2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumO'Malley: Sanders didn't want more debates. MSNBC HEADLINE
Last edited Tue Dec 29, 2015, 07:54 PM - Edit history (1)
O'Malley + Dean on Morning Joe.
https://www.facebook.com/MorningJoe/videos/10153802592843762/?theater
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)slipslidingaway
(21,210 posts)"...Sanders letter to Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz marks the first blow against the Democratic National Committees efforts to control the debate process. Last month, the DNC said it would sanction six debates, in what rival campaigns said was an effort to protect the front-runner, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton..."
elleng
(131,107 posts)A LOT of water has passed under the bridge since then.
slipslidingaway
(21,210 posts)I do not believe its enough, Sanders said on the debate. Debates are one way to engage people in the democratic process. He said Wednesday he would like to see the AFL-CIO or other groups sponsor additional debates.I do not believe its enough, Sanders said on the debate. Debates are one way to engage people in the democratic process. He said Wednesday he would like to see the AFL-CIO or other groups sponsor additional debates."
http://time.com/4001669/martin-omalley-bernie-sanders-debates/
Smarmie Doofus
(14,498 posts)But we both know it won't.
>>>The people of this country are tired of political gossip, personal attacks and ugly 30-second ads. >>>>
Well, not everybody.
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)He wanted them so much he sent a letter once.
But the fact is, he could have decided to abandon the DNC and set up a whole different schedule with O'Malley and the others.
But it was more important to Sanders that he debate with Hillary. He didn't care about the others. And he doesn't care about O'Malley now.
slipslidingaway
(21,210 posts)There are issues to deal with and O'Malley is sounding like a spoiled child IMHO.
O'Malley should go bother Clinton as she has more pull with the DNC.
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)isn't much different from Hillary's.
slipslidingaway
(21,210 posts)signatures. This was months ago when the Dems delayed the first debate and let the Repubs have almost unlimited free press.
What did Hillary do or say?
You said 'Sanders does not care about the others' implying he should do more to help the other candidates, that is not his primary job.
O'Malley needs to run his own campaign and maybe call on Clinton to do something. He is coming across rather poorly keeping this story alive, both him and Dean lied by not telling the whole truth.
Sorry he is not doing better in the polls, but it is not the responsibility of the Sanders campaign to pull him along.
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)They you wouldn't have thought that.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)So bullshit on that.
elleng
(131,107 posts)His words and actions speak for him, and they've been readable and viewable for some time.
cali
(114,904 posts)repeatedly calling for more debates.
I feel sorry for O'Malley, but this is just wrong.
elleng
(131,107 posts)'Flailing' is in the eye of the beholder.
MO'M repeatedly called for more debates, directly, with the public, with Sanders' campaign, and with the DNC, and when it appeared that Bernie agreed (was 'on the record,' as you say,) Bernie and his campaign turned their backs.
Actions speak louder than words.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Sanders turned down unsanctioned debates vs. O'Malley. You do remember that exclusivity clause regarding the debates, right? That participation in a non-DNC debate would bar the participating candidates from further DNC debates? I hope you do, because i'm pretty sure you complained about it (and rightly so.)
Taking O'Malley up on the offer would have meant that December 19 would have just been our last democratic debate. I suppose sanders and O'Malley could debate each other, but that wouldn't be useful for anything, since they both need exposure against Clinton. I suppose that since O'Malley is polling at 2%, he figures he's in the same spot either way?
I like O'Malley, and wouldn't mind him as president.. .but to offer self-defeating "you and me" debates to Sanders that would have taken them both of the circle, and then claiming that Sanders "didn't want more debates" is really kind of a low move.
elleng
(131,107 posts)And today/yesterday Dean suggested MO'M should ask sanders for debate, and MO'M said he'd already DONE that, suggested such, and Sanders declined. FACTS, NO DISPUTE, and NO LOW MOVE, Scoot, FACT.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)And would have gotten Sanders and O'Malley both locked out of the debate schedule - this basically ending said debate schedule.
Come on, you know this.
elleng
(131,107 posts)we ALL knew/know this (UNLESS a public outcry would overcome DNC's 'rule,' but not likely due to wishes of TPTB.)
So the interchange with Dean was a minor matter, of no real consequence, except to #### DUers who chose to spend the day calling MO'M (and me?) a liar.
What a place!
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)I'm not calling you a liar, nor am I calling O'Malley a liar. I've talked ot a lot of lying people tonight so I'm maybe a bit tense, but you're not one of those people
I'm stating that the claim "Bernie sanders doesn't want more debates!" is disingenuous. He wants more debates... but he wants them either sanction, or through an end to the exclusivity clause.
Going outside the schedule with the clause in place is just shooting yourself in the foot, basically. it would achieve nothing except the exact opposite of what it's supposed to. because you, me, Sanders, and O'Malley all damn well know that the DNC would just call off the remaining debates and throw away all pretense of positive neutrality to become an annex of the clinton campaign before a single vote is cast.
elleng
(131,107 posts)he was responding quickly in a time-constrained interview, and reasonably chose not to discuss what he probably recognized, as do we all, as the likely reason for sanders' to agree to 'unsanctioned' debates. Dean, of course, might have raised the 'rationale,' but as he's working for hrc/tptb these days, he wasn't likely to do that.
GeorgeGist
(25,323 posts)Did you forget that YOU posted the OP?
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Nor is he out there firing and suspending people from his campaign for unethical activity. The character assassination is not merited.
CorporatistNation
(2,546 posts)BEFORE THE FIRST VOTES ARE CAST! Marty Needs to Be A Man About IT!
99Forever
(14,524 posts)The formula is that simple.
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)99Forever
(14,524 posts)...because his opponents have no vested interest in making him look bad.
Yeah yeah, that's the ticket!
cali
(114,904 posts)O'Malley is understandably flailing.
FSogol
(45,526 posts)Ned_Devine
(3,146 posts)What's so hard to understand about that?
FSogol
(45,526 posts)elleng
(131,107 posts)and it's perfectly understandable that he (and hrc incidentally) don't want to 'risk' elevating MO'M by enabling the public to VIEW and HEAR him.
slipslidingaway
(21,210 posts)elleng
(131,107 posts)arcane1
(38,613 posts)From your link.
slipslidingaway
(21,210 posts)"Martin OMalleys campaign has reached out privately to Bernie Sanders about arranging debates outside the six contests allowed by the Democratic National Committee, risking the ire of the Democratic party in a bid to gain traction for his candidacy...
....Sanders has also repeatedly called for more debates, saying that he is disappointed with the DNCs rules...."
TM99
(8,352 posts)of securing the nomination OR a VP slot.
He has nothing to lose in defying the DNC debate exclusivity clause.
Sanders is closing in on the Clinton campaign. He said in May he wanted the opportunity to debate Republicans. In July he was calling for more debates.
O'Malley is lying through his fucking teeth. Why? What could he possibly stand to gain from it.
elleng
(131,107 posts)suggesting he is lying through his 'fucking teeth.' As you THEN say, what could he possibly gain from it? NOTHING, but loud assertions sure get everyone's attention, don't they?
Y'all like it fine that DNC has cut him out, just suits you to a T. Bullies SUCK.
questionseverything
(9,659 posts)and honestly omalley was the bully at the last debate
just because you are the loudest shouldn't mean you get the most time
he rambled on and on about something then seconds after bernie began speaking he was interrupting like a spoiled child
i really think he is only in the race to split the anti hc vote and his untruths on morning joe fit that
Andy823
(11,495 posts)Go after Bernie, and we all know that's not allowed by his worshipers.
questionseverything
(9,659 posts)i hate the way fox news types talk over people...and i like it no better when dems do it...seemed rude and childish,like he was afraid for anyone else to get a point in edgewise
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)TM99
(8,352 posts)so why did he lie? Hint - it ain't libel if he is lying.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251955742
So he is only lying to get attention focused on him? Is that your story now?
Where has the DNC cut out O'Malley? If anything, both he and Sanders are being 'cut out' by the DNC - between data debacles, debate exclusivities, and local offices only supporting HRC.
So why pick a fight with Sanders over this? Did O'Malley ask Clinton as well? What was her response?
daybranch
(1,309 posts)The loudest assertions were made by O Malley and Dean. As for libel , you have make a statement which you know or believe to be untrue. For politicians, they understandably are not usually shielded by libel statutes since they are public figures and libel laws could be used to create a loss of freedom of speech.But really, O Malley should just quit. His supporters 2 percent does not at this time still warrant standing on the debate stage. Go home - Martin, you are impeding the people's right to important knowledge. Take the high road and quit wasting your volunteers time and your donors money. We dems like a spirited and diverse debate from viable candidates. You are obviously not one , nor have you shown any uptick in your supporters. Do the honorable thing.
elleng
(131,107 posts)DNC and MSM are doing the impeding.
"We Dems" surely DO like a spirited and diverse debate from viable candidates, and we are not getting it, due to actions of DNC and MSM.
daybranch
(1,309 posts)unless most democrats moved to Canada and only his two supporters stayed. It is time for him to go. He is not fighting a good fight and he is not gaining followers. His personna, in my opinion, comes across as a smug elitist much like Hillary, claiming to have solved every problem when we all know Baltimore is probably the most dangerous city in the USA. This may be untrue but it is already ingrained in those who watched the debates. Go Home Martin, your time has passed,and quit helping the the plutocracy.
Andy823
(11,495 posts)Hitting the DNC with a "lawsuit" is all playing by the rules? I kind of think that it's not, but then that's just me.
Thanks, FSogol.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)elleng
(131,107 posts)frazzled
(18,402 posts)From today's Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/12/29/top-bernie-sanders-aide-rankles-those-in-and-out-of-campaign/
They're just stoking the anger of their minions, as a campaign tactic. They do not want more debates. I find it disingenuous at best, and I don't like stoking anger as a political tactic.
elleng
(131,107 posts)Would be good, imo, if their angry 'minions' would/could recognize it, and would calm down HERE.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Was prepared to pump it up past bluster.
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)the other candidates) and debate with them -- apart from Hillary.
But he preferred to debate with Hillary 6 times than with other candidates an almost unlimited number of times.
That was his choice. He could have sent his message by debating on a stage without Hillary. He would still have had O'Malley to debate. But he's really not interested in debating if it's not with Hillary.
bigtree
(86,005 posts)...political decision to avoid elevating O'Malley.
FSogol
(45,526 posts)randys1
(16,286 posts)became an issue, before Bernie drew large crowds or came into the picture.
It makes sense.
The JOB of the DNC (dont get me wrong, I am annoyed as hell at DWS) is solely to elect Democrats, no matter what.
Hillary is and was the leading Democratic candidate for Prez, so DWS will do everything in her power to bolster her candidate.
It is NOT her job (remember, our political parties are corrupt and problematic in many ways) to go out of her way to make sure all the other candidates get a fair shot at it.
As to our parties, yes both are corrupt but the Dems are corrupt lite and the cons are corrupt completely.
What I want is a DNC which will do damn near anything to elect our strongest candidate.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)This is spin. Sanders is trying to play by the party rules, even though he doesn't like them. O'Malley's the one who says Sanders is not a "real Democrat" but now is baiting Sanders for trying to adhere top the DNC rules.
It's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.
There's a lot I like about O'Malley, but he also looks very opportunistic and less than sincere in some of his righteous indignation.
elleng
(131,107 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)bigtree
(86,005 posts)...something ignored by Sanders supporters in their defensiveness.
In fact, he's a practicing progressive with real accomplishments and results; well apart his rivals, who are veterans of an institution which is more known these days for talking, than it is for taking action.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)He would not reinforce that Sanders and his supporters want to replace capitalism and private property with state socialism (ie dirty commies)
bigtree
(86,005 posts)...and it's sophistry to pretend that O'Malley said what you wrote.
Interesting that you make the leap to equate socialism with communism and state ownership of property, when even Sanders has explained that his socialism has its roots in a European economic model. O'Malley didn't take his argument to the extreme, you just did, though.
Sanders made a big deal for years about including 'socialist' in his political identification. Now he wants to claim that it just reflects Democratic politics. He's made a clumsy and incomplete explanation of that label and no candidate should be required to make him whole on that point. The least they should be allowed todo, what O'Malley has done, is distance themselves from that nebulous, shifting label which everyone in American politics knows well is a lightning rod.
O'Malley didn't set this up, Sanders did with his attempt to blend socialism and Democratic politics, if only in name. So, you've set socialism as a yardstick for the 'left' in our party. That's complete bull. Progressiveness doesn't mean morphing the party into socialist policies. You're defending a made-up label of Sanders by attributing whatever you believe he means by that identification. O'Malley has just as much right to declare that our party has nothing to do with socialism. It's much more valid than defining our party's left as socialists.
oasis
(49,408 posts)ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...any time you see someone fail to mention an extremely relevant fact -- the DNC's exclusivity clause -- you are engaging in MISLEADING. That is the MOST generous thing that can be said about O'Malley's statements on this topic with Dean this morning.
questionseverything
(9,659 posts)except about his unconstitutional broken windows policy but
after omalleys rude childish behavior at the last debate and now this smear(lie) i really can not stomach him
too bad because we need young leaders but we don't need more untruths
even his "indignation" sounds rehearsed and fake to me
bigtree
(86,005 posts)...both of the other candidates are playing this debate issue to their own advantage. Making O'Malley out to be the skunk at this picnic is nothing but partisan political politics. Petty politics, at that.
questionseverything
(9,659 posts)even after that i tried to keep an open mind because i thought you were the poster that led the charge during the Ferguson times
when we stayed up most the night watching the live feeds to vouch for the protesters
but maybe i am getting you mixed up with a similar name
omalley is not being truthful in the morning joe clip because the exclusivity clause is not mentioned,,,it is that simple
bigtree
(86,005 posts)...obviously Sanders doesn't see any political advantage in debating one-on-one O'Malley with the prospect of Clinton holding out.
What's more evident than any insincerity from O'Malley is the fact that Sanders has been at odds with the Democratic party most of his career, opting to identify his politics apart from the party regulars. Now he wants to act as if following party doctrine on this is some sort of attribute?
This isn't about principle for any of the candidates. They're all playing the politics involved to their advantage. Singling out O'Malley for being 'opportunistic' is ridiculous, given that his rivals are both maintaining positions which keep him at a disadvantage.
BlueCheese
(2,522 posts)Everybody is doing what they think is best for them politically. O'Malley wants more debates to raise his profile. Sanders wants more debates, but only if Clinton will be there. Clinton is fine where it is. Of the three, I actually think Clinton is making a tactical error, because more debates would not only cut off this line of attack, and because she has been doing well at them. But maybe it's too late to change things now?
Romulox
(25,960 posts)sadoldgirl
(3,431 posts)totally misleading part of the interview I have
changed my mind on O'Malley. Trying to blame
Bernie indirectly for only six debates is just
too low for me.
aikoaiko
(34,183 posts)It may be true that Bernie doesn't want a nonDNC sanctioned debate, he has clearly asked for more DNC sanctioned debates. To say that he is happy with the debate schedule is just not true.
Proof: https://go.berniesanders.com/page/s/more-debates
It may be the case that since Bernie agreed to the DNC rules he believes its more honorable to adhere to that decision, while O'Malley isn't inclined to honor his agreement.
Andy823
(11,495 posts)That lawsuit Bernie hit the DNC with, was that an "honorable" thing to do? Do you really think that the lawsuit is not going to piss of must the DNC, but many democrats who have questioned his calling himself a "democrat" simply to get the backing of the DNC?
aikoaiko
(34,183 posts)Trajan
(19,089 posts)But this one is unforgivable ...
I remember when you first came aboard here ... Some ridiculous subterfuge and an ensuing apology ....
I'll say no more about that, but I will now, finally, place you on ignore .... It's been ok until today and this ridiculous claim, and this one is a doozy ...
Tata ...
elleng
(131,107 posts)Been here for MANY years.
No loss to me, Tata.
Andy823
(11,495 posts)How many people are getting thrown under the bus because they question Bernie? Bernie talked a good talk about more debates, but his actions weren't that great. I guess he has to play by the rules, but then again hitting the DNC with a lawsuit probably isn't playing by those rules either, and I think the lawsuit will do him more harm than standing up and having more debates.
elleng
(131,107 posts)but not so sure. I've been banned from bernie group because I (OMG!) posted some INFORMATION about MO'M there!
Who's 'liberal' now???!!!
and making such a big f*ing deal about what MO'M said, in response to a SUGGESTION of Howard Dean that he should team up with bernie for more debates! And the whole 'segment' lasted a few SECONDS, out of a 1 minute 33 second video interview!
Andy823
(11,495 posts)Not for saying anything bad about Bernie, but because I asked Manny if he would be going to that Clinton rally he was trying to get people who lived in the area to "protest" Hillary at the event. I asks if he would be there to lead those who showed up. I did add one of these to my post , but hardly think that questioning him was worthy of a ban.
While I think most of Bernie's supporters are good people, but they have been pushed aside by a much more vocal group that really don't seem to care about the example they set for Bernie with their comments, and actions.
olddots
(10,237 posts)this just got too weird .
elleng
(131,107 posts)I really appreciate it. YES, TOO weird.
TDale313
(7,820 posts)Anyone paying attention knows the DNC was threatening to ban candidates who participated in unauthorized debates from the sanctioned ones. Totally disingenuous to pretend Sanders didn't want more because he wasn't willing to risk being totally frozen out (which the DNC would have been perfectly happy to do, IMO)
Cassiopeia
(2,603 posts)The DNC is itching to lock Sanders out and you know this.
elleng
(131,107 posts)They're itching to lock EVERYONE out except for hrc, no doubt about it, and this little interview this morning actually gave MO'M some FACE TIME with the PUBLIC, imagine that!
demwing
(16,916 posts)But this is indefensible, and the crappy way his supporters are treating Bernie is shameful.
elleng
(131,107 posts)I posted a video from Morning Joe with their and facebook's headline, the video contained a question from Howard Dean to MO'M 'why don't you and Bernie get together for debates,' and MO'M replied, BRIEFLY, with facts about having tried to DO that, and then went on to discuss his policies and plans for the campaign.
I doubt very much that the MO'M supporters I know are treating Bernie in a 'shameful' manner; doesn't happen that way.
FlatBaroque
(3,160 posts)so difficult to earn, so easy to lose.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)elleng
(131,107 posts)FACTS!
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)no surprise there, disappointed in dean. he is such a company man now.
i think the confusion has to do with dnc sanctioned vs unsanctioned debates. MOM seems to be in favor of having either kind. it looks like bernie wanted more dnc debates but wanted to avoid being banned by participating in the unofficial ones.
we all have dws and their establishment favoritism for screwing this up royally.
their motto
shut down bernie
shut out martin
prop hillary
democracry be dammed
elleng
(131,107 posts)but don't know about 'lie' here.
Good analysis.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)but i know that MoM and bernie have repeatedly called out the sniveling and obviously biased towards one candidate (my words not theirs) schedule and have called repeatedly for more dnc sanctioned debates. even this last one, i believe a sanders staffer was quoted saying something, like "what, was christmas eve all booked?"
bernie has also called for interparty debates, which of course the repubs would never do.
what bothers me the most is that sanders and om have so much in common and have been coexisting quite well this primary, and their supporters too. just another reason why dws and her antidemocracy strategy is basically dividing the dems in all kinds of ways.
but hey, as long as hillary gets the nom, nothing else matters right?
elleng
(131,107 posts)People HAVE gotten along, so DON'T read much of today's stuff.
We really SHOULD get along, and this SHOULD include people here.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)one_voice
(20,043 posts)you'd have thought you insulted the Pope during Christmas mass in the Vatican with all the bristled responses--to put it mildly.
One might get the impression that some think Sanders is perfect and above reproach.
Thin skinned also comes to mind...
elleng
(131,107 posts)Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)Anything to deflect attention from this
elleng
(131,107 posts)by many.
JI7
(89,264 posts)she did better in debates than Obama in 2008 and it's probably one of the ways the race kept going as long as it did.
and this time around she has done the best in them.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)I would call that opinion and a faulty one at that.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)Not very ethical of you.
elleng
(131,107 posts)He did NOT lie.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)I have no idea what you think you are gaining by posting this crap but it certainly isn't doing Martin any good.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)Thankfully, Bernie plays by the rules! That is the friggen truth!
Uncle Joe
(58,417 posts)The question by Dean pertained to having debates not sanctioned by the DNC, Bernie won't do that.
Thanks for the thread elleng.
elleng
(131,107 posts)but you are probably correct to suggest the issue revolves around 'sanctioned' (by dnc/dws/hrc) or not. DEAN suggested it to MO'M, and MO'M responded that he HAS done that, and Sanders declined.
Uncle Joe
(58,417 posts)no distinction about sanctioned and unsanctioned.
If he wasn't lying it was at best a half-truth.
elleng
(131,107 posts)all he might have done was to 'speculate' on sanders' reason for saying NO, and doing so would have opened MORE cans of worms: 'Did he TELL you that was his reason, Governor O'Malley?' The WHOLE TRUTH that he knows is sanders said NO.
Uncle Joe
(58,417 posts)and better scheduled debates.
All O'Malley had to say if he wanted to speak the total truth was that "Bernie won't participate in unsanctioned debates."
That's only six words.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)I'm sure that both he and his staff have come to the same conclusion, and are secretly thanking DWS. Probably.