Are you asserting that candidates for the office of the Presidency should not waste their time by appearing on television with their rivals or opponents?

That the American people don't benefit from such exposure to candidates?

Or maybe that the American people just don't deserve them?

Go on, please explain how debates among contenders for the office of the Presidency 'have proven a wasted of time.'

every time she's in one, and both she and DWS know it. Which is why they backed out of California. When she debates, everyone sees that the emperor has no clothes.

All this information freely at our disposal. Speeches and opinions from years ago.

It makes it a lot easier for people to sort out the consistent candidates from the cookie-cutter politicians.

youtube is an amazing resource on Clinton. I watch daily. It will give you clips of all the stories that have been done on the foundation/email scandal.

Cher

were going over her lies and he said making a list of truth from her will be easier.

I know you mean well, but whether it's Clinton or Trump, both speak out of both sides of their mouths with their little forked tongues flicking about while their lifeless, predatory eyes stare at you through the lens of a TV camera. That's just who these people are. Everyone should be used to it by now.

Going along with that is holding politicians to their promises. They're under enormous pressure not to do so. Sometimes you're doing them a favor by compelling them to follow through on their commitments. President Obama mentioned this when referring to his becoming President. He asked us, in effect, to make him take on the powerful interests opposing our party platform.

Sanders has pretty much taken what was offered all along.

Edit: P.S. President Obama did an interview for Fox/Bill O'Reilly. The point is to not perform for them. Fox gets the eyeballs of some people that can be swayed. The President understood that. Heck, getting service on ones car often means it being shown as the default channel in the customer waiting area.

She is reneging on a promise. As usual.

That's why we Bernie supporters do not trust her.

on Fox? What does she think they're going to force her to say?

This time around DWS only scheduled six to protect Her Majesty's coronation, and only agreed to a few more in a panic when it became apparent that Her Majesty wasn't going to simply stroll to her coronation without effort.

There's still plenty to debate. If anything, it would be a chance to measure Clinton's current stances on the issues compared to her stances on those same questions a few weeks and months ago just to see how they've morphed.

I was being facetious.

with Russia, China, and all other countries.

Do most people even listen to what they say and how it relates to the facts? It would seem not.

Those that just can't vote for such a person as Trump might find the sum total of either Sanders or Clinton more acceptable. IIRC there's been talk on these boards of our eventual nominee getting those votes.

A Fox sponsored debate might be the ticket to grab such voters who loathe Trump. And of course all Californians, and everybody else from other states, especially those waiting to vote, can also watch.

Fox is in it for the cash, like any network. They'd try to get millions of people to watch our two candidates for the Democratic nomination. Our party should come out ahead from that.

Can't imagine how much such publicity would cost otherwise.

like Bernie and what he stands for.

Seems to me that Bernie is miles apart from Republicans, but there are areas of agreement such as the surveillance state. Hillary loves it. Never saw a phone she didn't want to tap. Bernie opposes it. There are other areas in which Bernie agrees more with some of the Republicans (not most) than Hillary does.

On economic issues Republicans agree more with Hillary. Those who worry about having their taxes rise to pay for insurance (which they would pay less for if we had single payer, universal health insurance) are among them.

I've had people scream at me that they would never vote for a "socialist" when they see my tee-shirt.

Takes all kinds.

The parties are beginning to reorganize themselves a bit.

Hillary. You are insulting the voters in California. We are a huge state with many voters.

Did you "evolve" again? Is that what is wrong with a debate in California?

...... even after you actually won the nomination and had been President for a year?

Hillary snubs too many people. And...how lazy! Is it too difficult to come up with answers you think will reflect Democratic Party issues....or please the crowd? Are your positions not popular? Fear of losing...anything?

We in California want the debate that was scheduled for our state.

If Hillary is going to renege on simple promises like that should she become president, we have a serious problem with her candidacy.

"First she said she will and then she won't.

She's undecided now."

get between her and what she wants.

Though the situations aren't very analogous it did make me smile to A) see DWS on Fox News (given what was posted upthread), and B) hear DWS mock the Republican party for suddenly deciding to limit its debates. Yes, different situations, but still pretty funny, all things considered.

https://video.foxnews.com/v/4404839510001/debbie-wasserman-schultz-reacts-to-the-gop-debate/?#sp=show-clips

be a major player in the upcoming administration if Hillary can trump the orange hump. (aka the Donald). You may not like the truth, and I don't blame you, but there it is. Time to turn your passion up to full flame and bern trump and stop trying to harm Hillary. The repucklian party will do plenty of that in the near future. If you are really frosted over Hillary being the candidate you may take secret, or maybe not so secret, pleasure in the right wing swift boating of Hillary.

Once the primaries are over.

Might.

It's part of the process of letting voices be heard, and addressing local concerns. Look at the roster from past primaries. Lol, did our party think most of them had any chance at all? Did even some of the candidates themselves? Imo, no. But it's a great platform for important voices to speak from, and to demonstrate the wide appeal of the Democratic party.

Sure, one can argue the greater utility of getting behind one candidate at this point in time, but I don't think it to our best advantage to outright dismiss getting the voters in California to feel more involved and appreciated. And that's basically what I'm seeing in the news, an outright dismissal.

Although this is meant to be funny I think you've stumbled onto something. Since they're old wedding buddies they've probably already discussed this. We'll see.

She is not to be trusted.

hence the refusal to debate. Turn on the TV, the entire media is propping up Hillary due to her falling poll numbers. Bernie is finally realizing how weak she is, too bad he didn't get tough earlier.

She's changed her position on everything so many times.
"Would the real Hillary Clinton please stand up?"

votes for.

is a waste of time.....I REFUSE to hear anymore of this "Bernie's hurting Hillary's chances against Trump" nonsense.


oooooh.... FOX might ask some hard questions!! run away!! I'm series!!

if you can't handle FOX, you shouldn't be President...period

Time to put on your Big Girl Girdle and debate...like you said that you would.

By now she should be able to clearly present the issues she is willing to fight for, with details!! Can't handle Fox News?! Can't handle Bernie?? Can't figure out how to please everyone with her answers??

Bernie should debate Trump -

More of this...

For fans of Archer...

Yes it is.

Feels a bit sleazy to out and out lie. How does she do it so easily?

The State Department’s independent watchdog has issued a highly critical analysis of Hillary Clinton’s email practices while running the department, concluding that she failed to seek legal approval for her use of a private email server and that department staff would not have given its blessing because of the “security risks in doing so.”

The inspector general, in a long awaited review obtained Wednesday by The Washington Post in advance of its publication, found that Clinton’s use of private email for public business was “not an appropriate method” of preserving documents and that her practices failed to comply with department policies meant to ensure that federal record laws are followed.

The report says Clinton, who is the Democratic presidential front-runner, should have printed and saved her emails during her four years in office or surrendered her work-related correspondence immediately upon stepping down in February 2013. Instead, Clinton provided those records in December 2014, nearly two years after leaving office.

The report includes interviews with Kerry and Powell and former secretaries Madeleine Albright and Condoleezza Rice, but it says that Clinton declined to be interviewed.