At this late stage of the game, smells like damage control to me.

The Democratic Party is taking input from citizens (read: Hillary supporters) in non Democratic states! Why didn't they have hearings in liberal states? What are they afraid of?

and, while the residents are liberal, it is the wonkiest and most political punditocracy in the world.

And color me cynical, it was undoubtedly picked because the primary will be held there the following week: "The events in Washington on June 8-9...will be forums featuring testimony." Sounds sort of like a 'Town Hall.' Hillary doesn't want any more debates, but let's see if she shows up to "testify."

Any comment on not holding ANY of the 4 hearings in solidly blue liberal states?

For that matter, so is Maryland. It's not a mistake or coincidence that it's south of the Mason-Dixon line.

If you have a hearing in DC, the majority of attendees will be from No. VA because the majority of metro DC residents live in No. VA and because select employers (CSC, Raytheon, Boeing, McD-Douglas) will bus them in to insure the tone and tenor of the feedback the DNC receives. There's nothing wrong with No. VA...but it's hardly representative of the Democratic party unless you think 28% of Democrats nationally work for defense contractors of USDoD and support the GWoT. Another 20% or so will be Federal employees.

In any case, it's a meeting whose location will largely dictate the feedback they get...and that feedback will not really be representative of most Democrats.

They 100% certain mean DC as they nearly always refer to DC as Washington and always refer to the state as "Washington state" or the "state of Washington"...further, look at the rest of the list...it's city-names.

If they meant Washington state, they'd have said "Washington state" or Seattle or Olympia or wherever.

3 subjects that a LOT of VOCAL Bernie supporters have very little skill in.

When one is referring to Washinton, DC, they usually say "DC" or "Washington, DC".

I think they meant DC.

when I say it doesn't feel like the south to me.

I have no real horse in this race (north/south) as it were.

I've been told that the Mason-Dixon line is what makes the North and the South.

I do get what you are saying, I do.

is in demarcation. Lol.

Take your beef to the US Census Bureau who has it firmly in the Southern States category. By the way, Maryland (and the District) was a southern slave state right up to the start of the Civil War.

Any comment on not holding any of the hearings in solidly blue states?

Florida has been in the Democratic column in 2008 2012

St Louis and KC are but the rest isn't. Thew state legislature is Republican and the governor may soon follow.

What used to be MO 2nd district was full of mouth breathers.

They would be GOP in any New England State.

but having been to St. L and KC (they're both lovely, underrated American gems by the way), I'm pretty sure even my former Republican (CT) governor M. Jodi Rell would be denounced in Missouri as a socialist.

A Republican that believes in higher education spending, thinks teachers are underpaid, supports free and low-cost breast cancer screening, bolstered-up what is now one of the best and most-comprehensive CHIPs in the nation, raised taxes when necessary, and is pro-choice? That doesn't sound like any Republican I've ever seen outside New England.

(She's still a terrible person which is how I know she's a Republican.)

solidly blue liberal states?

Solidly Blue states are already a win for the party.

I am not sure what you are implying or want to get at.

(I am not trying to be daft, please know that)

Why would the Party go to solid blue states?

the guiding document of the Democratic Party! It stands to reason then, that the party should want input from liberals, and would hold hearings in solid blue states that, provably, strongly support the party and its mission.

Two blue states, two red states. And all of the participants will be Democrats.

More equitable than five radicals deciding the fate of the Democratic Party in all 50 states, wouldn't you say?

And I really dislike people telling me what I mean. I mean, I should know better what I mean than what you think I mean, no?

You were asking me whether I meant what I obviously didn't mean. Not even close to the subject.

I am still lost as to how a reference to five radicals can lead anyone to ask a question about union busting.

What connection is there between union rights and an environmentalist, a philosopher, a congressman, a pollster and a Native American activist did you see in my posts?

Unless you just plucked "values not representative of the Democratic party" out of context and arbitrarily assumed there is a connection between this and union rights.

And in reference to the OP: there are five of them. Far fewer than the number of Democrats anticipated to participate in the scheduled hearings.

I'd like the Democratic values of that era, thanks.

And your likes notwithstanding, the five Bernie appointees that I speak of do not represent the values of the Democratic Party of the 1970s either.

certainly do represent the values of that time.

a Democratic Party platform of the times?

Ok, here's your challenge:

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=29606

This is the Democratic Platform of 1976. Try to match as many items from it to the positions of Bernie's five candidates. Cite examples expressing their respective positions.

If you can't match at least half of the items in the platform to the positions of at least half of Bernie's candidates, you lose.

Have fun!

of the Platform Committee: Screw Israel!

"Gazans are martyrs, Israelis are guilty for crimes against humanity."

I like this observation:

"Last we checked, it was better to be a woman, or homosexual, or environmentalist, or political dissident in Tel Aviv than in Gaza"

Anyone ever heard of China occupying Tibet? Anyone cares?

He's spent his life writing documents while actually accomplishing nothing.

you might want to apply a little thought and research first, or you'll end up with posts like the one I am responding to.

How many lobbyists are going to be "voting" on the platform? Will it be a similar make-up of the super delegates?

...annoying. Arizona is the only western state? Or is that Washington state?

Edited to add..,

It's DC. Link: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/democratic-national-convention-committee-announces-series-of-platform-hearings-across-the-country-300276314.html

Instead, I see it being met with a lot of suspicion in this thread.

I just want our party to heal and get together. This is a good thing -- it also good politics.

I don't understand why some people in this thread don't.

*sigh*

and when I say we, am pretty agnostic.

I have a feeling that sanders supporters will be calling for this in all 50 states before the end of the weekend.

I need to read more about it and also see where this goes. However, the fact that these are being held in Republican controlled states does make me suspicious. I, too, have been a life long Democrat. How they have handled this election is very troubling.

So I wonder who will make up the "regular Democrats"?

And even if it will be open to actual "regular Democrats" of all persuasions, what percentage and influence will come from the "policy experts"?

I wish I wasn't so cynical but with DWS involved I think I know the answers to these questions.

About who influences the final outcome.

The DNC and DWS can still decide which opinions, suggestions, questions etc... actually make it onto the floor for discussion.

And they can still also decide in the end, how much they want to listen to the "regulars" and what direction in policy they have already pre-decided on in collusion with their own third way "policy advisors". In other words how much is just for show?

If you think it's for show, don't go.

I agree.

I want to find out how to get in the the DC forum!

He thought he could stir trouble with his radical nominees to the Rules committee and push a Bernie agenda rather than the people's agenda.

Well, with the open hearings, the will of the people will be known well before Beernie gets a chance to spin it.

Almost makes me rethink my less-than-flattering opinion of DWS' intelligence.

victory and turn it into a Regressive defeat.

Bernie has lost. Appointing five radicals to bicker over convention rules is an obstruction, not a victory.

Hillary won. She gets to set an agenda.

This looks to me, using your labels, like a "regressive" victory and a "progressive" defeat. It also looks, using your labels again, like the majority of the Democrats have rejected "progressive" in favor of "regressive".

You may now go ahead and tell me how Democrats don't know what's good for them.

not really at you but just a question as to really started this Progressive nonsense ? Is it just a name change because the American people would find it hard to accept the term "Left" or even "Socialist" ?

Those people are hardly radicals. Only in the fever-dreams of a corporate boot-licker are they radicals.

Only in the fever dreams of a delusional revisionist does Bernie's agenda become a people's agenda.

Who in the hell are they trying to appease with this BS??? We all know what our platform should be--- SERVE THE PEOPLE WHO VOTED YOU INTO OFFICE!! That's simple enough isn't it?? Time for the ESTABLISHMENT to get the hell out of the way and let TRUE DEMOCRATS take over!!!

They have rigged it so they get the answers they want.

I mean, this primary season has made it clear that lots of people want a return to New Deal era Democrats, not corporate bullshit.