Discussion for article #245140
Meh.
Translation if sheâs still behind in NH after Iowa, she may want to debate.
the six âofficialâ debates are over
the est. is getting desperate
but why refuse to speak into the mike?
This is the hypocrisy of campaigns and debating. Back when Sanders was behind the meme was the DNC was in Hillaryâs pocket because they had so few and so poorly scheduled debates. Now that Clinton is behind itâs better for her to have more debates, and Sanders wonât do any debates not approved by the DNC.
The one losing always wants more debates, and the one in front always wants more. The idea that any quality campaign always desires more debates is a fallacy, and the great outrage they show is always a lie.
Except that itâs plenty reasonable to expect more trickery by DWS and the DNC, like Clinton says sheâll attend the unsanctioned debate but doesnât show and then DWS bars Sanders from attending the remaining sanctioned debates.
FFS.
Itâs more debates. Period.
Tinfoil conspiracies aside?
More is better for everybody.
jw1
My comment is less a critique of this DNC and these candidates than the constant playing around with debates and the faux outrage it generates. I agree that there was good reason to think the DNC was helping Clinton, andif Clinton was really OK with the DNC debates only she shouldnât have indicated she would do more finally. But if Sanders really wanted more debates because itâs good for the voters to decide then he should jump at the chance for an unsanctioned debate.
And you can change the names to just about every primary or general election Iâve ever been a part of or seen.
Aggregate of current polls:
WS has to go!
A spokeswoman for Clinton, told the Union-Leader that the former secretary of state would be âhappy to participate in a debate in New Hampshire if the other candidates agree, which would allow the DNC to sanction the debate.â
Thatâs a rather odd translation. Seems to me she said she will gladly attend the debate, assuming Sanders and OâMalley attend the debate. Given that OâMalley is already in, its pretty much putting the ball in Sandersâ court.
Good griefâŚhow many hours earlier do you have to wake up to screw on that foil hat in the morning? This is definitely some of the most deluded, paranoid, conspiracy thinking I have seen on a left leaning site in quite some time.
Bernie is just trying to put the screws to the DNC to sanction the debate ahead of time. My guess is all three campaigns are already in on this, and are merely trying to provide an out for the DNC so they donât lose quite as much face on the issue.
The one losing always wants more debates, and the one in front always wants moreâŚ
I think you meant to say "the one in front always wants FEWER ( not more). No?
Not sure if it was by design, but it seems that Hillary didnât say sheâd participate if the other candidates agreed until Sanders said he wouldnât.
You and I have disagreed in the past over the DNC/debates/DWS stuff. Godâs honest truth that Iâm supporting Hillary over Bernie. But it does seem to me that the the DNC and DWS havenât been fair brokers regarding the debates, and that Hillaryâs artfulness often gives legs to her reputation for being inauthentic.
I am not sure that is true. I saw this statement from the Hillary camp last night, and only head about Sanders statement this morning. Now, that may be to a delay in reporting, but I am somewhat skeptical of that.
Debate fussing with dignityâŚ
The DNC has said it will bar candidates from participating in the six official debates if they participate in a debate not sanctioned by the party.
Way to bury this in the third-to-last paragraph.
Edit: I just noticed that TPM updated their headline. That was warranted, IMO.
Sanderâs is ducking.
This nontroversy about debates has become tiresome, like so many of the other, mostly, in my opinion, trivial fauxtrages that give animus to Bernie and Hillary âbelieversâ. Time to turn the debates back over to The League of Womenâs Voters, air them on C-Span and PBS and take them away from the media-politico complex. Not possible? Perhaps. But until that happens, I regard them as âtheatreâ.
Also, Debbie Wasserman Schulz may indeed not be doing a good job. She would not have been my pick as Democratic Party Chair, but some of the invective and vitriol hurled at her borders on misogyny and is really off putting.
DWS and DNC sanction the D@mn debate and move on.