of them.

To be clear I am talking in general on DU and not the op.

you vote for the nominee whether you like them or not.

The OP may be a little harsh, and an expression of frustration at the DNC's decision, but I don't think that makes him or her a Republican.

I like Bernie Sanders. Am I a troll?

Step one: I post an OP criticizing a candidate.

Step two: Supporter of said candidate can't justify her actions so posts an emoticon in an attempt to delegitimatize the criticism.

Step three: In an attempt to swarm the thread, second supporter of said candidate personally insults the poster of the OP.

Upcoming step four: Supporter of said candidate posts in a protected group about how mean supporters of another candidate are.

Rinse and repeat.

Also, yes, my OP was harsh as I meant it to be. I don't like dirty tricks as I don't believe they help our ideas and policies in the long term. I very much wanted my post to reflect that disgust.

Agreed to six debates months ago. Now some of the candidates are changing their minds. Too late. Schedule is out.

The DNC has been steamrolling any competition to Hillary since before this process started. And I'm pretty sure the candidates didn't agree to waiting till sometime in October to have their first debate. This schedule is unexcusable and I think it's a good thing to criticize it in the strongest possible terms. If we say nothing, nothing will happen.

The candidates still should have voiced their displeasure during negotiations on debates but instead they all agreed.

And I doubt very much Bernie wanted one of his first fights as a Democratic candidate to be with the Democratic National Committee. No one was even thinking about Chaffee or Webb at the time.

In essence, this was a unilateral decision to help Hillary with no way to effectively stop it.

ETA: It's also noteworthy that the DNC announced they're schedule about 5 days after Bernie announced his campaign. Not a whole lot of time to be part of the discussion.

has the same rules. Never thought I'd see to opponent groups agreeing to anything.

In this case, we have 6 debates with nothing until long after a majority of dems have solidified their support and 2 of them coming after at least a few candidates will have likely dropped out. That won't help any Democrat who enters the general election as they'll be facing a contender with several debates under their belt who has been forced to hone his message and defend them from attack. Us? Not so much.

Who'da thunk it?

But I understand. He can't support his candidate's dirty tricks so he lashes out in anger and frustration. It's no different than posting nothing more than . They let their need to defend the indefensible take them further and further from the issues they once thought they supported until one day they wake up and can't remember what those beliefs were. Suddenly, they're arguing that taking money from private prison operators is a good thing and that keeping Democrats from knowing where their candidates stand on issues is just good strategy.

Is it any wonder they spam the board posting emoticons and calling progressives "republican trolls?"

It's great to see you back! Missed you.

alleys when Alabama and Georgia outlaw abortion entirely.

Or when to vote while Black means you have to have a 6 year trigonomics degree so you can figure out how to answer the poll question that only Black voters have to answer

Hell yes....sounds like fun, dont it!

known ones.

n/t

Pushing the debates back to mid-October and the exclusivity rule scream "afraid."

(say the DNC) to be the one restricting the number of debates.

And there hasn't been a perceived need to restrict debates to the sanctioned ones before now.

....more crap and more accusations than probably any politician in the history of our country.

And each time they try it, she comes out stronger.

Afterall, she'll come out stronger from the 'crappy' debates...

Right?

said "best known candidate". Giving the Repugnants a 2-month lead in debate exposure that dominates the conversation among the talking heads is irresponsible and foolish.

...and the Democrats have only 4, don't you?

Seven of them haven't even participated in a full-scale debate. Even the ten that "debated" only got about seven or eight minutes. You call that "debate exposure"? They're still sorting themselves out, and it'll take more than that "2-month lead" to do it.

I'd probably argue the contrary. Probably should wait until the talking heads are good and disgusted with the GOP clownwreck so that they can be reminded of what intelligent grown up debate looks like.

Exactly.

Honestly, other than political junkies like us, who would tune into a democratic debate of 5 while the republican carnival is in town?

and the country. Yeah, we get that.

It's not in Hillary's best interest to debate at all. We get that.

why she is such a runaway frontrunner, even compared to 07-08, and frankly, more debates are a waste of her time and all our time.

Hillary can better get her message out by connecting with voters across the American landscape.

Informed electorate, my ass.

....an opportunity to speak for 30-45 minutes. None of them ever answer the questions directly, all they do is just push their respective agendas and take shots at their opponents.

In fact why not change the title from "president" to "queen" and have a coronation ceremony for her on 1/20/2017.

Even better, if we can talk that pretender Obama into getting out of the way, have the coronation right fucking now.

Let's just have the DNC cancel their 4-6 debates, and all the primaries and caucuses, and they can crown Hillary right now!

Let the voters eat cake, if there is no bread.

A rooster, of course, because it would be sexist otherwise. Or something.

I rolled my eyes at that allegation, too.

Attention: Calling someone a chicken is now sexist!

the others? She has more experience and certainly has a wider knowledge in just about every subject.
I think Hillary will come out of the debates a clear winner.

already be having them.

LOL - kind of kidding there but really, six debates is enough. Also the last two, if they are in March after Super Tuesday, will be anti-climatic.

"Also the last two, if they are in March after Super Tuesday, will be anti-climatic."

I'm supporting Bernie because he's sold me on his ideas, not because I have a thing for septuagenarians with hair management issues. If Hillary can support her policies against his then I'm likely to change my mind.

As it stands, I have no faith that she can do such a thing because she's ducking any forum where her policies can be intelligently challenged. She won't have that luxury during the general election and is therefore not qualified to be our standard bearer if she can't do it in the primaries.

By the way, it's good to see you again. It's a long, long time since we modded together in the old DU.

We didn't agree on politicians then, either, but we did agree on the need to hear a variety of opinions.

Slaughter them now so she doesn't have to think about the primary anymore.

Btw, we don't think Clinton will slaughter the others because she has not done well in debates during previous campaigns.

On the other hand, Clinton debating Obama was more about who could make the same old rehashed centrist policies sound prettier. Debating Bernie would force her to discuss new policies and ideas and that could be much more difficult. But it would be far more important.

Personally I think all (er, most) of the candidates, including Clinton, Bernie, and O'Malley would do f=great in debate, in different ways.

But bottom line is they should start sooner rather later, so it is more like an actual campaign, rather than a preordained coronation arranged by the status quo.

The Citizens of this Country are not all on board reading everything all of the time. Debates give clarity of information to some people and if nothing else, gives them the opportunity to see personalities side by side.

She surely won't 'slaughter' Governor Martin O'Malley, but she's clearly not eager to stand toe to toe with him. HE has more experience than she on MANY/MOST relevant subjects.

I guess he knows more about the police.

If people can't make up their mind after 6 debates I have no sympathy for them.

But YOU do NEED their votes. And the tin-eared arrogance of the Clinton campaign is doing absolutely nothing to earn them.

If they can't make it without government handouts, they have no sympathy for them. You merely have no sympathy for those seeking information so that they can make an intelligent decision about who should be our next president.

I have sympathy for most people. That's what made me a Democrat in the first place.

FFS.

you prefer brilliant?

FFS

You have it down pat.

Although, lately she has said that money is corrupting the politics on the nation....while she rakes in more of corrupting money.

Is there an award for least original or insightful response? I'd like to nominate you.

they're just drawing the blinds and cranking the Victrola

...candidates are demanding they have a debate Right Fucking Now?

If they are not making that demand, does that mean they are "afraid"? Does that mean they are not "qualified"? Does that mean they "don't have the courage of their own beliefs"?

And you did not let me down in the body of your post.

...rather than starting an informative dialog among the candidates for the betterment of society?

I get that you support Hillary, and I have no problem with that. Many people I respect support her. But those people don't come into my OPs screaming "OFFS" and ranting.

People who actually want answers don't demand them through a mouthful of bile.

We'll just have to disagree on who laughing last.

Only four will be televised before Iowa and New Hampshire, with the last of these on Dec. 19th, less than a week before Christmas, so in essence, likely only three that people will watch. I'm sure Hillary and DWS are hoping most or all of the other candidates drop out before the last two so that they won't have to hold them (or Hillary can debate herself). This doesn't sound like democracy at all.

The real problem is the DNC is pushing back the debates until nearly everyone is firmly entrenched with their candidate in the expectation that said candidate will be Hillary. It's not much different than Hillary's attempt to keep Obama and Edwards off the ballots in Florida and Michigan in 2008. Dirty tricks like these are a major part of why I can't support her. If she's willing to cheat now, she'll be willing to cheat the next time it's expedient.

get their names taken off the primary ballots in Michigan and Florida, because those states violated the approved primary schedule conditions. Obama and Edwards complied with the DNC, and had their names taken off the ballot (at least in Michigan).

Hillary did NOT have her name taken off the ballots, and then when all was said and done, claimed that she should get all the delegates from those states.... (The lesson there seems to have been, don't be too quick to comply with requests from the DNC...)

I'm from Michigan, so I was pretty disgusted with that whole scheduling fiasco...

Effectively, Debbie Dingell, like DWS, pushed a scenario that only Hillary could benefit from because only she had the name recognition to defy the DNC at the time.

Much like in 2008, Hillary is using dirty tricks to run down the clock and stifle competition. That makes her a weak candidate in my opinion.

....as it appears you are locked out of this one.

then that person may not be qualified to run.

DUers can demand all the debates they wish, but the average primary voter is likely to make up his or her mind after seeing only two or three.

I can't say I'm surprised.

I can remember when Al Gore was roundly declared to have lost his debate with George Bush because he rolled his eyes at a stupid thing Bush said.

The same kind of thing could destroy any good candidate, including Bernie Sanders (who isn't known to suffer fools.)

A few of us think that debates are the best opportunity to see a candidate fully support their policies under questioning, but what do we know?

The more the public is reminded of why they don't like her.

The Queen-Makers over at the DNC are putting the party in a very risky position by sending an untested nominee out into the fray. We can't expect a few debates from 8 years ago to be sufficient in 2016.

Basically, if Hillary's strongest supporters don't have faith in her ability to sell her policies, why should the rest of us? Dirty tricks will only take a person so far.

There should be more debates, but it has nothing to do with qualifications.

I don't know why you're focusing on Hillary. If the other 4 candidates want to schedule debates, they are welcome to do so. The DNC won't throw them all out and Hillary will not ignore them.

This is no different than the dirty tricks DWS and Hillary attempted in 2008 when they kept Obama off the ballot in Florida. They'd love to use "unofficial" debates as an excuse to pull theirs. They want to send an untested candidate into the general election.

Obama chose to not contest it. He was on the ballot, but Florida not counting helped Obama.

DWS and Hillary conspired for exactly that result, as did Hillary and Debbie Dingell in Michigan. The effective result was an attempt to game the vote by effectively running a single candidate.

And I agree, they wouldn't have Hillary debate an empty chair. They would cancel the debates entirely.

The networks are invested in those dates. And the gang of four can continue scheduling their own debates until Hillary shows up. It's not going to happen.

We need televised debates and if our front-runner doesn't have the courage to show up to them, she should withdraw from the race.

What I don't know is if the other 4 will schedule a debate. There's nothing the DNC can do if they all show up.

Should I drop in the sarcasm emoticon? I guessing it may be necessary.

As if it were possible to do so. Your mind is already made up.

So is mine.

Why are six debates not enought other than o'Malley is so far behind that he can only catch up on a hail Mary type debate performance?

You approve of having only 4 opportunities for the candidates to debates their ideas before some inevitably drop out?

If so, why do you approve of limiting the ability for Democrats to be informed?

I never thought I'd see the day when Democrats argued in favor of an uninformed electorate.

Silly season, indeed.

And if she is doing the most sensible thing, which is most likely to help her win the general election, than she is in fact WELL qualified to be president.

If she winds up in a neck-to-neck primary race, she may revisit that.

It will be a read detriment in the general election to go up against an opponent who has been in several real debates when she has had nothing but practice runs since 2008.

We need a fighter, not a conniver.

I'm sure Bernie people are out raising a brazillion dollars for the DNC or getting sponsors.

That's quite a bold pronouncement- to personally disqualify a candidate you don't happen to like.

1. People supporting a candidate who isn't even a Democrat lecturing about the qualifications a DEMOCRAT seeking their nomination.

2. People supporting a candidate who isn't even a Democrat lecturing Democrats and the Democratic Party how they should conduct DEMOCRATIC debates.

Good post.

The moment she asked, there would be more debates.