Martin O'Malley accuses DNC of favoring Hillary Clinton.

[elleng]

Martin O'Malley . . . accused the DNC Wednesday of tipping the scales in HRC's favor by limiting the number of debates to six. . .

'I want to say right off the bat here, that those in Washington who think they can limit the number of debates, . . ., they're going to have another thing(k) coming when they talk to the people of Iowa.'

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/08/05/martin-omalley-accuses-d-n-c-of-favoring-hillary-clinton/?_r=0

[itsrobert]

1. Martin O'Malley = Captain Obvious

Martin O'Malley is Captain Obvious

[FSogol]

3. Who better than O'Malley to pressure the DNC into doing the right thing?

[fbc]

20. first thing I thought too...

[canuck eh]

2. Winner of the "You Call that NEWS?!" Award

[djean111]

4. In other news, water is wet.

This is why I do not contribute to the DNC and told them to take me off their mailing list.

[840high]

5. So did I and told them off.

[kracer20]

124. Me Too

When they called, I informed them that I'll be donating directly to the candidate of my choice.

[tularetom]

6. Thank you Mr O'Malley for speaking up

I don't know if your efforts will wake up the cement heads at the DNC, but hope springs eternal.

[elleng]

8. Thanks for your positive response, tularetom.

[Andy823]

7. Both O'Malley and Sanders

want more debates, not so sure about Hillary or the other two candidates. I think we need to have enough debate to really get the issues out, discussed, and to find out exactly how each one of the candidates is going to accomplish fixing the things that need two be fixed. In other words I want to know HOW they plan on getting things done. I want specifics.

O' Malley has put out plans on how he will go about his agenda, and I want to hear all the others explain their plans also. Let the candidates decide how many is enough, and let the majority rule.

[elleng]

9. Heck yes, Andy,

'O' Malley has put out plans on how he will go about his agenda, and I want to hear all the others explain their plans also.'

[FSogol]

10. O'Malley's campaign will take off after a televised debate. n/t

[elleng]

16. Sure will, FSogol.

[Aerows]

100. I believe it will, too

Martin O'Malley has an impeccable record.

[kenn3d]

134. With the help of Reddit, Bernie Sanders urges over 900,000 people to fight for more DNC Debates

With the help of Reddit, Bernie Sanders urges over 900,000 people to fight for more DNC Debates

However, what is curious about the Sanders social media campaign is it’s use of pioneering technologies such as Thunderclap, which is essentially a sort of Kickstarter for social media. A campaign is created, supporters link their Facebook, Twitter, or Tumblr, and at a pre-set time, Thunderclap will post a mass message via every supporter to the world, creating a sort of online “Thunderclap.”

This Thunderclap, which reached 925,148 people, is the second major campaign organized by the Sanders campaign, and urged the Democratic National Committee to organize more debates between primary candidates. It makes the point that 26 debates were scheduled in 2008, while only 6 are scheduled for this year, and alleges that this unfairly favors Hillary Clinton, who enjoys high name recognition and approval.

http://anongalactic.com/with-the-help-of-reddit-bernie-sanders-urges-over-900000-people-to-fight-for-more-dnc-debates/

[RBInMaine]

152. If they can't do this in SIX debates, they never can. We don't need endless debates. It's crazy.

[JI7]

11. i thought omalley was a stalking horse for clinton

[FSogol]

14. Guess that meme should be blown out of the water, right?

Of course, we'll still see people promoting that idea here.

[HFRN]

104. it's all about.....MEME!!!! nt

[elleng]

15. Pretty silly

if you've read ANYTHING about him. Try it: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1281

[bigtree]

17. that's been the go-to defense here against almost anyone who dares criticize Sanders

...but this isn't the first time O'Malley has been critical of Hillary Clinton - most notably and early in his denouncement of political dynasties at the very beginning of his campaign and his observation about Wall Street's affinity for a Clinton campaign.

[FSogol]

18. Wait a minute. Sanders hasn't criticized HRC, maybe he's angling to be her VP.

[jalan48]

26. If that were to happen DU would become a love fest.

[djean111]

28. For me, only if it was Sanders/Hillary. n/t

[jalan48]

29. That would work too.

[Paka]

132. I don't want Hillary anywhere near the ticket.

How about Sanders/O'Malley. I solidly support Bernie, but I could easily vote for O'Malley. Not so much for HRC.

[djean111]

133. Oh, I am in agreement, totally. Just responding to the stated premise. n/t

[lewebley3]

140. I don't want Bernie on the Ticket: Hillary is the Dem's only chance

[FSogol]

34. LOL, Cue Barry White CD....

[jalan48]

43. I could see Bernie and Hillary dancing to Barry White together.

[Fawke Em]

114. !

[Autumn]

66. No. I would be forced to find a new candidate to support in that event.

No way.

[MissDeeds]

40. I'd lose all respect for him

if did that.

[navarth]

48. nice idea, but that ain't why...

it's because Bernie has too much class, integrity and intelligence to do all that ignorant negative shit. IMO.

[Ed Suspicious]

145. Wait, you're turning on Sanders supporters now too? Dang.

[Luminous Animal]

12. Good. Glad he said something.

[zentrum]

23. Agreed. Good for him. nt

[cherokeeprogressive]

13. ^THIS^

[Vattel]

19. Typical grandstanding by O'Malley.

As Holly Shulman, a committee spokeswoman, patiently explained, “We believe that six debates will give plenty of opportunity for the candidates to be seen side by side. I’m sure there will be lots of other forums for the candidates to make their case to voters, and that they will make the most out of every opportunity.”

So there you go. They believe six is enough. And if that wasn't enough to embarrass O'Malley, Shulman also makes the excellent point that the candidates do not communicate their ideas to voters only though the debates. They also use speeches and forums and shit like that. I mean, wow, I had never really noticed that before. They really have some eggheads working for the DNC. And it's a good thing Shulman is mentally quick on her feet, because the reporter conducting the interview was like a bulldog, digging his teeth in and asking the tough question, "Is six enough?" Shullman somehow kept her composure and affirmed that six would indeed be enough. But notice too that her point was actually more subtle and nuanced than that. According to Shulman, six is enough opportunities to "see the candidates side by side." Think about it. You could have them stand in a different order a few times, but pretty soon you would know who is tallest, who has better posture, and everything else one could learn from seeing them side by side.

In conclusion, Mr. O'Malley should explain to everyone just how it is that we need more than six if six is enough. Or maybe he should just stfu and listen to the DNC for a change.

[rocktivity]

37. Last time around, there were 26 debates.

And last time around, the current chair of the DNC was one of the chairs of Hillary's campaign. Is this Debbie Wasserman Schultz's idea of taking a mulligan?


rocktivity

[Vattel]

46. Did the candidates have an opportunity to prestn their ideas in other forums?

[FSogol]

49. On a National level? No. n/t

[Vattel]

61. Geez, I was being facetious. My original post used the sarcasm symbol.

Didn't anyone notice the sarcasm symbol?

[FSogol]

63. LOL, you do have a past history of going on O'Malley rants.

[Vattel]

65. I have been hard on the boy.

But he is my second choice!

[FSogol]

108. Good to hear. n/t

[jfern]

93. They don't have other opportunities to debate

And Hillary really likes to avoid being asked questions in public settings.

[Vattel]

103. see post 61

[salib]

21. I suspect he will be strong in debates.

We need that.

[zentrum]

22. Of course the DNC favors

….Clinton. He's dead on. It's why we have so few Dems running. They fear the Clinton Machine which is formidable.

[senz]

89. Why does she need all these "considerations?"

She's supposed to be a strong candidate, but the way she's being shoe-horned in, you'd think she was way down on a handicapping system.

[zentrum]

111. That's a good way to put it. n/t

[Babel_17]

135. Why do wealthy diners need so much service?

The Clinton campaign has so much money, it has a gravitational field and people circle it. Not only that, it also acts as an edible biomass and people who go low enough into its orbit can feed off of it. Once there they don't seem to leave, and off become part of its ecosystem.

[Fred Sanders]

24. In all fairness to all sides isn't 6 debates enough? Canada is having 3, one in French.

[askew]

27. No it isn't. This is the first time in history that they have forbidden

candidates from participating in debates organized outside the DNC. We are going to be missing important debates like the Black-Brown debate in Iowa that has been a tradition for a long time because of this rule set-up to baby Hillary.

[Fred Sanders]

44. How is "debate" being defined? Why not just call two or three candidates meeting a "discussion"?

I am really not up on this, maybe because I do not see what difference it all makes since there are going to be 6 officially defined debates anyway.

[askew]

47. They aren't allowed to appear on stage together for any event.

That is considered a debate. It's a complete mess and was created just to help Hillary.


And 6 debates in a country this size is just not enough. And to just shrug and act like it is no big deal goes against everything our party stands for. This has never been who are party is.

[artislife]

51. Unbelievable.

Reason #345 not to be excited about H.

[senz]

90. It's weird. Everything about her candidacy is weird.

It just doesn't feel normal. It's artificial, forced.

[elleng]

92. Others have recognized this, senz.

"Joyless" was how one prominent Democratic official who supports Mrs. Clinton -- and would only criticize the campaign without attribution -- described her candidacy.'

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/04/us/politics/hillary-clinton-campaign-weighs-implications-of-potential-joe-biden-challenge.html?

[senz]

95. I've wondered if maybe she doesn't really want to do it.

Or...she is terrified of losing, which would explain why she has to line up a win before she even gets started.

It kinda creeps me out. I even worry about her followers (which of course is worrying beyond the pale.)

And then there's the Republican side, so out of touch with reality. And Donald Trump, a joke.

It feels like the U.S. of A. is losing its marbles. Except for Bernie and Martin.

[elleng]

97. Yes, lots of marbles lost,

which is why I'm so pleased with O'Malley's practical successes.

I do think she wants it, HAS for a long time, and with her husband has devastatingly sharp elbows so as to ruin any remaining sense of 'self' in the Democratic party.

[Fred Sanders]

118. Something does not "feel" right......compared to what other "feelings" on other candidates?

You highlight a great problem with voters...voting on feelings no one can measure for reasons no one can understand versus voting on policy and issues...making TV ads purchased by the billions of dollars is thereby vital to get folks to have just the right "feeling", good or bad, about a candidate...damn the issues.

[senz]

128. Absolutely incorrect. I vote on the issues. That's why I support Bernie Sanders.

He states where he stands, right out loud, over and over. Unlike Mrs. Clinton, no one has to wonder where he stands on any issue. You're not going to hear him saying, "I'll tell you what I think of that after I become president." He's not trying to manipulate impressions. He doesn't focus group his statements. He doesn't try to reintroduce himself over and over, changing tactics, launching a "my mother's story" campaign. Now that's manipulating "feelings." Bernie Sanders talks to the American people.

[haikugal]

154. He treats us like adults.

[senz]

155. Yes, that's what it is. Not many politicians do anymore.

This was also what impressed me about my favorite teachers back in high school. Adults who treat you like an adult are respecting you.

[askew]

127. Someone at Daily Kos called it the "Candidate Protection Program" and that

pretty much sums up her campaign. She is doing the bare minimum and really tries to interact with the general public as much as possible. She speaks in vague terms and only gets into specifics on a few non-controversial items.

She's being overhandled. Why I have no idea. She was more authentic in 2007-08.

[Aerows]

101. "They aren't allowed to appear on stage together for any event"

You must be joking. How do you have a debate without people ... debating, i.e. going back and forth debating points?

[Autumn]

68. Yay USA, not as bad as Canada

I think.

[BuelahWitch]

144. We suck less! (at least at this)

Oh, and K&R for this thread!

[delrem]

85. Canada doesn't have Primaries. Canada has an entirely different system.

There is no comparison.

[Fred Sanders]

115. The greatest difference is Canada has a governing season and an election season and there is no

confusion about which is which. Not to mention more than two choices of parties and actual campaign laws and an independent federal electoral commission with some teeth.

Like a real democracy has.

So, no comparison, I agree.

[askew]

25. Good for him.

The DNC basically confirmed their Hillary bias by the absurd response to O'Malley's statement:

DNC spokeswoman Holly Shulman said in a statement that DNC officials are “thrilled to hear that Governor O’Malley is eager to participate in our debates.”

“We believe that six debates will give plenty of opportunity for the candidates to be seen side-by-side,” Shulman said. “I’m sure there will be lots of other forums for the candidates to make their case to voters, and that they will make the most out of every opportunity.”

From Des Moines Register:

"I think it's outrageous frankly that anyone in the Democratic Party would think it's their job to tell the people of Iowa or New Hampshire or any state that they're not allowed to have presidential debates," he said. "It runs counter to everything that we believe as a country ... I'll let other candidates decide whether they want to be part of that other approach, that exclusive approach to politics."

[senz]

91. Holly Shulman sounds like a Sunday School teacher.

Now children, we'll set the rules and there will be plenty of cookies and milk for everyone.

[blackspade]

120. DNC spokeswoman Holly Shulman....

Another shill for the corporate elite that have hijacked the Party.

Pathetic.

[lewebley3]

141. Hillary is popular with Dem because she is the best choice for the Dems

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

30. Thus will go a long way towards making Bernie the DEM nominee.

[elleng]

31. Will be good to see Senator Sanders and Governor O'Malley debate.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

39. Debates are good!

[senz]

87. Would be interesting. I like them both. Bernie's more visionary, but

I could vote for a Sanders/O'Malley ticket. Although they're both white male northeasterners which might be a demographic weakness.

[restorefreedom]

139. this is why there should be more debates

sanders and omalley are so close on many issues. i would love to see them on stage to flesh out their positions. unfortunately, i fear the non questions will be perfectly scripted to allow hillary to evade and do her applause lines. i hope i am wrong about that. om is the one hurt the most by this schedule imo. i hate suppression of democracy!

[elleng]

151. Yes Yes Yes.

[George II]

32. The only thing is that in that NY Times "article".....

.....(aren't we sick of referencing NY Times anti-Clinton pieces?) there isn't a single quote or direct comment about the O'Malley campaign mentioning Hillary Clinton.

If O'Malley DID make that accusation, don't you think they would have included a quote?

[elleng]

36. THIS, from Baltimore Sun:

O'Malley: Dems need more than six debates.

Presidential candidate Martin O'Malley took a swipe at the Democratic Party and frontrunner Hillary Clinton on Wednesday, arguing that party "insiders" were trying to "circle the wagons" around the former secretary of state by sanctioning only six debates.

"Those in Washington who think they can limit the number of debates that we're going to have before the Iowa caucuses -- can circle the wagons and close off debates -- I think they're gonna have another thing coming when they talk to the people of Iowa," the former Maryland governor said at a campaign stop in Cedar Rapids.

His criticism was even sharper in an interview with The Hill on Wednesday in which he described "insider" attempts to limit the number of debates as a "grave mistake" and "undemocratic." Asked whether "party insiders" included the Clinton family, O'Malley said: "Of course they are. President and Secretary Clinton are the most colossal, prolific fundraising couple in the history of representative democracies."

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/politics/blog/bal-omalley-dems-need-more-than-six-debates-20150805-story.html

x-posted: http://www.democraticunderground.com/12812101

[Fuddnik]

33. No shit, Sherlock!

Weaselman-Schlitz has been in the tank for Hillary since before 2007.

Even at the 2007 Florida Democratic Convention, aka "Hillaryfest", a friend of mine, a former congressional candidate they refused to support in '06, got roughed up and tossed out for having the audacity to show up with some John Edwards signs.

[elleng]

38. Yup, fear (and LOATHING) among Dems, I suspect.

NOT what I want as a POTUS.

[FourScore]

35. Yep! I agree. n/t

[askew]

41. If anyone is interested, I posted a diary at Daily Kos on this

I think is completely offensive to see DNC tilting the playing field for Hillary.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/08/06/1409182/-O-Malley-Unloads-on-DNC-Limiting-Debates

[NYCButterfinger]

42. O'Malley is right. Hillary Clinton is the "de-facto" Democratic nominee for president

Gov. O'Malley is correct. We need to see debates. Debbie Wasserman Schultz should announce these debates immediately so voters can see who they want to vote for in the 2016 primaries. The DNC can't have a coronation, or a bland media setting.

[pnwmom]

45. Only the most ardent of ardent Dems will even watch all 6 debates,

much less any more. Last time we had way too many. That's why they cut back.

DU is not the Democratic party. People here are far more engaged than even the primary electorate.

[artislife]

52. But not to allow them to share a stage anywhere else....

that sounds okay?

That is very controlling, imo.

[winter is coming]

56. "Less ardent" Dems are one of the reasons why we should have more debates, not fewer.

If you're not that engaged in the process, you probably won't be interested in watching a debate until your state's primary is approaching.

[Bryan]

72. Exactly. This is entitled whining about free airtime.

O'Malley is notably quiet on how many debates he wants. Thirty? Forty? If this were a debate about how much time he had to speak, I might be sympathetic, but it's not. Six debates means six separate opportunities to kick the shit out of HRC and make himself look like the can-do anti-Washington candidate. If he can't bring that off, is it the responsibility of the DNC to give him more chances?

[pnwmom]

75. Right. We only have a handful of candidates. They'll have plenty of time to make their cases

during the six debates. If they can't distinguish themselves in all that time, there's something wrong.

[Aerows]

102. Well that takes the cake.

Wanting to engage in political debate = entitled whining about airtime.

I do believe I have seen it all now.

[artislife]

121. I wouldn't be surprised

by anything that is done in favor of H being supported by her minions.

It boggles the mind.

And this is how the Patriot Act passed. It is kind of like:

[d_legendary1]

50. Glad he pointed this out.

I'm tired of the DNC protecting its DINOs and the status quo. Put some real Democrats in there and they won't have to worry about losing elections. Listen to your constituents dammit!

[FSogol]

53. Congrats Ellen, an O'Malley post got more than 8 recs!

O'MG!

[elleng]

54. O'MG!!!

Really, FS, he's turned up the volume! Here we go!!!

[artislife]

57. Rally cap!

[kenfrequed]

125. I will rec the hell out of this one

+1

This debate schedule is idiotic on every possible level.

Honestly it is only being done to preserve the lead of the front runner.

What do we sacrifice?

Choice of candidates
Voter enthusiasm
A platform to put out Democratic issues
An opportunity to make candidates answer questions
Free media
The ability to collectively and boldy counter the stupidity of the republican debates


Honestly, with the 2014 debacle, how is Debbie Wasserman-Schultz still in charge of this whole thing?

[BeyondGeography]

55. Iowa had four debates in 2007

prior to the caucus. O'Malley will be proven right about this not playing well there, IMO.

[Adrahil]

109. Because Iowans are special snowflakes?

We need to drown the current primary system and it's privileging of Iowa and NH.... two sates with very little value as "first int eh nation."

[BeyondGeography]

113. If Hillary had won Iowa last time she might be President now

And one benefit of that would be not having to be reminded what a mediocre campaigner she is.

Iowa's Democrats are used to being taken seriously. They are overindulged but, in return, they show up at all the rallies, watch the debates closely and deliver a meaningful result on caucus night. Obama ended his 2012 campaign in Iowa. He'd probably tell you that Iowans are worth the extra trouble. John Kerry, too.

[SoapBox]

58. Ding! Ding! Ding! Correct answer!!!!

I think we're seeing that, clear as day.

But remember, it's HER turn!

[quickesst]

59. One debate...

...or a hundred, if any candidate running can't express or defend their position on a level playing field, then the old expression comes to mind. "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen!" How this favors Hillary is a mystery to me as they will all have equal time to make their case. Perhaps we should give everyone but Hillary an extra five, ten, or even thirty minutes for each question. Maybe that will stop the

[elleng]

60. ALL relevant issues of the day CANNOT be discussed in ONE debate

among 6 contenders.

[quickesst]

71. Sure they can...

...if they talk fast enough. Maybe I was a little too unrealistic. I should have said SIX debates or a hundred.

[frylock]

62. So you can't figure out how limiting exposure might benefit one of the most well-known political..

figures on the planet? One who doesn't fare all that well outside of a controlled environment? The more people see of Clinton, the less they like. You don't need Scooby and the gang to solve this one.

[FSogol]

64. Ruh-row

[quickesst]

70. I think....

... 6 debates are enough. If people aren't going to watch 6 debates, they sure as hell aren't going to watch 16. Besides, I think I can say with certainty that if the tables were reversed, many Benie supporters would be clamoring for only 6. It's a familiar pattern. Like Obama and republicans. If he's for it, they're against it.

[frylock]

74. I believe that the premise of the OP was that people did want to watch more than 6 debates.

Nothing in your reply merits much of a response beyond that.

[quickesst]

107. The premise of the OP....

.... was that martin O'Malley wanted more than 6 debates. I didn't see anything in the article where the people said that they wanted that. He presumed that's what the people wanted, but then, if I said everyone ar DU wants more syrup on their pancakes, I believe I would be presuming that they wanted that. 6 debates is plenty. The candidates will not retreat into a cocoon after they are done. If "the people" don't get to know who the candidates are and what they stand for in what is going to be a long campaign, then obviously the candidates are doing something wrong. Besides, most people already know who they are voting for, and those still on the fence will probably make up their minds after the first debate. The rest, and there will be many, will continue to get their information from the media, and word of mouth. They won't watch the debates.

[druidity33]

146. I think the bigger problem is

that they will not allow candidates to appear in non-DNC debates. You haven't addressed that. Iowa traditionally has its own debates and candidates would be restricted from them. Not all people who watch the debates watch all of them, and not all people who will watch debates will watch the same one. I think the consensus til now is have as many as you need, while more is better than less... and this stance by the DNC will not allow for that.

[quickesst]

148. Well...

If y'all want more debates, keep fighting for them. My opinion is Hillary will do fine no matter the number of debates,and if fewer debates are somehow an advantage to her then I guess Bernie, Martin, and the rest are just shit out of luck. I think Bernie will do fine also. The rest, I'm not sure about. Anyway, good luck to ya!

[frylock]

149. Take a look through this thread and tell me the people don't want more than 6 debates.

Or do we not count?

[ericson00]

67. boo hoo. We don't need our race turning into a circus

let the GOP be a clown car. I like a nice, orderly nomination contest.

[elleng]

69. 5 rational contenders

discussing all relevant issues among themselves during 10 of debates is NOT a circus.

[Zorra]

73. Yep. We Dem voters are being held hostage by partisan center right DNC authoritarians. nt

[Scootaloo]

76. I'm laughing at the pearl-clutching from Clinton posters here, arguing that "SIX IS PLENTY!"

While also trying to argue that it's not a Clinton advantage.

[elleng]

77. Wish I could say I'm laughing, Scoot,

but I appreciate your view of the situation.

[Scootaloo]

79. Mocking, sardonic laughter is still laughter.

And besides. Gotta rep'sent that spirit animal I lug around...



Some people have their pretty, fashionable, charismatic spirit animals. Me? I have this cackling crapsack of a tire-chewer.

[senz]

94. LOL! YOU have a way with words.

[redstateblues]

81. Six debates not enough? Nobody is going to watch

Six Democratic debates. I'm a political junkie and I couldn't take that many. Can't wait for the Trump debates however. The Bernistas want more debates because Bern won't have enough evil money to boost his name recognition and talk about ushering in a Socialist Utopia.

[Scootaloo]

82. Got any more gibberish in there, redstateblues?

Don't use all your nonsense up on my account.

[blackspade]

123. Six is not even close to enough.

But if it limits public access to voter alternatives......

[RichVRichV]

153. Every voter isn't going to watch every debate.

More debates means more chances to expose the candidate to more voters. It means more chances to get view points on more topics. It gives candidates a chance to stake their positions and differentiate themselves from one another. You know, Democracy at work.

[redstateblues]

78. Martin (I need more exposure) Who?

He is looking pretty anemic in the polls. Can't blaming him for bitching.

[delrem]

86. You haven't noticed that $$$ has made this election *skewed*

in just about every way?

The "polls" are the purest horserace bunk ever invented - totally empty.

They should have polls on ISSUES, the candidates asked how they address ISSUES, and there should be at least a tiny hint of honesty about the process.

But that's too much to ask of the USA, it seems.

[Liberty Belle]

80. The problem is the DNC choosing which debates candidates can be in.

Of course they won't sanction any where there are apt to be questions they can't control.

Just like when Reps have limited their debates to places like Fox News and if you noticed in the last debates there were no questions on global warming.

So bad enough it's limited to six, but even worse that the DNC controls which ones they are.

What happens if the candidates just defied the DNC? Some or all?

[delrem]

83. Good. Listen up people! This is a candidate talking,

and if that isn't fair opinion, what is?

The DLC/DNC has been obnoxious. Not listening.
Apparently not caring.

[elleng]

84. YES!

Thanks, delrem.

[artislife]

88. The system is rigged.

"The system is rigged."

It's the phrase Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) has become known for — four words of populist rhetoric that warm the cockles of progressive hearts everywhere. This oft-repeated construct basically argues that government is set up to favor the rich because the rich control the process. Those without money and power are thus prevented from getting ahead by the very nature of the system.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/01/09/elizabeth-warren-says-the-system-is-rigged-for-the-rich-they-vote-way-more-than-the-poor/


And the DNC

[tblue37]

96. Bernie and O'Malley need to stage a bunch of

real debates (not the pseudo debates we get now). They should get up on stage and have a real back and forth discussion, with a moderator only there to make sure each gets to say his piece without things devolving into "shout TV." Hillary should, of course, be invited and strongly encouraged to participate.

If the network and cable companies won't broadcast the debates, they should be made to go viral on the net. Eventually the MSM will realize they are being left behind, eating the dust of the participants in the real campaign, and they will be forced to get with the program or simply embrace their own irrelevance.

Bernie and O'Malley should not wait for the party bosses to acknowledge them and invite them to the table. They should set their own table and invite all the voters to the feast.

[elleng]

98. Party bosses have tried to prevent such from occurring, tblue37,

have threatened sanctions against such. Discussed somewhere above.

[tblue37]

137. Yes, I know. But if Bernie and O'Malley have these forbidden debates anyway, they could probably

create a kind of "happening" that would force the party bosses and the MSM to either jump on the runaway wagon or risk getting flattened by it.

The electorate’s populist fervor is rising. Sure, it would be risky for Bernie and O'Malley to provoke the bosses into imposing the threatened sanctions, but I think it would be far more damaging to Hillary to allow her people to exclude her two most important challengers from the official debates.

Just imagine her on a the stage during a nationwide MSM broadcast with no one to debate but Webb and Chaffee, erstwhile Republicans who have never recanted their Republican economic positions.

And imagine the noise Bernie and O'Malley could make if Hillary's camp actually pulled such a stupid stunt. She would look absolutely awful, and they would look like brave defenders of the people against the power of the intransigent elite.

Her image would never recover from such a blow.

We can hope her advisors wouldn't be stupid enough to allow that to happen, but those same advisors have already encouraged or allowed her to make so many unforced errors that they probably lack the sense to avoid such a debacle.

Unfortunately, Hillary relies far too much on really bad advice from idiot advisors that she keeps around for emotional rather than rational reasons. Having been so relentlessly hunted throughout her public life, she has come to value absolute personal loyalty more than any other trait. She returns that loyalty, too, and sticks with those loyalists, even when their advice ends up damaging her.

Her unwavering loyalty to friends and trusted associates is admirable, but it is a mistake to allow personal loyalty to overshadow political reality.

[Ed Suspicious]

147. The problem is, I suspect, mostly, they would agree with one another.

But I would love to listen to and appreciate a nuanced discussion of approaches to the issues between these two gentlemen. I would love also to have Clinton involved as well but guess she wouldn't be too interested in that.

[Blue_In_AK]

99. Gee, ya think??

[Adrahil]

105. O'malley Accuses Democrats of Favoring Hillary Clinton.

Baltimore - Martin O'malley, Democratic candidate for President, today accused Democrats of unfairly favoring the pary front runner. "Look at the polls! She is 30-40 points ahead of her nearest challenger, and that Guy isn't even a Democrat!," said O'Malley. "I'm at less than 5% in polls. I have actual proposals, ideas, amd plans! How is that in any way fair?," continued O'Malley....

I'm funnin'. I like Martin, but his campaign is just not connecting for whatever reason. Complaining about the DNC being "unfair,". However is a losing strategy.... They are not going to change their plans, and O'Malley is just gonna look like a whiner. Suck it up, buttercup, wnd try to make a connection. If you can't do it in 6 debates, you can't do it. 6 debates are already MORE than enough, IMO.

[Fuddnik]

106. The logistics for even 6 debates is almost impossible!

Do you realize how hard it is to transport a focus group all over the country? Not to mention the technology involved in rapidly getting the focus groups results to the candidate within the allotted time to answer the question?

The best a candidate could answer under these conditions is "I'll let you know in 2017". Or "I haven't made up my mind, yet".

[Positrons]

110. Duh....

[Eric J in MN]

112. Six official debates during the Democratic primaries is enough.

Last edited Thu Aug 6, 2015, 11:52 AM - Edit history (1)

The candidates can all go on a Sunday morning news show together to add unofficial debates.

Update: I was mistaken. If they debate unofficially then they'll be banned from official debates.

[askew]

129. No they can't. That is exactly the problem. The DNC banned unofficial debates.

If they have unofficial debates, the candidates are banned from appearing at the DNC debates.

[Eric J in MN]

130. You're right. I was mistaken. NT

NT

[raouldukelives]

116. I'd settle for one authentic debate.

We could learn all we needed with one 3 hour debate with all questions coming from the electorate and all answers being scrutinized as they would be in any sane "debate".

Instead it will be a question, a quick nod to the question by the candidate and then 3 minutes of prattling by said candidate about how great all the other stances they take are.

[CharlotteVale]

122. I agree with him.

[JustAnotherGen]

126. I'm glad he said this

One - it will let the Sanders supporters know . . . he 'hears' them and their concerns.

Two - I'm reading that 'it's plenty' -

Okay - if it's plenty and Clinton ends up third at the end of the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd debate -

No takesey backsey. She doesn't get a do over or 'do mores'. Six it is.

She's going to be standing up there with a pragmatic doer who has actually completed much of the Democratic agenda at a state level and a visionary with a wide scope of how America could be. . .

She's in for one hell of a battle and the cackling laugh isn't going to be ignored by either of these two men. I hope they both call her out for the phoney baloney laugh and hold her feet to the fire. O'Malley needs to drive - how? how? how? How are you expecting to do this as a Washington DC insider?

Sanders needs to drive- Oh really? You mean to tell me we are supposed to ignore your terms as a Senator and SOS? That's off the table?

I think we all want a fair election - but the minute she is up there against the Doer and the Firebrand she's going to falter. She is. These two can't possibly have ignored 2008 and they KNOW the best defense is a strong offense. And they don't have to be offensive to engage that tactic.

I'm sure they both want the nomination as much as she does and at the end of the day - she's not inevitable - and they both know how to beat her.

Now let's have a nice clean game of primary politics!

[L0oniX]

131. Is that right?

[lark]

136. He's totally right.

DWS did do this on purpose to help HRC. Think this is bad policy and bad for the party as well.

[nankerphelge]

138. Not a fan

http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/maryland/about-big-chicken-omalley/

[truebrit71]

142. In other news: Water is wet, film at eleven....

[emsimon33]

143. DUH! When they tossed Dean to the side & gave him no credit for 2008

I stopped giving money to the DNC. It is front organization for Third Way (Corporate)
"Democrats." Of course they support the corporate candidate. DUH!

[Cleita]

150. No news there. It's too obvious that they do.

Debbie knows that Hillary's polls go down every time she debates someone savvy like Barrack Obama and this time it would Bernie Sanders. It's no secret she and Hillary are tight. You do the math.