The Democratic Revolt Against the DNC Chair Begins

[eridani]

http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/32394-focus-the-democratic-revolt-against-the-dnc-chair-begins

I will grant the point that the vast difference in exposure doesn't necessarily work to the Republicans' advantage, since it gives the nation an extended look at the increasing virulence of the prion disease. But, even so, the notion that DWS has screwed the pre-primary process up from hell to breakfast – and, worse, that she's loaded the dice in favor of a frontrunner who now appears to be in more than a little trouble -- has taken root.

Two national committee vice chairs, US Representative Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii and former Minneapolis mayor R.T. Rybak, have broken with Wasserman Schultz, taking to Facebook to push for more debates and for eliminating the penalty for candidates who stray from the rules. Under the current arrangement, they said, "more people will feel excluded from our political process, rather than included." New Hampshire state Senator Martha Fuller Clark, vice chairwoman of her state party, also criticized Wasserman Schultz for threatening to punish candidates who take part in unsanctioned debates, and echoed Kozikowski's concern that the Democratic Party is putting itself at a strategic disadvantage. "I'm very disappointed that the chair of the DNC has been unwilling to reconsider this schedule, which she determined on her own, with her staff. She did not run it by the executive committee of the DNC, she did not run it by the members of the DNC. People have been telling her that they are unhappy with this schedule, and she has been adamant about not making any changes," Fuller Clark said. "The decision that was made by Debbie Wasserman Schultz makes it harder to showcase all the candidates," the Portsmouth Democrat said. Fuller Clark said that she has not decided which candidate she will support for president.

While the Republicans are not shy about sitting the crazy aunts and uncles right there in the front parlor, the Democrats seem reluctant to show the country Martin O'Malley and Bernie Sanders. This is called being too clever by half. It's also called administrative incompetence. It's also called screwing up a one-car funeral.

Kozikowski, a longtime Democratic activist from Chicopee who is also vice president of the Association of State Democratic Chairs, said that New Hampshire Democrats, in particular, were wronged by the party's schedule because their state's single debate is scheduled for Dec. 19. "New Hampshire's not going to put up with one debate for their entire state, an early state, that happens between Hanukkah and Christmas. On a weekend, by the way. Nobody's going to see that debate," Kozikowski said Thursday during a telephone interview. "I just think it would be better to face the idea that maybe it was not the best solution to restrict the debates," she said.

The New Hampshire State Democratic Convention will be held this weekend. All the candidates, including Jim Webb, who currently is engaged in running the party's first stealth presidential campaign, are scheduled to speak. So is DWS. This could be a lovely bit of business.

As The World Turns . . . Against Debbie Wasserman Schultz

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/09/13/1420708/-As-The-World-Turns-Against-Debbie-Wasserman-Schultz

[Vice chairwoman of the Massachusetts Democratic Party Deb] Kozikowski wrote in a posting Wednesday night on Facebook that Wasserman Schultz, who has said candidates who agree to participate in any debate outside the six sanctioned by the central party would be uninvited from the other sessions, had been “too busy establishing a full-fledged dictatorship at the DNC to recognize she’d gone over the top.”

Two national committee vice chairs, US Representative Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii and former Minneapolis mayor R.T. Rybak, have broken with Wasserman Schultz, taking to Facebook to push for more debates and for eliminating the penalty for candidates who stray from the rules. Under the current arrangement, they said, “more people will feel excluded from our political process, rather than included.”

[Barky Bark]

1. The executive committee

should put a vote of no confidence or something to remove DWS from her chaimwomanship duties and put Obama on the spot to put someone that is neutral as the chairperson.

[sabrina 1]

4. Yes they should. She has been a disaster for the Dem Party, sometimes I wonder

if that is her goal. What are they waiting for? I know of no one who isn't angry beyond belief at her sheer tone deafness, deliberate no doubt, to the millions of people who are demanding more debates, something the people have a right to.

[rhett o rick]

11. Seems to me to be very simple. The wealthy oligarchs have co opted the leadership of the

Democratic Party. They want Clinton but will settle for Bush. They will do anything to stop a progressive from representing the Party. I think they are making a big mistake. I think they are underestimating the grassroots groundswell for Sanders. There is a reason and they are ignoring that reason at their own peril.

Ms. Wasserman-Schultz has sold her soul to the devil (Goldman-Sachs) for a promise for a part in the Clinton administration. She is making no bones about it. The audacity of being on the side of the oligarchy.

[Scuba]

27. "The wealthy oligarchs have co opted the leadership of the Democratic Party." Bingo!!!

[99th_Monkey]

2. HELL yah! It's about time. So happy these people are going public finally.

She did not run it by the executive committee of the DNC, she did not run it by the members of the DNC. People have been telling her that they are unhappy with this schedule, and she has been adamant about not making any changes,"

THIS ^ shit is anything but "democratic"

[sabrina 1]

5. So who is she doing this for? The linked article says she and Clinton

are not all that close due to an incident that occurred in the 2008 election whereby she apparently went behind Hillary's back to the Obama campaign telling them though Hillary wouldn't concede at that point, she 'knew it was over'.

Seems she's good at looking out for her own self interests, not so much the Dem Party's.

Makes you wonder whose interests, other than her own, she is working for.

[99th_Monkey]

7. I suspect DWS Hillary "falling out" w/ Hills is partly a convenient fig leaf

and partly that DWS is now redeeming herself with Team Hillary by carrying water on
the minimal poorly scheduled debate scheduling.

Just a wild guess. no link. no proof.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

47. Sure does make sense tho....

[840high]

8. imo Hillary

[Uncle Joe]

17. My odds are 80% Schultz is doing it to help Hillary and 20% to help Trump.

I wouldn't be surprised, if Trump were to win the White House, Schultz would switch political parties, she had already abandoned three good Democratic Candidates in Florida because Schultz was too personally close to their Republican opponents

The first debate won't be held until after New York's registration deadline.

[brooklynite]

32. Why does the registration deadline matter?

Is your assumption that people who aren't registered to vote at all are just waiting for a debate to decide to become politically involved?

[questionseverything]

34. the debates should be a timely reminder that a freaking important election is coming

the debates should be a chance to engage previously disengaged voters

the idea that you are some party big wig and do not want new people registered to vote is horrid

so much for inclusion and the big tent huh?

poor people move a lot so they have to re register...

[brooklynite]

36. Huh?

where did I say I didn't want people registered to vote?

I said that I didn't see a Primary debate encouraging anyone who wasn't already politically engaged. The notion that there's a mass of disaffected non-voters just waiting for a reason to become involved in the political process has been circulated for awhile; I haven't seen any evidence for it.

[questionseverything]

37. and you would be wrong

by now we should of had 6-8 debates which remind people who are not very engaged that it is time to pay attention and paying attention sometimes means registering to vote...that is why having the first debate after voter registration deadline is a HUGE mistake

from the outside looking in, it seems the dnc is trying to blow this election,it really does

i have liberal friends actually considering trumps "no more anchor babies crap" and since trump is all they are seeing 24/7 i can not blame then for being sucked in...afterall no opposing ideas are being given airtime

[brooklynite]

38. Again, show me proof

How is hearing about a debate that you probably didn't watch different than hearing about Clinton or Sanders making a speech or announcing a policy?

Early debates, in my estimation appeal to two groups: political activists already committed to a candidate who want to see him or her win; and pundits looking for a story on who "won" or "lost". The 24 M who watched the GOP debate were largely there for entertainment value; if Trump wasn't on the stage, the viewership would have been half as much.

[Uncle Joe]

51. Bernie's strength is in attracting young and formerly disaffected people back into the fold.

His weakness is name recognition, there is no doubt that Democratic Debates on the issues would garner substantial air time, diminish Bernie's lack of name recognition in large areas of the nation and give a counter to the Republican monopoly on messaging with something positive for a change.

It isn't just people that view debates, it's increased word of mouth as more people do tune in, but aside from that debate exchanges are played over and over long after the debate ends by the media and nowadays on the Internet.

Cynically waiting to hold the first debate until after New York's registration deadline ends, reduces the possibility of young or disaffected voters from having the ability to enter the political process, in a major state that Hillary was a Senator of and also happens to be Trump's home turf.

For all the great platitudes about "promoting democracy" and "wanting more people to join in the political process," DWS' manipulative actions scream in opposition those noble sentiments.

[Dragonfli]

63. You get it but pretend not to

I walk my poor neighborhood full of apathetic voters, most ofg which have never heard of Bernie Sanders or Martin O'Malley.
Normally they don't vote because they know the "usual candidates" only care about the middle class and up that live in the suburbs.

These poor unemployed and poor working people are not registered because of it. When I tell them of the ideas of both Bernie sanders and MOM and show them YouTube clips of Bernie speaking, 1 out of 4 ask me how to register to vote for him in the primary, they finally have a candidate they feel care about them and want to engage.

I can only cover so much ground and give out so many registration forms as I suffer poor health and do not drive.

Nationally televised debates would reach many more such people than I can that would then register as Democrats. Most of them you see think both parties abandoned all but those in the 'burbs and figure why bother they all screw us, for the first time since Obama, I am getting many of them interested -on a side note, they lost interest again in '12 because they felt he forgot about us poor folk.

If you want more registered Democrats, hold debates before the New York cut-off. He speaks to those that will never run in your rich circles and do not drink champagne, or is that your problem with them taking an interest again? The working poor and poor, are they no longer welcome in the party?

Truth on the ground in Buffalo in the poor east side neighborhood where I live.

[brooklynite]

64. But this is my point...

...you "walk your neighborhood" and engage with voters; THAT'S the way you sign people up. The fact that a debate is on doesn't drive apathetic voters to watch it. MAYBE a General Election debate a month before the election attracts low-information/low-interest voters. I don't see the same behavior expressed six months before the Primary starts.

Add to which, I keep being told that Bernie Sanders doesn't NEED "traditional media"; that social media links and YouTube videos will get the word out.

[Uncle Joe]

74. Social media, youtube and the Internet in general will spread the messages of the debate.

Make no mistake about it, debates do clarify political positions for hundreds of thousands if not millions of people.

The corporate media would rather focus on scandal, the horse race or establishing false memes and frames as a means to condition or brainwash the people.

Last night CNN stroked Trump's genitalia (they couldn't keep from smiling when they were covering Trump) for the better part of 45 minutes before they gave brief coverage of Hillary and virtually nothing of Bernie.

[HooptieWagon]

69. People who need to register or to switch party to D....

Need to do so before a deadline in many states. Having debates after those deadlines means the Dem Party has less numbers and participation. That is probably DWS's intent.

[seafan]

20. She has piggybacked onto Hillary Clinton to advance her own ambition.

Some links about Debbie Wasserman Schultz's long history of self-serving agendas here, here, here, here and here.


And here is a recent editorial from the New York Observer:

Debbie Wasserman Schultz Must Go, September 11, 2015

During the 2008 Democratic presidential primaries, Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz was a strong supporter of Hillary Clinton’s, serving as a co-chair to her campaign. In April this year she told the Sun-Sentinel, “Secretary Clinton, I think is arguably one of the most qualified people—assuming she announces her candidacy—who have ever run for president. I was proud to support her in 2008. Of course, as DNC chair, I will neutrally manage our primary nomination contest, assuming we have one.” Schultz didn’t count on Senator Bernie Sanders becoming a serious contender in the Democratic primaries. In response, Ms. Wasserman-Schultz has ceded her stance of neutrality to aid Hillary Clinton’s run for president.

Ms. Wasserman Schultz’s decision to limit the debate schedule of the 2016 presidential primaries to six sanctioned debates favors Hillary Clinton. Any candidate who participates in a separate debate will be banned from any further DNC debates. Former Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley claimed it is legally unenforceable for the DNC to impose its exclusivity clause, calling it “a very undemocratic way to run the Democratic Party.”

.....

Debbie Wasserman Schultz is depending on Hillary Clinton winning the Democratic nomination to further her own political career. She has lost favor of the Obama administration since her appointment as chair of the DNC in 2011, with reports that replacements had been lined up after the 2012 presidential election. She allegedly planned to retort with accusations of anti-Semitism and sexism if the administration went through with her replacement. Her leadership led to catastrophic losses for the Democrats during the 2014 midterm elections. She directly assisted in losses by refusing to support three Democrats, Miami-Dade Democratic Party chair Joe Garcia, former Hialeah Mayor Raul Martinez and businesswoman Annette Taddeo, who were challenging Republican Reps. Mario Diaz-Balart, Lincoln Diaz-Balart and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, because she is friends with her Republican colleagues.

Earlier this year, Ms. Wasserman Schultz faced allegations that her staff offered to switch positions on medical marijuana in order to silence criticisms of top Florida Democratic donor John Morgan. Ms. Wasserman Schultz vigorously opposed a Florida amendment that would legalize medical marijuana in the state of Florida. The amendment fell 2.4 percentage points shy of the 60 percent it needed to pass. Morgan, who bankrolled the initiative to put the amendment to a vote and former donor to Ms. Wasserman Schultz, subsequently began a political campaign against her in retaliation to her opposition and the narrow defeat of the amendment.

Most recently, she blocked a resolution at a DNC meeting on Obama’s nuclear agreement with Iran. Despite her efforts, the majority of DNC members signed a letter in support of the Iran deal. Ms. Wasserman Schultz has often favored her own agenda and political considerations over what would be best for the Democratic Party. If Hillary loses, she will lose one of her last remaining allies in the Democratic Party and the career benefits that are normally inherent with serving as the Chair of the DNC.

This woman is steeped in her own ambition. If Hillary Clinton loses the nomination, Debbie's dreams are dashed.


In the meantime, she is an obstacle to progressive change in our country. She is NOT a progressive by any means, and therefore will be at risk of losing her incessant push for higher and higher power for herself, as the progressive wave washes over the country.

She must be removed from the DNC chair, and also must be removed from the House in the general election.

Her time is up.

She used it poorly.

[PatrickforO]

30. I did not know about the vigorous opposition to medical marijuana, or her refusal to support

Democratic candidates when they were running against Republican friends.

DWS seems to be a bad apple. How many people have suffered needlessly because of her ineptitude in the 2014 race, one wonders?

[seafan]

33. DWS is the epitome of a self-serving career politician.

We are sick of her in Florida, and the BS she has peddled for years.

Her opposition to the medical marijuana amendment last year in Florida, which was then followed by her manipulative offer of "her support", in exchange for tamped-down attacks by her critics.....

It is always about HER. Never mind what her constituents want.


She even had to be SHAMED into supporting the multinational Iran agreement.

But, not to worry, because there was "a little something in it for Debbie".

Wasserman Schultz also said that Obama had agreed to make her part of a group of lawmakers that will work on an enhanced security plan for Israel.

The soft extortion is unmistakable.

[JoeyT]

68. They may have pissed one another off,

but above all else both are opportunists. There's literally no one they won't cozy up to if it gives them more money or power.

[appalachiablue]

3. Very glad to see this. Someone needs to get the DNC's mind right. We're losing valuable

TIME that can't be made up, and VOTES.

[restorefreedom]

6. she clearly has a goal in mind

and it is not any of the following

democracy
the best interest of the united states
the will of the people
freedom of speech
keeping the white house
making inroads in the house and senate
getting people and keeping them involved in the process
being fair to all the dem candidates
appearing to be fair to all the dem candidates
showcasing the fantastic positions of the dems against the crappy positions of the gop

please feel free to add to the list
time to go, debbie bye bye

[WillyT]

9. HUGE K & R !!! - Thank You !!!

[SHRED]

10. GHTHO

Get her the hell out.

[Maineman]

12. Schultz needs to go -- ASAP

[Spitfire of ATJ]

13. Prepare for the "loyalty" crap to begin,.....AGAIN.

[MoveIt]

14. hmm i guess the fix *isn'nt* in.... ?

[Uncle Joe]

15. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, eridani.

[ancianita]

16. Ahhh...good news.

[JDPriestly]

18. We should be having a debate this month, September.

Republicans are being given the floor, being allowed to ask the initial questions, to set the tone and to establish the basis for discussion.

That is what I do not like about the DLC Democrats. They do not take the risk of putting out their ideas strongly enough and early enough.

I'm so pleased that Bernie Sanders preached the social gospel to Liberty University students today.

That used to be the gospel that was preached in Methodist Churches. There was a movement in the Christian theology schools that emphasized social justice. Jane Addams was viewed as a great leader and a model for social action. And the movement arose from the teachings of the Bible, especially the New Testament.

Martin Luther King, Jr. was very much a part of that social movement within Christianity.

We Democrats have a moral duty to bring our message as often and as clearly and as closely to the conservative core as we can.

Holding so few debates and scheduling them so poorly will prevent our message, and it is the message on which all Democrats agree, the social gospel if you will (even if you are an atheist you probably agree with religion on that social morality) that will be heard by fewer people and be associated less with our Democratic Party thanks to Debbie Wasserman Schultz's decision on the debates.

The debates are not just about our picking a Democratic candidate. They are about our spreading our views on morality and social justice to all Americans. We need more than 6 debates.

[questionseverything]

35. yes debates are supposed to spread ideas

unfortunately because the dnc has ceded the summer and fall to the repubs , it is only repub ideas people are hearing

[JDPriestly]

75. And it isn't just the attention paid and the TV time devoted to the actual debates.

it's the time spent after the debates discussing the debates on and on. It's the. Excitement and drama of and after the debates.

Oh, let''s don't forget the prattle about the debates before they take place.

dNC sabotage of the 2016 election. By the time we finally get to debating, viewers will have picked their favorite Republican, developed brand loyalty to him, and our candidates will have a tough time making up for lost time.

Huge mistakes being made.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz should have resigned in shame after the 2014 losses.

The price that America may pay for the mistakes now being made could be very high.

By the way, did Hillary always read her speeches the way she is reading them this year?

[Gman]

19. What if they had a revolt

and no one cared? Or came?

[Betty Karlson]

21. Glad to hear it. n/t

[Jim Lane]

22. Wow, I had no idea this was a DWS solo decision.

I had just assumed that something like the exclusivity rule would have to have been voted on by the full DNC.

Maybe we can hope that some DNC members who don't care all that much about the debate schedule will join a rebellion because they feel their toes have been stepped on. A commitment to free and open debate would be better than a turf war, but let's take our allies where we find them.

[Warren DeMontague]

23. She lost me when she sided with Sheldon Adelson in favor of arresting sick people for pot smoking.

[emsimon33]

24. Finally! Should have been fired last November

[Tom Rinaldo]

25. And they woder why ever fewer numbers identify with political parties n/t

[upaloopa]

26. Nobody knows what 6 debates or a hundred

debates would do.
More whining

[jwirr]

43. And you think that making decisions with out the

committee is just fine? What happened to democracy in your world?

[upaloopa]

44. What committee?

Since when is democracy related to the DNC? You vote in some DNC election before?
No one else has.

[jwirr]

52. The DNC has a committee that is supposed to make

the decisions. She is making herself into a one person dictatorship.

[Go Vols]

53. Someone has

The chairperson of the DNC (currently U.S. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida) is elected by vote of members of the Democratic National Committee.

[DocMac]

48. Let's find out. nt

[LonePirate]

28. If Clinton and Sanders agree to debate outside the DNC schedule, then DWS' threat is meaningless.

There is no way the DNC would hold debates only with O'Malley, Chafee and Webb. O'Malley would likely join Clinton and Sanders in the non-DNC debate so the DWS decree to boot those candidates who break the rules becomes meaningless.

If we want more debates, we need to pressure Clinton and Sanders to debate each other outside the DNC schedule. I'm sure Sanders would do it so it's really up to Clinton to make this happen.

[erronis]

39. Interesting idea. What if all the candidates debated outside of the DWS strictures?

Would she get on stage all by herself? Perhaps.

[magical thyme]

40. actually, if Sanders, O'Malley, Chafee and Webb agree to debate outside the DNC schedule,

then Clinton can choose to join in or stand with DWS on stage on the 19th, while the rest of us are Christmas shopping, and on the other date when the rest of us are watching "the game" and so on.

O'Malley has spoken up vigorously re: the lack of debates, and he, Chafee and Webb will gain more from debating early and often than waiting for the "official" debates buried in the holidays, etc.

[PatrickforO]

29. That's what happens when you get so immersed in your own opinions that you refuse to listen

to anyone else. Wasserman-Schultz, to all reports, runs the FL Democratic party like that as well - making sure progressive candidates are defeated in favor of Third Ways. I don't think she cares much for the concept of direct democracy.

[HooptieWagon]

31. FL Dem Party...

DWS and Bill Nelson are the 800lb Gorillas in the room. Although neither holds an official position in the Party, no major decision is made that they haven't signed off on. Registered Florida Dems outnumber Rethugs by nearly 800,000, yet Dems lose State seats and Congressional elections steadily. This is the same as the DNC consistantly losing US House and Senate seats under DWS's chairmanship. She has been a self-serving disaster at every position she's held.

[fbc]

41. K&R - read the whole article, you will be fuming.

[Enthusiast]

42. K&R! This post should have hundreds of recommendations!

[jwirr]

45. Okay, a lot of us have already contacted the DNC and

DWS. Time to do it again. Time to bring the Party into the action. That is we the people.

Emphasize that we know that she made these decisions on her own without the DNC Committee and without listening to the DNC members.

Ask for either her resignation or a different debate schedule and the end of the Rs exclusivity rule.

I also have a question: How are the state and local party leaders connected to the DNC? I called to see if there was a Bernie group in our county and they did not even answer.

[rhett o rick]

49. All my emails to the DNC have been returned, server full. nm

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

46. We should get the League of Women Voters to arrange 12 debates

And have the candidates boycott DWS's debates. If Hillary wants to show up to debate herself, that's fine with me.

[MoonchildCA]

50. I like that idea.

[jwirr]

54. Great idea. There is another benefit to this - the

League of Women Voters would be in control and able to set the dates as well as who is going to do the questioning.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

55. I wish it could happen, but it's probably too late.

Second option is to tar and feather DWS and ride her out of town on a rail.

[polichick]

56. DWS's Democratic Network of Corruption is coming under some scrutiny. Good thing.

[hifiguy]

57. Heigh-ho, heigh-ho

Past time for her to GO.

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

58. Open question to the DNC, what are you afraid of?

This is about winning the 2016 election, not some made up rules in the sky.

Like I have said before.

Now is the time for a real progressive populist movement, but the message needs to be clear and not overly complex and it needs to be repeated over and over to drive it home into the minds of the people.

Then Bernie will win.

[ibegurpard]

65. They are afraid

That we will drive the party back to its populist economic roots and the Rockefeller Republicans will no longer have a political home.

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

73. Like Bernie said, "A political revolution."

We all need to get on board to pull it off.

[Dont call me Shirley]

59. Dump Debbie Downer...

call the WH..

Whitehouse Comments: 202-456-1111

United States Capitol switchboard: 202-224-3121

[Catherina]

60. And not a moment too soon. What took us so long?

This is great news. Toss her out unceremoniously on her ass.

[kimbutgar]

61. When we get those appeals for money in the U.S. Mail

We should write " I will donate to the DNC when Debby's Wasserman Schultz is no longer chairman". And rerun the envelope. we need a full time chairperson like the RNC has.

[Phlem]

62. K&R!

[benld74]

66. What the H#ck happened to her since taking this post?????

[HooptieWagon]

70. She was similarly biased as DCCC 'red to blue' chairperson.

When she refused to help progressive Dems running against her incumbent GOP friends, even endorsed her GOP friends. Her SOP is not to keep republicans from winning elections, it's to keep progressives from winning elections. To the corporatists, that's mission accomplished.

[Eleanors38]

67. I have compared the state Democratic Parties of Texas and Florida...

The former is too weak to support viable candidates; the latter is just strong enough to thwart them.

[zentrum]

71. DWS is an incompetent disaster

… as a leader of our party, who is running for a cabinet post in what she assumes will be HRC's Presidency and it's unconscionable.

[Babel_17]

72. She does have supporters, but I think she's barely hanging on

If there's a real groundswell calling for her to leave then I think, given how badly we fared in 2014, she won't have enough support to remain. Political journalists have a desire for more debates to talk about, they're likely to be fundamentally disenchanted with the attitude of DWS. Their coverage of "The Game of Thrones" for control of the DNC and the debate schedule can't help but reflect their desire for a more open schedule.

[eridani]

76. For Many Democrats, Six Primary Season Debates 'Is Just Not Enough'

http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/09/16/many-democrats-six-primary-season-debates-just-not-enough

While the DNC sanctioned six debates in both 2004 and 2008, candidates were allowed to participate in events hosted by media outlets or universities, without repercussion. According to FiveThirtyEight, candidates ultimately attended 15 debates in 2004 and 25 in 2008.

Led by the nonpartisan and grassroots group Allow Debate, some Democrats are denouncing this year's "exclusivity clause" as "unprecedented and undemocratic"—not to mention politically un-savvy.

"Tens of millions of people are only seeing the Republican message, while we wait for the Democrats to debate," Allow Debate founder Ben Doernberg told Boston.com on Wednesday.

"Six debates is maybe two questions on climate change, maybe three," Doernberg added to ABC News. "It is just not enough if you care deeply about an issue and want to understand where the candidates differ."

"I think every Democratic campaign and the DNC should have to explain why we are ceding the discussion and attention to the Republicans by refusing to the kind of robust debate schedule we've always had," Martin O’Malley's campaign manager Dave Hamrick said in a statement to Politico.

Former Maryland Gov. O'Malley has been vocal about the need for more debates, as has fellow candidate Bernie Sanders.

"At a time when many Americans are demoralized about politics and have given up on the political process, I think it’s imperative that we have as many debates as possible," Sanders said in a statement in August. "I look forward to working with the DNC to see if we can significantly expand the proposed debate schedule."