Name Nine People You Want in the Democratic Primary Debates. I dare you

[MaxRobes]

Or name at least a few.

Hey, it is still only March, 2015. Let’s set aside for the moment the question of who will get our vote the first Tuesday in November, 2016 and let’s even set aside who will get our vote in the Democratic primary elections or caucuses in each state; plenty of time for all that. Instead let’s seriously consider who we would like to see in the Democratic Primary Debates. Now some may say we don’t want any damn debates. If you are one of those, go start your own thread. This is for those of us who think there is a real battle to be had over the very soul of the Democratic Party and we want to see substantive policy issues discussed openly, far and wide. So if this matters to you, please weigh in here. Who would you like to see in those debates? Let me begin.

There are three obvious choices that I believe will make most everyone’s list. I would simply like to see how these possible candidates present themselves in this forum.
Elizabeth Warren. I want her there. She can start off by saying “Don’t vote for me, I’m not running.” She should be there anyway. We all know why.
Bernie Sanders. I want to hear the old Socialist let’em have it with both barrels. That alone would be worth the price of admission.
Martin O’Malley. I don’t know much about him but I would like to. He might actually be electable as our VP nominee. That’s a little odd because most Dems don’t know him from Adam. Let’s fix that.

There are also three other folks who are certainly familiar if not obvious choices. I’ll call them the old guard. Here I am genuinely curious to know how these war horses assess the state of the nation and the state of democracy in America. I would like to see what direction they point and what pennants they fly.
Al Gore. He did win the popular vote in 2000 and he was right as rain about “The Inconvenient Truth.” He needs a chance to say, “I told you so”, and do it on a national stage. We need someone to champion the planet in these debates. Who better?

Howard Dean. Yah I know. “The Scream”. So what? He was right about the war in Iraq. He was right about the fifty state strategy. He is often right and reasonable on a wide range of other issues. His great mistake was to be four years ahead of the country. He knew in 2003 everything that was wrong with George Bush and his presidency. He had the courage to say it when few in the national spotlight dared to say it. It took the nation another four years to figure it all out. They’re slow learners. I’d like to remind folks of that by having Howard Dean on our debate stage.

John Kerry. John is a blow dried fluff ball but he looks like he should be president. I’m okay with him being there just to dress up the proceedings. It is also true that he is really being dragged through a knot hole in the Middle East as Secretary of State; he might surprise us and actually say something interesting.

Now I will go out on a limb and advocate two new names rarely heard that I feel belong on this debate stage. I happen to be from their home state. I am confident they would both hold there own.

Al Franken. Senator Al Franken. Newly re-elected and standing a little taller, he has the potential to bring a fresh outlook to the debate. He would attract younger viewers and happens to be a man of Jewish heritage not walking in lock step with AIPAC, Likud and Netanyahu. In short, he might be able to say things others on that stage dare not say.

Amy Klobuchar. This Minnesota Senator has one of the highest approval ratings in the Senate, is very well like and respected across Party lines, and has a winning communication style in her public appearances. Amy is baggage free. She would do well in these debates and she would wear well in the general election falderal, in my opinion. Full discloser, I am Amy’s local campaign manager though she doesn’t know that. She has never heard of me.

So by now someone is surely yelling, “What about Hillary?” Where is Hillary? Well okay. Yes, Hillary should be in these debates. I am also genuinely interested in learning where she hopes to take the nation and the Democratic Party. (Strange, isn’t it, we don’t know that, sitting here today?) My only suggestion in this case is that Bill also needs to be on that stage, sitting right behind Hillary, tied to his chair, with his mouth duct taped shut. That is, after all, what her presidency would look like on day one, should she win, until Bill pulls the tape off.

So there you have one potential set of debaters, nine in all. Well, nine and a half. So who are your nine? I demand to know. No shirking allowed.

[kimbutgar]

1. Dan Malloy of CT

[MaxRobes]

3. Thanks for the reply. Not familiar with Mr. Malloy. Why do you like him?

[kimbutgar]

9. How he was there for the people after the massacre of Sandy Hook

And how is handling budgety affairs and CT is thriving under him while NJ next door is in an abyss of financial problem because of lard ass.

[CTyankee]

39. I love Dan. I worked for him during the last campaign that saw him re-elected (I was a

volunteer).

Here in New Haven we had a great turnout on election day. He credits New Haven for his win. It shows you the power of GOTV...

[daleanime]

2. Good list, but I would think 9 is a little too much....

for the good debate that I would love for us to have. Four or five would be better and my only request would be to include Warren, Sanders, and/or some one similar (is there anyone?).

Besides that, I think its past time to talk about changing the primary structure. We need to involve people in the process, not restrict them.

[MaxRobes]

5. How about starting big and narrowing the field by one as the debate series unfolds?

[daleanime]

10. No, I want actual debates with real interactions.....

and discussions. Not the traded sound bites that would be encouraged by such a large crowd. And let's face it, most of what tries to pass itself off as political debate in this nation is just competing sound bites.

[MaxRobes]

11. Okay, name six you want in the debates and i'll drop one of those. That's five

[BlueCaliDem]

4. Joe Biden. I'd love to see him in the debates. eom

[MaxRobes]

6. Yup. Biden should be in just for the humor factor alone.

[BlueCaliDem]

7. And his incredible knowledge on all things foreign policy and President Obama's successes. eom

[scscholar]

27. What humor?

He is a very serious person.

[scarletwoman]

8. Your list is interesting, although I don't fully agree with it.

I'm not sure I'd want to see either of our Minnesota Senators running for president, I'd prefer they stay in the Senate.

Also, I can't imagine either Al Gore or John Kerry having any desire to mount another presidential campaign - probably not Howard Dean, either. Fine for fantasy, of course, but it's not going to happen in the real world.

But if we're going for fantasy, I'd like to add former Senator Russ Feingold.

[MaxRobes]

13. Thanks for the reply. I'll offer this. We need Feingold to win back his old Senate seat;

let's give him that. And yes, my old guard list is pure fantasy. However I don't think Amy Klobuchar is fantasy. Should Hillary Clinton falter for any reason and Elizabeth Warren stick to her position, Senator Klobuchar would suddenly be on a lot of short lists to capture that part of the electorate who want both a woman and a Democrat in the Oval office. She is highly respected in the Senate, enjoys very high approval ratings in her home state, and has noooooo baggage. We could do a lot worse.

[scarletwoman]

14. Actually, that would be my preference, too - Feingold taking back his Senate seat.

As for Amy, I'm not really a fan. But if she wanted to go for it, fine with me. However, she's no Progressive, and I expect she'd simply go along with the status quo on the really big issues. She's not someone who makes waves.

[Generic Brad]

12. Robert Reich

He would be my pick.

[MADem]

15. John Kerry is a blow dried fluff ball? You need to learn your history.

What were you doing while he was on a riverboat in Vietnam?

What were you doing when he headed up VVAW? Testified before Congress?

Blow-dried fluff ball?

I could call you a few names, too, but that would be ... uncivil.

Welcome to DU and enjoy your time here.



FWIW, nine people on a stage is a "clown car."

[MaxRobes]

16. Thank you for the reply; first time I've talked with a 100k poster. You have my respect.

Okay, I might have gotten a little carried away with my characterization of Mr. Kerry. I take it back. This thread is on the 2016 presidential cycle and I was thinking of Kerry's performance last time out as a presidential candidate. In 2004 he was famously "for the war in Iraq before he was against it" and went on to create the blow dried impression by wind surfing and pretending to be a hunter.

Nevertheless, I am willing forget all that. I have accorded Mr. Kerry the high honor of including him in my list of people who should be on the stage and in the debate as we define the future of our Party. I am impressed with his role as Secretary of State and would like to hear his ideas on the greater Middle East and the Israeli Palestinian conflict.

Is nine too many? Perhaps. I would be happy with 4 or 5. I will not be happy with a Clinton coronation sans any debate. You?

[MADem]

17. John Kerry is a combat veteran, a multi-term senator and a member of the President's cabinet,

holding down the senior portfolio as SecState.

He's also in "Elder Statesman" territory. He's not running for President.

If people want to run for POTUS, they need to raise the money, develop a deep donor list, get out into all fifty states, get a ground game going, get a staff framework, recruit volunteers, get out on the stump and generate some excitement.

That's up to THEM, not me. If people have to be pushed and prodded into running, they're probably not right for the job. JMO, YMMV.

I'm planning on voting for the Democratic nominee. You?

[MaxRobes]

19. Yes, Kerry is an "elder statesman" but so are Gore and Dean

I still invite them to the primary debate, knowing full well that is a fantasy.
May I also say, with great respect, that you may be wrong about recruiting candidates. Folks who need to be persuaded to run are often better people than the egotists who can hardly wait to run. See Warren vs Cruz. See Donald Trump. See the entire Republican field.

[MADem]

23. You need an ego to run for that job.

Anyone who needs the coddling and persuading and hand holding and exhortations that they're good enough, smart enough, and doggone it, people like them isn't going to be tough enough to prevail when things get down and dirty.

Someone with a clear sense of their own self has that inner core already.

IMO, YMMV.

FWIW, there's a difference between actually "running" and engaging in a practice known as prostituting oneself for attention. Cruz, Trump, Nader, et. al. engage(d) in the latter practice.

Warren doesn't want to be President, nor does she need the attention, which is why she's not running. She has said so at least fifty times. I don't understand why people say, on the one hand, that she is such a genius at the whole banking game (and I agree that she is) but then apparently believe that she is so stupid as to not know her own mind, despite her saying dozens of times she isn't running and having her lawyer issue a disavowal letter to an organization trying to scratch up donations to persuade her to run. At some point in time, it's appropriate to respect the woman's wishes.

[karynnj]

18. Kerry was not "for the war before he was against it" ---

Here is a short version of the "I voted for it before I voted against it" -- In April 2004, Kerry answered a heckled who asked why he voted against the funding for the supplemental bill to pay for Iraq and Afghanistan. Kerry explained that he voted in committee for a version he and Biden proposed that would have rolled back the future tax cuts on the top 2% to pay for it. That version lost - Bush said he would veto it. The Bush version did not pay for it, but added it to the debt. Kerry voted against that and spoke on the floor explaining the reason. When asked 5 minutes later, the polite Senator, said he had just answered it and then gave the unfortunate shorthand.

The fact is that GWB was at over 60% approval a year before the election. Kerry -- with a media that condoned the character assassination by SBVT allied with BUsh and many forces that wanted Bush to appoint the Supreme Court Justices would still have won a fair election with enough voting machines in Ohio. That would have been the biggest upset in a Presidential race in my life time.

As to the "blow dry" --what is that all about - are you jealous of his hair?

As to "high honor", it really isn't given the insults. It is also absolutely not going to happen. You can not engage in any politics as Secretary of State. There is no way - unless Obama were to fire him - that he would leave the job he is in. In 2016, he very likely will be leading the US in the Paris climate change negotiations -- having played a very significant role in the China/US Pact and the agreement with India. This has been an issue that he has been seriously involved with since the early 1990s. (He met Teresa at the Rio conference.)

Seriously, if you were him - doing the job he has, loves, and where he has the chance to make major accomplishments - would you quit (almost immediately) to run against Hillary Clinton, who is the preferred candidate for over 50% of Democrats in nearly every poll?

He is a brilliant man, who could have made a great President -- but he is 71 year old and his wife is 76 and has had health problems. There is no way IMO he would run - even had he remained MA Senator.

[MaxRobes]

20. Okay, I give up. You win. I hereby withdraw the suggestion in my original post

That John Kerry be on the Democratic Primary Debate stage. Who do you want to replace him with?
P.S. I voted for Howard Dean in the 2004 primary and for Kerry in the general. It pained me to do so because Kerry did vote for the Iraq War Resolution and never clearly defined why that war was a great mistake. He tried to have it both ways, in my opinion, and that contributed greatly to his defeat.

[karynnj]

22. Think whatever you want, but you are wrong

Kerry got the votes of the people against the war -- and in fact, he spoke against "rushing to war" before the war started. In 2002, before the vote, if you compared Kerry's and Dean's statements on talk shows -- there was very little difference. Dean, in fact, was for the Biden/Lugar bill the SFRC (which Kerry was on) was for. However, that bill was not the one that the full Senate voted on.

Apparently, you missed nearly a year of Kerry saying "that Bush mislead us into war - not exhausting the diplomacy, not letting the inspectors complete their work, and not building a real coalition, and not planning for the peace." He also said it was NOT A WAR OF LAST RESORT. Now, what exactly is the importance of the last thing - Kerry. a Catholic - is saying it was not a just war. (You may have missed this - but my then 75 year old Catholic mother was furious because she did not believe Bush would take the country to war unless it was the last resort --- and he had actually promised he would only do that before the IWR vote. ) You can't get stronger than essentially saying a war - that we are engaged in - is not a just war - in 2006, he was more explicit saying the war was immoral.

Kerry's vote was wrong -- because it gave Bush authority before it was justified (it ended up never being justified) and the fact that the bill listed conditioned that should be met had no teeth as it was Bush who determined that. However, that would have happened with any votes -- including Biden/Lugar.

I had a difficult time initially choosing between Dean and Kerry -- but the more I learned, the more impressive Kerry was. (I have had the very good fortune to have met both of them - both after 2004. Either would have been a worthy nominee. I think the thing to remember was that 2004 was a FP/national security election -- and there is no way that Dean could have come close to Kerry's performance in the first debate (the foreign policy one) -- Kerry's (then) nearly 20 years on the SFRC showed. In fact, after losing, when he returned to the Senate, Lugar praised him for that saying that he was proud of him then as a member of the SFRC, after saying he was happy to welcome him back.

[stuffmatters]

21. Sherrod Brown, Al Franken,Robert Reich, Bernie and Hillary...It's millions in free ads for our Party

Last edited Mon Mar 30, 2015, 02:38 AM - Edit history (1)

The debates are free advertising for the Democratic platform. That is why we cannot just have one candidate. It's a loss of hundreds of millions in free airtime for our party. What a waste if Dems do not take advantage of this platform to denounce Rep "governance" i.e. suppression of democracy (Rep voter id states), pollution(Koch controlled governors & states) , corporate supremacy(ALEC's TPP wet dream),& stress what we stand for like equal pay, womens right to choose, improving universal healthcare, scrapping the cap on social security, fair taxation and end to 1% loopholes...including end to Citizen's United and taxpayer sponsoring political machines (tax free PACS) of the rich. The differences between our party and the current rebus is so compelling and this airtime so valuable.

Any of these candidates would be doing a great service to our party & the American public by participating in these primary debates, Without primary debates, which are so highly watched even by voters in the opposite party (i.e. we all enjoyed the Repub debates!) the Democratic party is essentially allowing the Republicans massive, unchallenged airtime FOR FREE and to set & dominate the issues of the Presidential race.

I applaud OMalley & any other Dem for stepping up. These primary debates are essential to giving the Democratic Party
FREE airtime (worth hundreds of millions of dollars) to criticize the Koch/ALEC Repub agenda(our MSM never does it) as well as remind the American public (and candidates running as Dems) what our party core principles.. values still very much entirely in line with those of the vast majority of the American public.

Any eloquent and principled Democrat is, in my opinion, welcome on that debate stage...but these names occur first for me as great messengers who, as Warren, haven't declined yet. The more robust the debates, the more Americans will tune in.

[SteveG]

24. Agreed televised debates are good free advertising.

Here's who I would like to see debate

Hillary Clinton
James Webb
Sherrod Brown
Eliz. Warren
Bernie Sanders
Martin O'Malley
Al Franken
Patty Murray
Mark Dayton

It's a pretty diverse group and it would provide for an interesting debate on policy. Sanders, Warren and Franken are very adept at explaining how republican policies have failed and done great damage to the middle class. O'Malley and Dayton have both been successful governors who have implemented strong left of center policies and made them work for their states, both been far more successful in bringing their states back from economic disaster than Walker or Christie. The rest would show the diversity of ideas within the party.

[davidpdx]

25. That is an interesting list

I would love to see someone on the ticket from the West Coast. It seems while we are great at providing wins for the party (at an electoral level) no one has been on a ticket for a very long time.

[Thinkingabout]

26. Patty Murray is from Washington.

[davidpdx]

28. Yeah I know, that's why I made the comment

Assuming Hillary were the nominee though, I doubt she would chose another woman. She would need a Latino male on the ticket. If Hillary is not the nominee, maybe it would be possible.

[gwheezie]

29. I put Barbara lee on my list

Mostly because of her iraq war vote.

[davidpdx]

30. I don't know a lot about her, but I am familiar with her name

For her to run though she'd have to give up her seat in the House wouldn't she?

[HeiressofBickworth]

43. Gov. of WA Jay Inslee

He hasn't expressed an interest in national politics, but from what I've seen of him, he would be a good "dark horse" contender. He is liberal, progressive, was talking about alternate energy before it became a trend. "Inslee was once touted as a candidate for United States Secretary of the Interior and for United States Secretary of Energy in the Presidential transition of Barack Obama." Wikipedia.

In 2012 he issued a moratorium on executions in the state. He recently said no WA government travel to Indiana because of the recent discriminatory law that was passed last week. He's a good speaker, good at questions. He was representative of my district from 1999 to 2012. I went to a number of his town hall meetings and was impressed with him each time. I've always thought he should aim for the White House.

[davidpdx]

31. I'd love to see Senator Jeff Merkley as the VP on the ticket

Don't think it would happen though.

[emsimon33]

32. Jim Webb, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Robert Reich

More than four is not a debate

[Man from Pickens]

33. Ron Wyden

surprised no one has mentioned him so far

I definitely want to hear him debate civil liberties, police/surveillance state, and open government issues.

[stuffmatters]

36. I'm very concerned about Wyden caving pro TPP

He appears to hold pivotal power in getting the TPP fast tracked. From what I've been reading lately, Wyden is going to enable fast tracking (hence passage) There are certainly a lot of American liberties negated by that TPP Treaty... from net neutrality all the
way to American sovereignty itself.

[Joe the Revelator]

34. Warner, O'Malley, Webb, Clinton, Booker, Dean, Sanders,

Withholding two votes until i can think a little harder on our bench.

[GusFring]

37. Biden and Franken

[jmowreader]

35. I know a lot of you don't like him...

but I really want Brian Schweitzer to run. He is basically the GOP's worst nightmare - a Democrat they can't claim is going to "take away your guns."

[DFW]

38. Nine looks like a Repubican circus and will dilute content

Hillary, Bernie, O'Malley, Klobuchar or Brown, Gillibrand, *

I'd love to see Howard in there, but he doesn't want it. Nor does Bob Reich, Al Franken or Elizabeth Warren. I don't know if Klobuchar or Brown want it either, and the only people in the debates should be ones who are serious about wanting the job.

The Republican debates of 2012 looked like SNL skits. Even they don't want to do that again. We sure as hell don't need to be doing it.

* Leaving space for the big unknown, in case there is one who isn't on the radar yet (and I'd be thrilled if there were such a person).

[CTyankee]

40. I second the Gillibrand addition! I like her a lot...

[MaxRobes]

41. Thanks for your reply. See if you might agree with this line of reasoning

I don't think we have any real idea who wants to run because the Clintons have frozen the field. We need to ask who would be running if Hillary suddenly decided she wanted to spend more time with her new grand daughter.
I'd go further and say even the prospects are frozen. They haven't given a run serious thought because their assumption is Hillary has the nomination in the bag. What if all that presumption is wrong? What then?

[DFW]

42. What I would like to see

...is some people running (or making some noise about it anyway) as if Hillary were not running or even there.

I don't want anyone in the race whose attitude is "oh, what's the use?" That's NOT the attitude I want in my future president. Obama in 2007 saw Hillary's assumed coronation and went for it anyway. I would have been OK with Hlllary as president (I think), but I am just as cool (or more so?) with a president who initially said "why NOT me? (or, "yes I can&quot " when the conventional wisdom said no way.

We need some candidates running who do NOT adopt the assumption that Hillary's nomination is in the bag, as you put it. For that matter, Hillary herself needs that, too, so that IF she goes for it, she'll have won it fair and square. A president who has their position handed to them on a silver platter will probably turn out like someone who has indeed had their job handed to them on a silver platter (see "Bush, G.W.&quot . No, thanks.

[Chan790]

44. 9 is too many. 4 would be ideal as long as Hillary isn't one of the 4.

Warren
O'Malley
Sanders
Reich
_______
Biden
Franken
Mikulski (who would be higher on this list if I thought there was any chance of coaxing her out of retirement. I adored her when she was my Senator.)

... (at-least 30 Democrats)

George Clooney (who I feel would win but is probably unqualified.)

... (at-least 10 other people and Tian Tian the Panda from the National Zoo)

Hillary Clinton (Let's be honest. If Hillary is the nominee...I'm exercising my dual-citizenship and going to Spain for 4 or 8 years. I will never vote for her; I hate her with every ounce of my being and might need to hit the Chinese buffet in order to add a few more ounces to contain my revulsion for her. (Also, I could really go for some spring rolls and deep-fried tofu.) Nothing would make me happier than to see the Clintons in rags reduced to living on cat-food.)

[Myrina]

45. Howard Dean, Russ Feingold, Bernie Sanders, Al Franken, Winona LaDuke, Tammy Baldwin, Wendell Potter

.... that's all I can think of right now.