact both the DNC and DWS directly demanding that our debates be scheduled as soon as possible so we can begin to determine which candidate we want to represent us in the 2016 elections.

You can reach the DNC at their website Democratic National Committee

You can find the email address for Debbie Wasserman Schultz here.

There is also a change.org petition you can sign Give Senator Bernie Sanders a Fair Chance by Increasing Number of Sanctioned Debates

And for you Facebook fans, you might want to check out this page which is organizing a protest at the DNC demanding more debates


Please take action! The integrity of our election depends on it.

eta: kos as in the dailykos.com website, which the OP linked to
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/07/17/1403055/-DNC-Accused-of-Rigging-Debate-Schedule-to-Benefit-Hillary-Clinton

[brooklynite]

85. UNREC

This is not from "kos"; "kos" is the handle of Markos Moulitas, who has not opined on this issue. This is the comment of "refelctionv37", an anonymous blogger on the DKos site (hmm, interesting comparison)

[Walk away]

71. Most Bernie supporters here will tell you that every issue, including racism, is

all about income inequality and "the banks" because that and the price of cable tv is 99% of his message. That works for the folks here at DU but might not fly during a debate. I'm sure Bernie will try pushing Hillary into echoing his unattainable promises and I doubt if she'll bite. She has her own ideas about income inequality and she has been answering questions about it all month.

I am a whole lot more interested in Martin O'Malley and Hillary debating since they are both more rooted in reality. O'Malley has accomplished a lot as a governor that would be great to translate to a national level.

I understand why Bernie desperately needs the exposure that debating Hillary will give him but he should be able to get his point across in 6 debates.

Frankly, I think if Bernie doesn't like the way the DNC runs the debate schedule he should go back to his own party and debate the other Independents. Crickets!!!!

[brooklynite]

78. ...which is why we'll have them.

Was Clinton afraid of debating in 2008?

And if this is a real story, why hasn't Bernie Sanders complained?

But I suppose if an anonymous political aide says so, it must be true.

[virtualobserver]

83. bernie did complain

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/06/bernie-sanders-pleads-for-more-debates-208036.html

[brooklynite]

87. No, Bernie asked for MORE debates...

...he has said nothing about the the conspiracy theory allegation that the schedule debates aren't being held, or are being delayed, or that he won't be allowed to participate.

[virtualobserver]

88. not conspiracy....just politics

he wanted more debates and earlier debates....maybe even ACTUAL SCHEDULED DEBATES.

the DNC.......it's Ready for Hillary.

[brooklynite]

118. Still waiting for the pesky evidence...

...DNC knows how well received Sanders is; DNC has welcomed Sanders into the Democratic Primary. You seriously believe they would try to block him from participating?

[virtualobserver]

123. no, they are just delaying the debates......

They are not finalizing either the debates or the "threshold" that candidates have to meet....



That is just part of the political game playing.

[MisterP]

80. these "officialists" (in poli sci/south of the border parlance) genuinely believe we lost '72

because we ran a candidate elected in a competitive primary: since then they've been trying to roll back the whole "democratic excess" through the "moderate" Scoop Jackson faction or the "fiscal moderates and social liberals" (I mean like Pelosi and Newsom, not the full Third-Wayers)

since '06 we've had the examples of Cegelis, Lamont, McKinney, Halter, Romanoff, Sestak, Grayson, Kucinich, Buono, Lutrin, Sykes, Weiland, Wendy Davis, and Grimes to go against their whole "we only care about getting Dems into office" and "the GOP won because you swine didn't turn out" schticks (not to mention the little pre-blaming song-and-dance they do whenever their polls look bad--was it gays, young people, or greedy geezers we have to worry about this year?)

[George II]

90. dailykos dug up an article from two months ago to falsely claim that...

"DNC Accused of Rigging Debate Schedule......"?

WHO is doing the "accusing"? At first I didn't see that in either the dailykos piece OR their linked "DNC released it's schedule on May 5th 2015" article. But then about 2/3 down there is mention of the accusation (is it customary and/or good journalism to get to the "questionable" point of the headline toward the end of the article????) and another link to ANOTHER May article quoting a "Democratic 2016 campaign adviser" who has requested anonymity.

Excellent journalism!!

This is another contrived controversy and yet another Clinton hit piece, plain and simple. Sad it has to spiral down to this.

[virtualobserver]

97. may 6th DNC accused.....July 18 still no scheduled debates

Who cares WHO is accusing? The only thing questionable is the fact that the DNC isn't scheduling debates.

The poster on dailykos is accusing.....I....am accusing.

Hillary's friends..... Board member of Hillary's PAC Priorities USA Action Randi Weingarten ....
and 2008 Hillary Co-chair and current DNC chair, Debbie Wasserman Schultz.... have a more Hillary friendly way of operating, apparently

Endorsements months earlier than in 2007, debates months later than in 2007.

When the DNC schedules a debate, get back with me.

[George II]

99. But it's instantly attributed to the DNC "rigging" the schedule for Clinton?

[virtualobserver]

101. 10 weeks since that article was published, and still no debates?

I guest that Democratic aide had a point.

[George II]

103. I think they're being rigged in Sanders' favor. How's that?

[virtualobserver]

105. by Hillary's 2008 co-chair? excellent theory. n/t

[George II]

94. People have to read past the baiting headline and look at the specifics, or non-specifics..

....contained in the dailykos article and the lack of substance for this so-called "accusation".

It's total BS, but it makes for a volatile headline.

[virtualobserver]

100. the specifics being that the DNC isn't scheduling debates?

maybe we should look at that.

[SoapBox]

95. It wouldn't be a surprise at all.

She has the BIG money...she has cozy chums and old-entrenched "Dems" already coming out for her...he has DINO's galore in Congress glowing for her...not to mention the Attack Dogs that are already out claiming all sorts of whackyness about Bernie...

Why would this be surprising...don't want anybody disturbing Her Royal Annointed One's climb to the throne.

[BlueMTexpat]

96. Faux scandal ...

nice flamebait.

[virtualobserver]

98. not a scandal, just politics as usual. n/t

[BlueMTexpat]

102. JMO when

a headline is used to cast aspersions on one candidate with no proof of her involvement.

[virtualobserver]

104. The headline does not implicate her....she is not the DNC...

but they are acting on her behalf.

[Nye Bevan]

108. Wait.... someone who's not a Democrat decides that he likes the party enough to run as a Democrat

for President, but then all of a sudden his supporters decide they don't like that party's rules for debates?

Why not run as a Democratic Socialist and set the rules for debates exactly as he wants them?

[virtualobserver]

112. I am a Democrat.....

and I support Bernie Sanders, who is running for the Democratic nomination for President.

Bernie has endorsed every Democratic nominee going back decades. He has been as reliable a vote for Democrats as anyone could ever ask for.

So, my apologies if it offends you that I have certain expectations from the DNC.

[tularetom]

110. Don't blame it on a conspiracy if it can be explained by incompetence

And when Dummie Loserman Schitz is involved, incompetence is always part of the equation.

On the other hand, Clinton is notoriously uncomfortable in uncontrolled public appearances, so it's possible her campaign put the DNC up to holding back on a debate schedule.

[virtualobserver]

113. I don't think that name calling adds to the debate.....

I just think that it is pure politics.

[tularetom]

116. It isn't name calling to point out someone's incompetence

If in fact they are incompetent.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

115. Reced for the shitstorm this caused....