Hillary rival accuses Democrats of manipulating debate schedule to protect her

[Bjorn Against]

Hillary rival accuses Democrats of manipulating debate schedule to protect her
Hunter Walker
May 5, 2015, 5:24 PM

The Democratic Party's plans for the upcoming presidential debates has stirred up some behind-the-scenes controversy.

One Democratic 2016 campaign adviser who spoke to Business Insider said they believe the Democratic National Committee's debate schedule was "worked out" to benefit Hillary Clinton and hurt her opponents.

snip

The adviser claimed the DNC "explicitly promised in negotiations that there would be no exclusivity clause." They also alleged the DNC initially said there would be six debates when they began negotiating with the campaigns.

"Their starting point — presumably worked out with Clinton campaign — was six debates," the adviser said. "Over the course of three months of negotiations, they never once budged from six debates, so the negotiations were all a grand act of kabuki theater."


Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/clinton-rival-dnc-rigged-debate-schedule-to-help-hillary-2015-5#ixzz3ZJzlPXbT

This needs to be protested and this needs to be protested loudly.

The Democratic Party is not just the party of Clinton, it is the party of all of us who vote for Democrats and many of us want to make sure the voices of all the candidates seeking the nomination are heard.

We need to demand that the DNC allow the candidates to participate in debates outside of the ones that the DNC has scheduled without penalty. When the candidates say they want to debate, then I want to hear them. If Hillary is too afraid to participate in those debates then allow Sanders, O'Malley, and Webb go at it without her participation. There is absolutely no reason that any campaign should be penalized for opening themselves up to public debate.

[onehandle]

1. 'Business Insider' is a pro-corporation rag and no sources are cited in this crap article.

Who is this 'rival?'

Next please cite a Fox Business article. Just another right-wing hit piece designed to divide Democrats.

[Bjorn Against]

3. Most major news sources are pro-corporate rags, but no one is denying the exclusivity clause exists

If the first link did not satisfy you here are a couple more.

http://time.com/3847335/democratic-presidential-debates-exclusive/

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/democratic-national-committee-sanctions-six-sites-presidential-debates/

Do you have any links that suggest any of the facts presented in these are false?

[onehandle]

9. Then why didn't you start with those links?

I'll tell you why. Because you'd rather link to a FOX NEWSIAN article with an unflattering photo of Hillary.

Transparent, sexist bullshit.

[Bjorn Against]

10. Sexist? Sorry but pointing out that the debate rules suck is not sexist.

People link to Business Insider here all the time they may be corporate but they are not Fox Newsian, and the source they interviewed was from a Democratic campaign. I did not even find the photo to be particularly unflattering, it may not be a great picture but it is not embarrassing in any way.

[Bjorn Against]

13. And if you are going to accuse me of posting from a right-wing source...

Then I will firmly establish that Business Insider is not a right wing source, they may be corporate but they are not right-wing corporate.

This is why Phil Robertson is Wrong about Gays
http://www.businessinsider.com/this-is-why-phil-robertson-is-wrong-about-gays-2013-12#ixzz2ohnFnJhl

How Occupy Won in One Chart
http://www.businessinsider.com/how-occupy-wall-street-won-in-one-chart-2014-1#ixzz2qmIhbicp

Red States are Welfare Queens
http://www.businessinsider.com/red-states-are-welfare-queens-2011-8#ixzz29HuJ08Fc

Do those look like articles from a right-wing source to you?

[JonLP24]

26. I will say and it depends from editors sourcing policy

I do have a concern but considering it is specific I lean the quote is legitimate but still wonder why a rival is choosing to remain anonymous. It then leads to speculation of who. So while it may be real, I question the choice to prefer to remain anonymous but reporters have relationships with discussions on & off records building a trust for further scoops on stories (I know generally, including the honest & ethical journalists build their careers on it).

[merrily]

59. I understand very well why a Democratic Presidential hopeful might not want to attach his name

to criticism of the Democratic Party.

[totodeinhere]

47. Oh come on. There is nothing wrong with that photo. My opinion of it is that she has a serious

look on her face as if she is contemplating a question. I don't consider it unflattering at all. And sexist? Give me a break.

[merrily]

61. Not to mention, it was a giant assumption about why Bjorn Against linked to Business Insider.

Seriously? We're going to assume that Bjorn went hunting for stories with allegedly unflattering photos because Bjorn is sexist? Why are we going to make that shitty leap? Because, on being challenged, rather unreasonably, for using Business Insider as a source, Bjorn went hunting for other sources? Jaysus!

[totodeinhere]

169. Agreed.

Go Bernie!!

[C Moon]

70. I agree: I think she looks strong, healthy and deep in thought. Not a bad pic at all.

[mylye2222]

82. Well this is not "sexist"

Thar Democtatic person exposes fqcts. We alk now Hillary Is DNC's candidate and woulf rather enjoy an easy nomination than confronting opponents.

[Marr]

83. God, how tedious.

People point out where the party is rigging the game for Clinton. You respond with 'I don't believe it! Right wing rag!'. You're given other links. "Sexist!".

Jesus Christ...

[mylye2222]

84. That what some of us had said since long.

And we only got backclash.

People have to open their eyes.

[Oktober]

108. Get ready for the next year and a half...

... and God forbid... The next four or eight...

Disagree with her or her policies? You must hate women...

[Oktober]

107. Do you just keep the sexist attacks on copy and paste...

... for anyone who dares doubt the coronation of Hillary?

[JDPriestly]

46. Clinton signed the telecommunications act that encouraged and increased the

"consolidation" of news media ownership.

This report is quite believable and the news yet again confirms my resolve that I do not want to vote for Hillary. This is petty and mean.

[merrily]

58. The ONLY relevant issue: is the story false?

[stevenleser]

122. It's nonsense. The only relevant part in the article is this:

"a six sanctioned debate schedule is consistent with the precedent set by the DNC during the 2004 and 2008 cycles"

oops. No controversy there. You can ignore the entire rest of the article. It's all nonsense to try and drum up a controversy that doesn't exist.

[think]

135. You really can't ignore the NEW "exclusivity requirement" can you?

"While a six sanctioned debate schedule is consistent with the precedent set by the DNC during the 2004 and 2008 cycles, this year the DNC will further manage the process by implementing an exclusivity requirement," the statement announcing the debates explained. "Any candidate or debate sponsor wishing to participate in DNC debates, must agree to participate exclusively in the DNC-sanctioned process. Any violation would result in forfeiture of the ability to participate in the remainder of the debate process."

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/clinton-rival-dnc-rigged-debate-schedule-to-help-hillary-2015-5#ixzz3ZMQ8gNay

[stevenleser]

137. Who said I was ignoring it? It's a non-issue that keeps it fair.

The Democratic Party says it will hold 6 debates. Here they are.

If you are going to participate in outside debates, that gives you an unfair advantage because the DNC has no control over whether those debates are fair and whether all Democratic candidates are invited. So as a Democrat if you want to participate in them, you lose the ability to participate in the DNC debates.

This is all a non-issue.

[think]

138. you certainly didn't mention it and said that one could ignore the rest of the article

Yet the Democrats had had a total of 20 debates in 2008 and candidates were not prohibited from debates arranged by outside organizations.

Are you accusing these other groups of running unfair and biased debates in 2008? I don't recall any controversies but please feel free to post them.

[stevenleser]

139. Because you can. It's a non-issue. nt

[think]

140. "Because you can" what?

[stevenleser]

141. Ignore it. It's a non issue. nt

[magical thyme]

177. exclusivity, late scheduling and limited number may be a non-issue to you

but not to others.

But thank you so much for telling everybody what to think. Whatever would we do without you to tell us what matters.

[stevenleser]

179. LOL, no by all means, as I said downthread, lets have 50 debates and invite DUers to participate in

the last 35!

Let's claim a debate schedule that is pretty much the same as the last two Democratic debates during competitive primaries is unfair just because!!!!!!11!!1!!!1111

[Gothmog]

158. How is that clause going to hurt?

There needs to be a reasonable number of debate. Given that the GOP has 9 with 22 candidates then six with five major candidates seem reasonable

[NYC_SKP]

203. There were no fewer than 26 Democratic Primary Presidential Debates in 2008. 26 Debates.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_debates,_2008

[Thinkingabout]

2. Which Hillary rival is making this accusation?

What needs to be protested is fair play for all the candidates. If the rivals has the experience and record to run and beat Hillary then put out the information, a candidate can not build themselves up on the backs of other candidates. Either the candidates has what it takes and can sell themselves or they don't.

[Bjorn Against]

6. Fair play for all the candidates needs to be protested?

I don't think that came out the way you intended.

The rivals are trying to put that information out there, that is why they want more than six debates.

[Thinkingabout]

7. Who are the rivals you are talking?

[Bjorn Against]

8. Webb, O'Malley, and Sanders

[merrily]

63. And anyone else who may run. It's also unfair to Democratic primary voters.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

155. Hmmm...wonder what Hillary is afraid of?

[Ikonoklast]

174. Competition.

Some people "deserve" their positions.

[Thinkingabout]

112. The DNC is meeting with the different groups and negotiating with each.

The details of these negotiating have not been made publicly but I would thing all groups did not get everything they wanted including the Hillary group. All candidates has to sell themselves during the primaries and during the debates. If they are afraid of the debates then I might question their strength to handle the office. It will be harder to function as a president than debate other candidates in six debates.

[Bjorn Against]

116. The people who are asking for more debates are clearly not afraid of debates

The people who want an exclusivity clause which would punish candidates from participating in unapproved debates are the ones that seem to fear the debates.

[Thinkingabout]

121. Does the DNC want to present a Clown Car primary or leave it to the GOP?

Are all the candidate under the same rule or just one or two? I would leave this to the DNC, they are trying to get Democrats elected.

[Adrahil]

100. <sigh>. Debates are theater. Pure and simple.

They really only serve to give candidates an opportunity to embarrass themselves. They very rarely actually reveal anything of substance. And the candidates are never allowed to REALLY debate a topic... They just give a series of 2 minute speeches. I can honestly say I've never learned anything useful from one of these "debates."

6 is MORE than enough of this kind of political theater. In fact, i think it's probably too much already.

[Chathamization]

146. I concur. Questionnaires are pretty useful, but debates seem to only be about putting on a show. N/T

[totodeinhere]

51. HuffPost is reporting that it is an adviser to Martin O'Malley

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/05/democrats-presidential-debates_n_7214218.html

[merrily]

62. Irrelevant. The only relevant issue is whether it's true or not.

[NYC_SKP]

202. All of them need to get the message out there. Ads favor the wealthy, debates are equalizers.

If the wealthy candidates are tough enough, then they should welcome more than six debates, they should embrace 26 debates like we had in 2008.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_debates,_2008

[Thinkingabout]

205. If the candidate has what it takes then put it up, having fifty debates will not make your

Candidate greater, they will be the same. Having or not having money does not make a candidate greater or not, doesn't make them more qualified or not qualified.

[okaawhatever]

4. This isn't about making Hillary happy, it's about being able to compete with the GOP and they

are restructuring their debates. They won't even allow debates on certain channels. The GOP has spent a lot of time and money figuring out what works for debates (they claim that is much of what cost them the 2012 election), we don't need to shoot ourselves in the foot by not adapting.

RNC set to issue rules to cut, regulate presidential debates

SAN DIEGO — Republican leaders on Friday plan to unveil new rules for presidential debates, marking the most aggressive effort yet by a national party committee to limit the number of forums and to shape the environment for the nominating season.

Reacting to what many in the party concluded was a chaotic and ultimately costly series of debates in the 2012 campaign, a task force of the Republican National Committee has spent months seeking to devise a set of rules that will bring more order to the process, include more conservative outlets as sponsors and establish sanctions for candidates who violate the rules.

SNIP

Party leaders are contemplating potentially stiff sanctions against candidates who violate the rules by participating in unsanctioned debates. Possibilities include denying a candidate access to national committee data or access to the national convention if he or she purposely takes part in unsanctioned events.

There also could be criteria for participation in debates, particularly those after the first caucuses or primaries. Priebus maintains a list of Republicans who have declared interest in a 2016 campaign. The list totals 24 people.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/rnc-set-to-issue-rules-to-cut-regulate-presidential-debates/2015/01/15/6d381d72-9cf7-11e4-bcfb-059ec7a93ddc_story.html

[jwirr]

22. If anyone remembers 2012 they will remember that the Rs had an awful lot of debates. So many

that people got tired of them. I think that is also the reason we are limiting ours. I do not like the exclusivity rule because I do not understand the reasons for it. Many years the League of Women's Voters host a debate - does that mean that our candidates will not be able to be part of that if they want to?

If it is true that this was "worked out with the Hillary campaign" then the DNC had better think twice. Our money for this campaign does not have to go through them.

[okaawhatever]

25. That's a good question. I really wonder what the Democratic party is concerned about with

the exclusivity clause. My original thought was that they wanted to make sure they could get TV airtime and by giving the network exclusivity it would ensure higher ratings and make it easier to get more coverage. I don't know about that though. I do know the GOP won't have their debates on certain networks because they want to basically turn it into a giant commercial and non-Fox channels won't go along.

Rence has been adamant about controlling every aspect of the 2016 debates. He started with some of these proposals not long after the 2012 election.

[JonLP24]

28. The funny thing about debates

is they agree on ground rules before them & both break their own rules repeatedly with the moderator enforcing their own rules but it effects the debate when it is better to run off more natural.

Town halls or forums are far more effective & gives candidates opportunities to really shine.\

On edit -- An article down-thread kinda points the finger at O'Malley. That would have been my guess, it doesn't seem natural a Sanders campaign would anonymously make this criticism.

[okaawhatever]

32. Agreed. I don't see debates as the way Bernie will get his message out. He basically needs to

explain his positions, I see that happening more at Town Halls and forums like you said.

[jwirr]

127. And social media and word of mouth. I think the debates will unify the party behind being issue

oriented. I suppose it will all depend on who the narrators are.

[okaawhatever]

130. I think social media will help raise name awareness, but Bernie's positions IMHO will

require some explaining. Who knows, maybe some of the younger generation will seek out the info and not need to be spoon fed the explanations. I think that is going to be one of his biggest challenges. I wonder if they've done polling on some of his positions to see if Americans are aware of the concepts, like guaranteed wage?

[jwirr]

132. There is where you and I disagree. I see his stance on the issues as very much like those of FDR.

Also no one I have talked to about him say that they like what he says. Just worried that he cannot win in the general.

[okaawhatever]

134. But how many current American voters are familiar with the policies of FDR? Those of us on DU are

much more familiar with politics and issues than the average voter. I think some of the issues are self-explanatory, but some will require explanation. If he can get voters to learn about these things it will help everyone. The right has been defining issues for too long. Time for people to become truly aware of the issues and vote in their best interest.

[jwirr]

142. Oh, they are familiar with him - they just don't know it. Social Security, Glass-Steagell, etc.

I agree - I am hoping that the debates will be very educational. Wouldn't it be nice if the moderators could be experts in some field like economics? Social justice? Environment? They could really have a conversation with the candidates and ask the real questions.

[jwirr]

119. And Hillary openly agreed. So I read that also. One think I am expecting the Democratic debates

to be more interesting than the Rs except in an informative way. The Rs debates will be funny.

[jwirr]

36. On Rachel tonight she was talking about how parties limit the number of candidates that can be on

stage for a debate. She was saying that the Rs are already trying to see who they can eliminate. To bad we can't be a mouse in the corner of that fight.

[Gothmog]

104. The RNC had 23 debates and there is an argument that these debates hurt Romney

[seabeyond]

125. i think it did too. i wonder if i was only aware af certain. cause i thought it only like 6 or 8

for repugs and like 3 for dems. i thought at 6 that was too many.

people really get pumped for first. enthusiasm for second and those that missed first. and third wraps it up. more? people get bored. how many times are people gonna say the same thing

[okaawhatever]

136. Yes and if people aren't watching you'll have a hard time getting the media coverage you need to

inform the viewers.

[Gothmog]

197. I think six is adequate given the number of candidates

The RNC may be limiting the number of people allowed in their debates based on how much money these candidates and the super pacs raised.

[winter is coming]

180. The GOP debates made their candidates look like idiots because they *were* idiots.

Apparently, the DNC is afraid our candidates are lousy, too.

[seabeyond]

123. i do remember and it was one of the things i liked that the democrats did. it seemed like 6 was

reaching what the repugs did. i thought like three was good. did we have more?

anyway,

before pointing the finger i would want the known facts.

but i do not want more than 6. i think 6 is too many

[freshwest]

191. IIRC, the 3 debate forum for those who have the nomination, not for primaries. n/t

[elleng]

5. Specifically, the 'rival:'

Responding to the announcement on Twitter, Clinton suggested that she was on board with the DNC plan.

"While GOP debates the same failed policies, Democrats will debate how to help families get ahead. Looking forward to a real conversation," she said.

O'Malley's camp, however, took issue with the DNC's new exclusivity rule.

"If Governor O'Malley decides to run, we will expect a full, robust, and inclusive set of debates -- both nationally and in early primary and caucus states. This has been customary in previous primary seasons. In a year as critical as 2016, exclusivity does no one any favors," said Lis Smith, the governor's spokeswoman.


Link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/05/democrats-presidential-debates_n_7214218.html

[RobertEarl]

11. Nip this crap in the bud

I want 10 debates. Who the hell thinks democracy is well served when the establishment offers less and less democracy?

They must really hate democracy.... oh, yes they do.

[merrily]

64. Good for O'Malley!

[AtomicKitten]

12. "Worked out with the Clinton campaign."

Seriously? What about the Sanders campaign? Why not the others like the O'Malley campaign as they declare ? This is bullshit and I agree the Clinton Party is quite distinct from the Democratic Party. Debbie W-S is a so-called Clintonite and obviously has no problem kowtowing to the whims of the Clinton campaign.

As you may recall from 2007/08, lesser known candidate Obama benefitted from a full debate schedule to gain national attention and that's how he was able to ultimately prevail. This action by the DNC, a limited number of debates "worked out with the Clinton campaign," is meant to stifle the exposure of lesser known candidates so Hillary can take full advantage of and slide on name recognition.

Boo! Hiss!

[BrotherIvan]

15. Expect a lot more shenanigans from the party

They have their candidate, they want to make sure she wins, by any means necessary.

[AtomicKitten]

40. No doubt and it's bullshit.

The DNC should not be greasing the skids for one candidate and not the others. I guarantee this will not sit well with primary voters particularly in light of Hillary's embarrassing poor sportsmanship in the 2008 campaign.

[msanthrope]

34. Bernie ain't a Democrat, and O'Malley has not officially announced. Why would the DNC

consult with either man?

[AtomicKitten]

37. Bernie is a declared candidate in the Democratic primary.

That's why.

[msanthrope]

39. Really? Name the state he's registered in as a Democrat. Name the primary he's currently

registered for.

Apparently, the New Hampshire Secretary of State doesn't recognize him as a Democrat. That's kinda problematic.

[totodeinhere]

49. He has declared that he is running for president as a Democrat. That's good enough for me.

If that isn't enough to satisfy you that is your choice.

[msanthrope]

96. But apparently not legally sufficient in NH and some other states.

He's gotta qualify for the ballots.

[totodeinhere]

170. Well that is for his campaign to sort out.

But it won't change my support for him in the least.

[backscatter712]

50. Seeing that Vermont does not have party registration...

Then if Bernie says he's a Democrat, then he's a Democrat, and I'm more than happy to welcome him to our party.

[msanthrope]

97. Which is great, theoretically. But not legally sufficient in say, NH. nt

[morningfog]

113. You don't seriously think Sen. Sanders will be not be

allowed on the NH primary ballot do you?

[msanthrope]

150. As of last week, the NH Secretary of State hasn't received the form

that asks are you a registered Republican or a registered Democrat?

http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/30/politics/bernie-sanders-new-hampshire-democrats/

this is a technical point that I'm sure the Sanders campaign can easily overcome but it surprises me that they didn't have the forethought to take care of this and they've got 49 other states they need to qualify for.

[morningfog]

152. Gardner's I'll get back to you on Dean's run is hilarious.

It won't be a problem. I am confident that Sanders will be on the necessary ballots.

[msanthrope]

154. Gardner is always hilarious.

1 would have hoped that sanders campaign remembered that particular incident.

[forthemiddle]

144. Then Walker won't be on the GOP ballet either

Because Wisconsin does not register by party either.

I am sure this won't be the case in either primary.

[FSogol]

172. Walker does look terrible in a tutu.

The GOP is more of a dumpster fire than a ballet....

[JDPriestly]

53. He caucuses with Democrats in Congress.

Vermont does not require voters to register with a party although MADem says that candidates are required to register with a party or identify their party when they run for office.

That said. We as Democrats have welcomed politicians who suddenly decide to be Democrats.

It will look really bad for the Democratic Party if Bernie Sanders is rejected because he ran as an Independent and has identified himself as an Independent.

The Democratic Party would be very unwise to reject Bernie Sanders. It would look very much like machine politics and could lose the race for any Democrat running for president. Very likely would.

[merrily]

66. Not only does he caucus with Dems, Dems do not run anyone against him.

The DNC has been raising money off his announcement.

People who changed their voter registration to one or another so-called "third" party or Indie are changing back to Democratic, to be sure they can vote for him in the Democratic primary.

His candidacy as a Democrat has been a boon to the Democratic Party.

[Flying Squirrel]

85. That's excellent info

Perhaps worthy of its own OP

[msanthrope]

98. That's not really the point....Bernie can declare himself whatever he wants, but

he still has to meet the legal requirements of each state.

Right now.....he doesn't meet it for NH, according to the Secretary of State. Hopefully, his campaign will figure out the paperwork.

[merrily]

68. The Democratic Party is more than fine with Bernie running as a Democrat.

The DNC sent out a breathless fundraising email citing his run as a reason to donate as soon as he announced.

The DSCC stopped running run any Democrat against him.

[msanthrope]

99. That's not the point.....Bernie has to get on actual ballots.

You know...legally qualify in all jurisdictions.

One hopes his campaign figures out the paperwork.

[merrily]

102. So nice of you to worry about Sanders!

[msanthrope]

106. Oh....I'm not worried. I'm sure he's got someone who can figure out the

paperwork of all the ballots.

[former9thward]

78. Name the state Obama is registered in.

IL has no party registration.

[msanthrope]

105. In 2008, and 2012, the President legally qualified on all ballots as a Democrat.

Right now, Bernie apparently does not in New Hampshire. I am sure the campaign will figure out the paperwork involved, but the fact remains that someone at the campaign forgot a pesky detail or two about actually trying to run in the NH primary.

FYI .......Illinois does have party affiliation for its semi-closed primary system, and Mr. and Mrs. Obama are both Democrats. The birther websites have invested a great deal of time tracking down their registrations. You might wanna read up on how Obama coordinated a massive Democratic voter registration drive, which directly affected Democratic elections in Chicago.....


http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/January-1993/Vote-of-Confidence/

[former9thward]

145. I was a resident of Chicago for 30 years and I don't need your FYI.

There is no party registration. This is the form: http://www.elections.state.il.us/downloads/votinginformation/pdf/r-19.pdf No party.

And no, registration did not affect Democratic elections in Chicago. Democrats are dominant in Chicago and don't need registration to win elections. The Democratic party candidates will win every time. That so-called "massive registration" did not help Obama in 2000 when he was crushed by the Daley machine.

In IL you ask for a D ballot or a R ballot in the primary (the same as Vermont). You can ask for the opposite party the next election and so on. No registration. Just a record of what you have done in the past.

[msanthrope]

149. You just said there's no party affiliation, but then described selecting a party ballot

f or .the primary process which is exactly what I told you happens. I think you're pretty confused as to what a semi-closed process is.

if you don't think that President Obama's voter registration drive in the ninety's done alongside with Acorn positively affected Chicago politics then I can't really help you....but I have to wonder why you would attack voter registration done by President Obama and Acorn.

[former9thward]

156. I am not attacking anything.

And you are very confused to put the best light on it. I was involved in Chicago politics for 30 years and I am very familiar with the primary system. Its the very same system as Vermont has. Sanders can ask for a R ballot or a D ballot if he wants and that choice is recorded.

Obama did not do Democratic voter registration as you claimed. I was a Chicago Board of Elections registrar and what you suggest is illegal. When you register voters you have to register anyone no matter what party they support. And as I stated, whatever voter registration he did, it certainly did not change anything in Chicago. The Daley machine still rules the city.

[brooklynite]

41. Cover your left eye, and read the line on the chart...

Presumably...

"Their starting point — presumably worked out with Clinton campaign — was six debates," the adviser said.

"Presumably" is, I believe, an old latin term for "guessing without evidence".

[DURHAM D]

14. LOL Mountain meet mole hill.

Should play well on DU.

[okaawhatever]

33. +100 nt

[hrmjustin]

16. 6 debates are just fine.

[Bjorn Against]

18. If you only want to see six then only watch six

if Hillary only wants to participate in six then she can choose to skip the others, but there is no reason that the other candidates should be penalized if they choose to participate in other debates.

[msanthrope]

29. Ahem.....the 'rivals' thought they would have a "no gurls allowed" debate as a faux

third-party/Independent forum on issues. DWS just shut that shite down.

[hrmjustin]

38. I have to admit I didn't read the article.

I think six debates are good.

If there is need for more the DNC can get more going quickly.

[TM99]

65. What in the hell?

You are making the accusation, without any facts to back up your statement, that this is some sort of 'sexist' ploy on the part of the male candidates to exclude Clinton from non-DNC sponsored debates.

That is fucking low even for you.

Is there any wonder why there is such conflict with so many of HRC most vocal supporters here when this kind of bullshit is made up to create FUD about other candidates.

[merrily]

86. If you are not a Hillary fan, you are sexist. That's self evident. Just accept it.

Insert here either the sarcasm emote or the puke emote. Reader's choice.

[TM99]

87. Puke it is for me!

[merrily]

88. I just couldn't decide.

Did you see where Bjorn Against got accused of bypassing a number of news stories on the same subject, just to find and post one with a photo of Hillary that, according to onehandle, but not according to Bjorn, was not flattering to Hillary?

That tortured thinking always reeked, but it's now officially jumped the freakin' shark. Good for you for calling it out. DU's left has taken it silently for way too long.

[TM99]

89. As I said in a thread in the Sander's group,

calling out bullshit, lies, and distortions are not 'going negative'.

I will do so with abandon until the day he is elected.

[merrily]

90. The crap that has gone on at DU for years has nothing at all to do with Sanders.

I am not so sure it has nothing at all to do with Hillary, but I'll give her the benefit of the doubt and say it's only DUers, posting independently (yet oddly similarly)

[msanthrope]

101. Right....because using anonymous campaign sources to complain about HRC

isn't FUD? It isn't FUD to complain about DWS enforcing party discipline?

HRC rival campaigns are going to have a rude awakening......she doesn't bring a knife to a gun fight. And DWS is going to enforce party loyalty. They don't like it? Too bad.

[TM99]

126. An O'Malley spokesperson who wished to remain annoymous

is now FUD or sexism.

HRC doesn't bring a knife. She fights dirty. That's not exactly the principled leader I am looking for.

How is asking for what has already been but now changed not being loyal to the Democratic Party.

You are reaching and falling flat with your excuses, rationalizations, and bullshit.

[msanthrope]

153. O'Malley doesn't have a campaign....and I have no problem with HRC fighting dirty.

have you seen the Republicans in Congress? I want someone who can kick their ass.

don't mistake me. I have absolutely no problem with clinton fighting dirty. and if anonymous whining about the debate schedule is the best the Omalley campaign can f****** do she's going to eat them alive. Good.

[TM99]

185. Fight dirty with the Republicans, hell yes.

If only Obama had done so from the start.

Fight dirty within your own party? Not so much.

Valid complaints are NOT whining.

[FSogol]

173. O'Malley's adviser complained, but that doesn't mean his adviser is the anonymous source in that

article. If you go on the record at one publication, why be anonymous at another? It was probably someone else.

[TM99]

184. True.

I expect many more complaints from many of the campaigns about this egregious act.

[winter is coming]

23. +1. Limiting the debates in this way doesn't serve voters' interests. n/t

[merrily]

69. +1. Exactly. Not Democratic primary voters, nor voters in the general.

[merrily]

67. +1 As if the number were the issue of the OP anyway.

[cali]

92. for Hillary. There were 20 in 2008- no exclusivity SHIT

and the scheduling is interesting too.

this is all about DWS and the DNC protecting Hillary. It's just denial to contest that.

[hrmjustin]

133. They can push for more debates if they want more.

[Thinkingabout]

17. I when to the link and this is what I found:

RW type of saying, what if, maybe, could it be, and presumably.


"Their starting point — presumably worked out with Clinton campaign — was six debates," the adviser said. "Over the course of three months of negotiations, they never once budged from six debates, so the negotiations were all a grand act of kabuki theater."

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/clinton-rival-dnc-rigged-debate-schedule-to-help-hillary-2015-5#ixzz3ZKDcvFep


As you can see presumably worked out with Clinton campaign, let's have the debates, see who sells themselves to the voters. Don't rely on the truth coming after the RW opening words.

[Bjorn Against]

21. What right-wing opening words? This is a Democratic campaign adviser speaking, not a right-winger

[Thinkingabout]

24. Have you ever listened to Rush, Sean or other FOX reporters start a sentence with

"RW type of saying, what if, maybe, could it be, and presumably."

Why do they say this, because many people do not hear the what if, maybe, could it be or presumably but they hear the rest of the sentence. To these reporters mission is accomplished because what will be repeated over and over is the rest of the sentence. Is Rush, Sean and gang ever going to correct the rest of the sentence, doubtful.

I would still like to know the rival who is claiming Hillary has set up the rules.

[KMOD]

19. WTF is this nonsense

HRC herself has welcomed the debate schedule, but has not yet committed because the dates have yet to be disclosed.

How do you commit, when you don't know the dates?

Odd thing to be upset over, no?

[brooklynite]

27. "One campaign advisor", huh...

[msanthrope]

31. See #29, above.

I don't know who these fools think they are dealing with.

[freshwest]

91. Psst! Anonymous whisper... n/t

[Evergreen Emerald]

30. OOOHHHH. MY GODDDDD

Someone said something that we could turn into something ugly that Clinton did so we can justify our outrage over her AAAACCCCCKKKK I am running away with arms flailing!!!!

Clinton is SOOOO EEVILL.

[Maedhros]

60. Placing artificial limits on candidates' ability to communicate their platform

is plainly un-democratic.

Yet you mock those who recognize the problem. Wow.

[merrily]

71. +1 Trouble recognizing problems and trouble admitting one recognizes a problem

run rampant.

[Evergreen Emerald]

129. Please. You are being led by propoganda.

This is the same process done every election since I can remember. But of course, when Hillary follows the same process that has been done forever, she is evil incarnate and DESTROYING DEMOCRACY.

I can only laugh at the way many on DU will believe anything anything negative about Clinton, and indeed take and run with it.

It is shameful. "Wow" right back atcha.

[Maedhros]

162. The exclusivity clause is clearly bullshit.

The adviser claimed the DNC "explicitly promised in negotiations that there would be no exclusivity clause."

Looks like the exclusivity clause was added late in the process, after assurances were made that it wouldn't be.

This isn't about Clinton, it's about the DNC. This kind of bullshit is why I left the Party - it's not really interested in a healthy democratic process.

[Maedhros]

164. Peddle your disinformation elsewhere.

This is the same process done every election since I can remember.

You must have a very, very short memory.

http://www.salon.com/2015/05/06/democrats_protect_hillary_plan_how_the_dncs_thin_debate_schedule_hands_clinton_the_advantage/

In its statement the DNC writes that “a six sanctioned debate schedule is consistent with the precedent set by the DNC during the 2004 and 2008 cycles.” Well, not really. There were north of 10 debates in the 2004 cycle — not all DNC-sanctioned, but this was before the DNC penalized candidates for appearing in non-sanctioned debates. And in 2008 there were 27 Democratic debates, according to National Journal. (OK, 27 debates was a bit much. One moment I distinctly remember was the weekend before the New Hampshire primary. The candidates debated Saturday night and again on Sunday morning. Ruining everyone’s goddamn weekend! Sheesh.)

Nice try, but no cigar.

[Blue_Adept]

131. Yes, because debates are the only place to communicate a platform

Fifty years ago? Sure. Twenty years ago? Yeah, probably to some degree.

But now? Candidates are going to change how they communicate and have been. We know debates and town halls in this format often offer little in the way of substance. A candidate is better off doing their own virtual townhall and placing it online for streaming and accessible/shareable to people.

[Maedhros]

161. Bottom line: there is no good reason to limit the number of debates,

and no good reason to restrict candidates from participating in outside debates.

[freshwest]

95. It's an attack of the...

Last edited Wed May 6, 2015, 04:25 PM - Edit history (2)

She's a-coming for ya!

And we all noticed that ugly pic they posted. Hope the dude got a good paycheck from that. The Koch brothers are investing $889M personally to attack the Democrats. That is going to be marked money. Think how many dollars will be added to the GOP warchest, far exceeding that. No matter what, even with the fabled $2+billion HRC is predicted to garner, we'll still end up being disadvantaged as we are not in the pockets of billionaires. We are for those less advantaged.

In his defense, Hunter Walker did post this *dreadful* graphic:



http://www.businessinsider.com/2016-election-odds-2015-4

Nonetheless, he appears to say that Marco Rubio will beat her?

And the graphic is dated prior to Bernie's announcement. But a possible Hillary running mate has been groomed to take a role in Washington, D.C.:



If O'Malley or Webb are sending this out, it doesn't speak well of their electoral strategy. It would take a microscope to find out what they are for in the MSM, or even online.

At least Bernie Sanders - himself - is running a clean campaign, talking up his own ideas, that so closely match that of many Americans.

Nice try, but no cigar (not even the famous one) for Hunter Walker. EPIC FAIL.

I personally hated the reduction of number of candidates in 2008 debates and thought it did a disservice to voters. It was not as informative as the previous debates and is less inclusive.

This is the landscape we are dealing with and not HRC's fault, although she agreed with the narrowing the debate attendees along with others in 2008.

It shut out Gravel and Kucinich as they had not won ANY of the primaries. And some of their fans saw this as a grave injustice, and I was one then. Looking back, since they hadn't won the races, it makes sense now. Admittedly, I was not a HRC fan at the time.

The problem is The Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) begun in 1984.

The CPD has moderated the 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008, and 2012 debates. Prior to this, the League of Women Voters moderated the 1976, 1980, 1984 debates before it withdrew from the position as debate moderator with this statement after the 1988 Presidential debates:

"the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter."

The Commission was then taken over by the Democratic and Republican parties forming today's version of the CPD.

In 2000, the CPD established a rule that for a party to be included in the national debates it must garner at least 15% support across five national polls.[5] This rule is considered controversial[6] as most Americans tune into the televised national debates and hear only the opinions of the two main parties instead of the opinions of the multiple other U.S. parties, including three others considered "major" for having organization in a majority of the states and a couple dozen others considered "minor".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commission_on_Presidential_Debates

In its heyday, when I first got into politics in the sixties, the League of Women Voters was great for moderating debates, I thought. It was an American institution for good elections. But this was also before the changes in media taking place long, long before Bill Clinton got into office. And it's gotten worse every year.

JMHO.

[Tarheel_Dem]

110. I love your bumpersticker Fresh.

[freshwest]

192. It was made in Texas. Watch the GOPhers lose it! Every other word will be 'Communists!!!111!!' n/t

[Number23]

195. Woah...

Bringing politi-gasms and head explosions all at the same time.

[hrmjustin]

42. What the hell is with that picture in the story? They did that on purpose and it was low.

After reading the story I still think 6 is fine and if we need more the DNC could always put more together.

[SoapBox]

43. That is a bad picture.

I agree...stuff like that is done on purpose.

[onehandle]

45. That photo is exactly why this anti-Democratic Party spun piece was posted here.

Some DUers are playing right into the hands of Karl Rove and company to gleefully and unnecessary divide us.

[merrily]

73. bs. Accusing a DUer of passing over other sources until he or she finds one with a bad photo

is as baseless as it is bizarre.

It says a lot more about what kind of poster you might be than it says about Bjorn Against.

[Bjorn Against]

79. I don't even think it is a bad photo

Thanks for standing up for me, you are correct that the allegation is bizarre. The photo had absolutely nothing to do with why I linked the article, if I had posted the article because of the photo then I would have posted the photo rather than just a link that most people won't click on.

What reason I would have for using the photo to attack her however I don't know, because I still don't see what is so terrible about the photo. I am upset about the limits that are being placed on the candidate's ability to debate, the photo does not bother me in the slightest.

[merrily]

81. Regardless, it's a bizarre accusation. This bs is beyond played out and needs to be called out.

[SidDithers]

109. +1...

FUD'ers gonna FUD.

Sid

[L0oniX]

44. Oligarchy desperately trying to control the election of their next puppet?

[jalan48]

48. Why would we want fewer debates? So we have more time to watch attack ads?

[elleng]

52. We the people WOULDN'T want fewer debates.

[jalan48]

55. I agree with that. It's a more open and educational process.

[Maedhros]

181. Money can't buy debate victories, but it can buy attack ads.

Debates help level the playing field for candidates who do not have massive war chests.

The DNC (and, apparently, many on DU) want to give the candidate with the most money more advantages.

[jalan48]

186. As Progressive Democrats is this where we call bullshit?

[Maedhros]

187. Oh yes, it's bullshit.

Especially the exclusivity clause, which happened to show up just now even though months ago candidates were assured that there would be NO such clause.

The DNC is clearly trying to tilt the playing field toward one candidate. What the Party doesn't get is that elections are about the voters choosing a candidate, not simply rubber-stamping one preselected by them.

This kind of shit is why I left the Democratic Party.

[jalan48]

188. It's the kind of thing that will cost Hillary my vote if she's the party choice.

[Marr]

54. Hillary fans agree-- this is just fine and totally unbiased!

Gimme a break.

[merrily]

74. Who really needs a Democratic Party that's actually, you know, Democratic?

Hush. The PTB within the Democratic Party know what's best for you.

[merrily]

56. Kabuki in national politics? NEVER!

Besides, it's her turn! Fuck primary voters.

Super delegates, coronation attempts, disadvantaging candidates with lower name recognition, manipulating debate schedules to advantage one Democrat over the others.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you......the Democratic Party.

golf clap

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6627941

[Agnosticsherbet]

57. So an anonymous insider of an anonymous camaign claims the DNC is rigging the debate schedule?

Did you know that the CEO and Editor-In-Chief of Business Insider is Henry Blodget, a Yale graduate who previously worked on Wall Street until he agreed to a permanent ban from the securities industry and payment of a $2 million fine and disgorgement of $2 million.

[merrily]

76. OMG And THAT means every story in Business Insider is false? See also Reply 3.

[AgingAmerican]

72. The party doesn't get to pick the candidate

...we do.

[merrily]

77. Sure seems to have been trying to do exactly that since 2012.

[Tarheel_Dem]

117. And the number of debates will take away your right to "pick the candidate"?

[Maedhros]

182. I've seen posters argue that:

Last edited Wed May 6, 2015, 06:56 PM - Edit history (1)

A: Yes, limiting the debates to 6 with an exclusivity clause is biased toward the frontrunner.
and
B: That bias is OK.

So apparently many DU posters disagree with you.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

75. Well, we wouldn't want public discourse interrupt the commercials paid for by lobbyists.

[olddots]

80. how about pay per veiw debates ?

some neo limo liberal is probably drawing up contracts with the 6 media conglomerates now .

[davidpdx]

93. I strongly disagree with six debates

I can see some reasons for cutting back from the number last time around, but limiting it to six debates and saying that only sanctioned debates can occur is ridiculous. The first two to three will be guaranteed to Iowa, NH, and Florida. At least one other will be somewhere in the south or mid-west (Missouri, Tennessee, North Carolina, Georgia). Another one to two for the northeast (Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, etc). Maybe one out west, most likely Nevada or Colorado). Hey fuck you to the rest of the country!

[HappyMe]

94. This "exclusivity" thing is pretty fishy.

State that there will be 6 debates, and let whomever sponsor them.

[Gothmog]

103. The RNC has an exclusivity clause also

That clause will be hurting the GOP candidates far more than it will hurt any Democrat. There will be five or six democrats in these debates and that is a good number.

Right now, the RNC and Fox News are having issues picking which of the 22+ clowns will be in the RNC debates.

[Tarheel_Dem]

111. Let the conspiracies begin. If anyone's "protecting" HRC, it's because 81% of us......

already know who we want, and it ain't the dude who just joined the party two minutes ago.

[morningfog]

114. That number will keep getting lower,

especially with more debates.

[Tarheel_Dem]

115. Yeah, I'm gonna go ahead and say...I doubt it. But you keep plugging away anyhoo.

[morningfog]

118. I guarantee it will get lower than 81% over the next

6 months. No question.

Will it get below 50%? I'd be surprised, but it is possible.

That 81% is not a solid, loyal, unmovable collective of core supporters.

[Tarheel_Dem]

148. So many predictions. You must be related to the Amazing Kreskin.

[morningfog]

151. None of it requires any special power.

Besides the only polls that matter are individual states. Particularly the early primaries: Iowa, NH, SC and Nevada.

For example, the most recent polls have her at 57% in Iowa, NH at 51 %, and SC at 58%.

She is polling nowhere near 81% in any of the contests that matter at this point.

So, you can talk in terms of 81%, but it is pretty meaningless.

[Tarheel_Dem]

159. Dkos: Who's the more 'serious' presidential candidate: Rand Paul or Bernie Sanders?

In Iowa, Bernie Sanders is polling at 14 percent in the Democratic caucus. On the Republican side, Scott Walker leads with 20.4 percent. But Jeb Bush pulls in 12.7 percent, Mike Huckabee is at 9.4 percent, and Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, Ben Carson, Ted Cruz, Chris Christie, Rick Santorum, and Rick Perry are all trailing those numbers.

In New Hampshire, Sanders is polling at 12 percent. Among Republicans, just Bush and Walker are above 12 percent.

Look, I get it. With Hillary Clinton polling above 60 percent in the Democratic presidential primary, it's true that Sanders is a very long shot to win the nomination, while Republicans have a huge field and a race that's very much up in the air. From the chance-of-winning standpoint, 12 or 14 percent in the Democratic primaries is not 12 or 14 percent in the Republican primaries. But if what we're talking about is how much a candidate and his message resonates with voters and how seriously his policy ideas should be treated, then, for the moment at least, the polling says that Bernie Sanders is more real than Rand Paul or Marco Rubio.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/04/30/1381447/-Who-s-the-more-serious-presidential-candidate-Rand-Paul-or-Bernie-Sanders

[morningfog]

163. And your point?

That says nothing whatsoever as to the 81 % supporting Hillary assertion.

Hillary is not polling at 81% in the early primary states as I said. 81 % is not a meaningful number.

Certainly Sen. Sanders, or any other potential challenger has a lot of ground to make up to reach Hillary in these states, since she is polling in the 50s. But that is a far cry form an immovable 81%.

It will tighten even more.

[Tarheel_Dem]

165. Oh, I think it's very meaningful. You just don't like what it means.

[morningfog]

166. I have no problem with what it means. I just wonder why you feel the need to

change the subject?

Remember this started with your assertion that Hillary has 81% support and that those 81% would not change.

[Tarheel_Dem]

168. It was a national poll of "Democrats", by "Democrats", for "Democrats". And as for changing the....

subject, correct me if I'm wrong, you're the one who introduced state by state polling?

[greatlaurel]

120. That photo is the appropriate response to the OP. Such nonsense deserves ridicule.

Cracked me up. Thanks for the belly laugh this morning.

[Tarheel_Dem]

157. !!!

[freshwest]

190. I'm voting for the one on the right! But tin foil hats aren't good enough:

I'd say, protect me, Oh Mighty ALCOA! But he has a bad record on the environment:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcoa#Environmental_record

I mean, really! Who knew?

[Tarheel_Dem]

198. LOL! That's perfect.

[freshwest]

199. Safety first! n/t

[stevenleser]

124. Another OP captures how ridiculous this is well

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026628642

[freshwest]

196. Well, that was special. I posted on it:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026628642#post9

[liberal N proud]

128. Not enough debates, too many debates, they are not on the days that I like

This is all false outrage.

[NCTraveler]

143. Negative campaigning works.

Works great when the one doing it doesn't even have to out themselves.

[cry baby]

147. The word "presumably" says everything anyone needs to know.

It's part of a labeling of Clinton as manipulative, arrogant, and elite.

This is a RW smear message. I heard these very things from a RWer just yesterday.

[polichick]

160. Impossible - the Clintons would never take part in such machinations!

[workinclasszero]

167. Hillary rivals demand a democratic clown car circus

If your candidate cannot express his or her views in six friggen debates something is very wrong with them.

[freshwest]

200. How many primary debates were there in 2008? I don't remember. But they were all good.

I think the candidates were HRC, Obama, Biden, Richardson, Edwards, Gravel and Kucinich. It was later narrowed down, cutting out Gravel and Kucinich because of the CPD rules.

I found them more interesting with more on the stage, but there was a problem with moderators from commercial networks and time contraints that I felt were unfair to voters.

It was then that I made up my mind to vote for Obama, just before Kucinich and Gravel were booted out. His demeanor to them and everyone else was what impressed me. He being a man of intelligence, an open mind, gracious and willing to listen to all sides with respect. That has been the hallmark of his presidency and the more debates, the better.

The main thing is for Democrats and independents (I never quite buy that term, though) to see enough to get a 'feel' of the candidates. IDK about others, but while I find some campaign videos to be inspiring, they won't win my vote. Only the debates do that.

I wish you would not use the term clown car in reference to our fellow Democrats. TIA.

[NYC_SKP]

201. There were no fewer than 26 Democratic Primary Presidential Debates in 2008. 26 Debates.

Maybe the powers that be think that this number was too helpful to Obama, and maybe not.

To be sure, 6 are not enough for this Progressive Democrat.

The more candidates, the better, but regardless the number, we need lots of debates conducted fairly and with fair rules and equal time.

It really helps voters sort things out, those nasty ads conducted by third parties are a crappy way for voters to "learn" about candidates.

[geek tragedy]

171. Who is this rival? Only one Democrat and one Socialist have announced

their candidacies.

[bvar22]

175. The League of Women Voters can clear this up for you.

If you are old enough, you can remember REAL Presidential debates,
but the last real debates were held in the 80s,
and hosted by the League of Women Voters.

Control of the presidential debates has been a ground of struggle for more than two decades. The role was filled by the nonpartisan League of Women Voters (LWV) civic organization in 1976, 1980 and 1984.

In 1987, the LWV withdrew from debate sponsorship, in protest of the major party candidates attempting to dictate nearly every aspect of how the debates were conducted. On October 2, 1988, the LWV's 14 trustees voted unanimously to pull out of the debates, and on October 3 they issued a press release:

"The League of Women Voters is withdrawing sponsorship of the presidential debates...because the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter. It has become clear to us that the candidates' organizations aim to add debates to their list of campaign-trail charades devoid of substance, spontaneity and answers to tough questions. The League has no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_debates

Worth Repeating:
" It has become clear to us that the candidates' organizations aim to add debates to their list of campaign-trail charades devoid of substance, spontaneity and answers to tough questions. The League has no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public."

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

176. Oy vey...look at yet another thread of democrats screaming at each other

[Raine1967]

178. That headline is very dramatic.

I expect nothing else from media outlets to create drama. Left. right or center.

Unless someone can convince me otherwise (without an agenda) What is wrong with a debate every 6 weeks?

I will say that I am not pleased about the exclusivity clause. I am not sure what that was all about, but looking at things, It seems to me that the DNC is heavily invested in controlling the narrative.

Is that really a bad thing? Our candidates are running for the nomination of the Democratic party, after all. For so long I have read that the dens have no coherent message, it just seems to me at first blush like they are trying to get out ahead of the bastardization that the GOP uses against the Democratic Party.

[FSogol]

189. The exclusivity clause is also kind of a joke IMO, We're not having a debate, we are having a

(insert one)

Roundtable Discussion
Campaign Event
Q&A Session
Multi-Candidate Town Hall Meeting
Reflection Symposium
Get-to-Know-The-Candidates Event
Polemical Conference
Brunch
Candidate Interview
Revival

Did I miss any?

[Raine1967]

194. +1 good point.

I was thinking about that as well.

Is the DNC really going to get rid of Sanders of Clinton or any other candidate if they show up in Iowa for a roundtable? I don't think so.

[lpbk2713]

183. "Don't make me stop this damn car!"

This sounds like voices from the back seat during family vacation.


He's making faces at me.

She won't stay on her side of the seat.

He's touching me with his foot.

I'm trying to sleep and he won't let me.

Sorry, but it does.

[NanceGreggs]

193. So ...

An anonymous "Democratic 2016 campaign adviser" ...

"believes the Democratic National Committee's debate schedule was worked out to benefit Hillary Clinton and hurt her opponents"

"suggested the DNC is hosting a small number of debates in an attempt to give Clinton's more low profile rivals less screen time."

"suggested the relatively late schedule of the debates will make it harder for Clinton's lesser known opponents to introduce themselves to voters."

"claimed the DNC explicitly promised in negotiations that there would be no exclusivity clause."

"alleged the DNC initially said there would be six debates when they began negotiating with the campaigns."

"presumes this was worked out with Clinton campaign."

Well, with all of that suggesting, claiming, alleging, and presuming going on, it's hard not to take this unidentified "source" seriously. Those are some hard-hitting "facts" right there - if you leave the "hard-hitting" and "facts" parts out of the equation.

I think I actually know who the "anonymous source" is - he's good friends with "some people are saying".

"If Hillary is too afraid to participate in those debates ..."

Ah, yes, the ever-popular "Hillary must be terrified" meme. Does the DUer who posts that for the 100,000th time get a prize of some sort? I only ask because I'm pretty sure the 100,000 mark is hours away from being reached.

You're smarter than this, Bjorn. You really are.

[woo me with science]

204. K&R