K & R!

factor. Nuff said.

about 35 Democratic Governors and she is leading in all the polls. Nuff said!

And fav/unfav always go up and down during primaries, then once a candidate gets nomination, party unifies and favs go back up.

We want real change to support the middle class.

Name any issue.

with this:

MoJo
Clinton's Top Aides Have Lobbied for Companies Liberals Despise
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/07/hillary-clinton-lobbyists-campaign-staff-keystone-lehman

The Hill
K Street is banking on Hillary Clinton, with more than twice as many Washington lobbyists donating to the former secretary of State’s presidential campaign than any other candidate.
http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/251456-k-street-betting-on-hillary

a plan, or even firm intent, of accomplishing most of what he did for America. Hillary's way out ahead of him in that respect. What she will be able to accomplish in this era is blowing in the wind, of course. She needs some of his people, like Francis Perkins. But today's need is just as great, and she certainly hasn't spent her life striving to serve corporate interests -- and don't those people know it, even if the some of us aren't sure.

"To suggest that Hillary Clinton is in need of being shielded from the slings and arrows of her competitors for the Democratic nomination"

I'm unaware of any Dem opponents attacking her.

Is her theory that it is somehow damaging to democracy for voters to actually see and hear candidates interacting as early in the process as possible?

Does she believe that having too many debates is harmful to the public discourse?

26 debates and no exclusivity clause in 2007/08 yielded a loss for her. Why the change to only 6 debates starting late with an exclusivity clause? Without a clear answer to that, I think it is fair to conclude that she and the DNC (DNC Chair is a close friend of hers) are manipulating the debates to ostensibly yield a better outcome for her than 2007/08. If that is not the case, I think we all would be interested in knowing why.

How many candidates will there be in the Democratic debates? 3? maybe 4? 5 at the outside?

More questions per candidate, more answers per question.

This will not be the Republican circus with fluff questions posed to 17 candidates by Fox Noise. These will be debates with a few participants getting questions that were NOT prepared by the media arm of their own party.

I have heard no good rationale for that. The other candidates and every person I know are anxious for the candidates to start debating serious issues instead of the contrived bullshit the MSM is focusing on.

I don't know what the exclusivity clause is, but if it means only the media circus is allowed to make up the questions, it debases the debating process considerably.

A very small minority of voters will watch 6 debates. Most, I think, will watch no more than three.

And, frankly, she is under no obligation, political or ethical, to help her opponents obtain free air time. If you think the call for more debates is anything but an attempt to gain free air time, you're being naive.

She has nowhere to go but down.

The woman who has dealt with the Republican Party, the MSM, "investigators", even accusations of theft, bribe-taking and the assassination of her alleged "lover" is terrified of Bernie and Martin!


Okey-dokey. Whatever you say.

This is called democracy. Its not supposed to be lowest common denominator entertainment to sell soap.

And free air time for candidates is a bad thing? I thought we were supposed to be against the notion that Money Buys Elections. Gee maybe that Citizen United thing isn't so bad after all.

And finally....If Clinton is so wonderful and unsfraid of exposure as the OP claims, then it would seem that she would be happy forvthe free air time herself.

Do you really think that anything beyond fluff should not be available? Or are you just trying to buy into the party line?

Funny how support for an open political process is so flimsy based on a particular candidate's strategy.

More than 5-6 debates and it isn't useful for learning about the candidates, it's only useful to the other side as it increases the chances that one or more candidates will accidentally say something stupid, it increases the rancor and the attacks and it makes the public sick and tired of seeing the candidates.

In 2008, Hillary and Barack participated in 26 or so debates and it was completely ridiculous. You learned nothing new about either one of them after the first couple of debates.

In 2012 Romney and the rest of the 2012 clown car had 20 debates and same thing. It didn't help their nominee.

... that her lead would be diminished by engaging in debates or dealing with the media - two areas in which she has always excelled.

She doesn't have to talk to the media. She doesn't need them. Bernie, on the other hand, needs the exposure.

And that's what this is really all about.

So what's your problem? Not enough debates? How many does he need - twenty, thirty, forty?

If Bernie - or anyone else - can't prove their superiority over Hillary in the number of debates already scheduled, their problem probably goes beyond whatever exposure the debates would afford them.

I hate to break it to you, but Mr./Ms. Average Voter is not going to sit through endless debates even if Jesus H. Christ was running, and promised to perform several miracles while at the podium.

Bernie should be careful what he wishes for. There will be topics, especially in foreign policy, on which he has no experience. Boiling everything from nukes in Western Asia to women's health care down to "economic justice" won't cut it.

The BS supporters are convinced that he will "mop the floor" with Hillary in the debates.

They fail to recognize that ALL topics that a potential POTUS will be required to deal with will be raised - and Bernie's lack of experience in many areas will be on display.

The idea of an open political process is kind of important to a lot of people. We're not just shifting that underlying belief based the interests of any particular candidate.

has not been talking a lot to the media, but I don't think it is ludicrous to think that the rationale might be to protect Clinton's lead. Maybe the goal is to minimize the chance of her saying something dumb--like she did more than once in her 2008 campaign. Or maybe the goal of having fewer debates is to give Sanders and O'Malley less early exposure so that they can't gain momentum early enough to win. Clinton and her team and the DNC might think that less media and less debate early on will maximize her chances of being our next president.

If you want to play the snippet game, Bernie can be made to look pretty ridiculous in the same way.

Those soundbites sometimes have impact.

Its moments like this:

QUESTION: The piece that’s most important, and I stand here in your space, and I say this as respectfully as I can, but you don’t tell black people what we need to know. And we won’t tell you all what you need to do.

HILLARY CLINTON: I’m not telling you–I’m just telling you to tell me.

[IMG][/IMG]
"Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! Those are The Real Housewives of Atlanta numbers that indicate a fight is about to break out."

QUESTION: What I mean to say is– this is and has always been a white problem of violence. It’s not– there’s not much that we can do to stop the violence against us.

HILLARY CLINTON: Well if that—

Q: And it’s a conversation to push back—

HILLARY CLINTON: Okay, Okay, I understand what you’re saying—

Q: Respectfully, respectfully—

HILLARY CLINTON: Well, respectfully, if that is your position then I will talk only to white people about how we are going to deal with the very real problems

[IMG][/IMG]
"Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! Those are WORLD STAR numbers!!!"

HILLARY CLINTON: Look I don’t believe you change hearts. I believe you change laws, you change allocation of resources, you change the way systems operate. You’re not going to change every heart. You’re not. But at the end of the day, we could do a whole lot to change some hearts and change some systems and create more opportunities for people who deserve to have them, to live up to their own God-given potential, to live safely without fear of violence in their own communities, to have a decent school, to have a decent house, to have a decent future. So we can do it one of many ways. You can keep the movement going, which you have started, and through it you may actually change some hearts. But if that’s all that happens, we’ll be back here in 10 years having the same conversation. We will not have all of the changes that you deserve to see happen in your lifetime because of your willingness to get out there and talk about this.
[IMG][/IMG]
"Wow. I've never heard Hillary speak like that. So Authentic"

Heck if she is so wonderful, one would think she would be pushing for the free air time.

and say "Hey, Debbie, let's have a reasonable number of timely debates. I'm totally up for it."

That would convince me.

Your OP? Not so much.

... are more than sufficient for ALL candidates to speak to the issues, and get their positions out there?

"sufficient" for Hillary to avoid as many tough questions and direct exchanges
as possible between her and her primary opponents. <--True dat.

But certainly not sufficient for Martin O'Malley, or Bernie, or ... ANY of their supporters.

And certainly not sufficient for early states' voters who won't even get to see all of them
before voting.

Because, as I have pointed out in the OP, Hillary has always "avoided tough questions and direct exchanges."

MoJo
Clinton's Top Aides Have Lobbied for Companies Liberals Despise
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/07/hillary-clinton-lobbyists-campaign-staff-keystone-lehman

The Hill
Hillary campaign ropes off media
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/246878-hillary-campaign-ropes-off-media

The Guardian
Hillary Clinton ducks questions on trade deals during New Hampshire visit
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/15/hillary-clinton-ducks-questions-trade-deals-new-hampshire

... not opinions.

More than twice as many K St./DC lobbyists are donating to Hillary’s presidential campaign, more than any other candidate. . Jeb is in distant second place for being 'on the take'.
http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/251456-k-street-betting-on-hillary

.. yet Hillary supporters apparently don't care that their candidate is more bought than
any other candidate, Democrat or Republican.

... that gets posted here over and over, this meme is wearing thin.

Receiving campaign contributions is being "on the take"? That one is particularly laughable.

Bernie's average campaign donation is $31 from over 1/4 million supporters,
which -- as you say -- is not being on the take. This^ is democracy in action.

But taking tons of money from DC lobbyists for Private Prisons, Wall St., et. al. is a whole
different can of worms, as you know. This ^ is Oligarchy in action.

... everthing is "oligarchy in action".

for instance, water management in the Pacific Northwest… fracking in PA and Ohio. There are very few who object to 6 national debates. The objection is to the exclusivity rule. All of our candidates should be able to debate each other and any republican any time anywhere outside of the national debates.

participated. What the exclusivity rule does is punish the Democratic candidates if they participate in a regional debate by barring them from participating in the 6 DNC national debate.

It is bullshit and undemocratic.

I don't even want the DNC to sponsor more than 6, so
in that sense I totally agree.

Remove the exclusionary bullshit, and I'm good. But time is
a tick, tick, ticking away .. and fast.

desire an expanded debate schedule without penalty. If Ms Clinton doesn't want show up, fine. Personally, I'd like to see the other 4 agree to break the rules, schedule their own series of debates and boycott the official 6 leaving Clinton on the podium alone. In that scenario, the networks would drop the official debate schedule like a rock and pick up on the alternative debate schedule.

... the other candidates should do what they think best. No one is stopping them.

cut off any funding, and endorsements, and probably refuse to list them on the primary ballots. If they want to be something besides Democrats, fine. Go for it.

Objectively....outside of support for any particular candidate, are you REALLY in your heart of hearts opposed to the idea of maximizing the public debate and expression of political campsigns?

Do you really share the view that MONEY EQUALS SPEECH, and that the opportunity for candidates to communicate with voters outside of paid ads should be limited.

Do REALLY think that the opportunuty for a wider range of issues, and more time to delve into positions should be minimized?

HONESTLY.

I'll be honest and say if I were supporting Clinton, I'd still think open communications and exposure is important for the political process.

Would you REALLY, from your heartbof hearts, be arguing against tan open electoral process if you were not looking through the filter of Clinton's political prospects?

We're not worthy.

I guess you are unaware of the polls, and the vast support she has.

285 polls from 35 pollsters. Updated one day ago.

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/hillary-clinton-favorable-rating

Oopsie LOL.

... gets trotted out here on a regular basis.

But apparently those ratings don't change the fact that when it comes to voters who support HRC's candidacy, she's still the frontrunner among Dems, and beats all GOPers in one-on-one matches.

But thanks for playing!

In the General, that's a hell of a disadvantage. In this election the winner will be the one with the lowest "I won't vote for him/her". Aside from Trump, Hillary has the highest negatives.

that I do not know one person that likes or intends to vote for Hillary. I do know a few, myself included, that will probably vote for her if she wins the primary but we won't be happy about it.

And many of us were Hillary fans at one time. I think you know there are many reasons (or votes) that have caused us to see her in a different light. You can try to excuse those votes away but I knew she was wrong then and I no longer trust her to do what is right.

Bernie, on the other hand, has consistently voted with his conscience and represents my morals and issues a heck of a lot better than she does.

So there ya go.

I'm not shocked that the US "media"/AKA/rw goPropaganda big lie machine has managed to bring down Hillary's "favorability" as the front runner. But, that will change.



Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton Extend Run as Most Admired

http://www.gallup.com/poll/180365/barack-obama-hillary-clinton-extend-run-admired.aspx

Why? Because I think he's more likely to fight for me, my family, my neighbors, and our concerns.

I think Bernie Sanders has been and is the biggest supporter of equality for everyone, and the most likely candidate to bring about meaningful change.

And he's beholden to no one.

And it has nothing to do with the OP.

Awesome.

... "Hillary Clinton is ..."

Whether you like her, loathe her, hate her, or adore her - the fact remains that casting her in the role of someone who shies away from the media, or has to be "protected" from her competitors by limiting her exposure in debates, has absolutely no basis in fact. Quite the contrary, the "facts" disprove any such notion.

But actual fact have no place among some people - do they?

I think it represented what the OP was trying to get across quite accurately. Bernie voters aren't stupid, you know.

... the bullshit meme that Hillary needs to be "protected" from the big, bad media, and from the competition in debates.

If you believe that she is indeed a "shrinking violet" who has avoided the media and has demonstrated an inability to stand up to the competition, then so be it. Her actual decades-long record says the exact opposite - but you're entitled to ignore the facts if you choose to do so.

I think we see she has some problems when even many of her base don't like her.

And unfortunately, that decades long record also has some problems associated with it. And I am not talking about the Republican hatchet memes which she has already shown she can withstand. I am talking about the way people in her own party now perceive her. As in, she sometimes makes bad decisions. Decisions I can't support.

... who hasn't made bad decisions, who hasn't faltered, who hasn't disappointed, who hasn't angered, who hasn't said and/or done things that make even their most ardent supporters say WTF!

All politicians are just like the rest of us - flawed human beings.

I don't look for perfection, because I know I'll never see it in anyone.

If HRC makes decisions you can't support, that is for you to determine.

But as for "the way people in her own party now perceive her", the vast majority of those people support her candidacy. There is no getting around that fact.

Even supporting her candidacy when options are so limited (as in people don't know the other candidates or she has won the primaries) doesn't mean people perceive her as someone they would actually like to support and you know it. Right now you are including people that don't even know the other options available.

Asking if I support Clinton over Trump is a no brainer. Do I like her and want to support her? No.

... is wearing a bit thin - really.

Again and again. Thank you Nance.

Are you saying Hillary is for more debates, and DNC is the one limiting # of debates?

I can't believe you are that naive. Hillary could be the greatest fighter in the world, but politically when you are that far ahead you don't want to engage in a "fight" and raise profile of your opponents but rather let the clock run out.

You can be Clinton supporter, and still recognize this for what it is. It is the DNC trying to limit debate because the establishment favor and wants one candidate to win. Limiting debate helps that candidate. Very simple.

.. that the DNC is limiting the number of debates to "protect" poor Hillary?

HRC's decades-long history shows that she is in no need of protection from anyone. But I wouldn't want that fact to get in anyone's way.

On so few debates?

Again its not protecting Clinton because she is horrible debater. There is no upside for Clinton in holding debates. When someone is that far ahead, they would prefer to keep low profile and hope time runs out. Raising the profile of opponents by debating them makes no sense for front runners.

I see we didn't get one yet.

... why should those who aren't fight your battle for you?

Prove it? Prove what? If you think that HRC is afraid of exposure in the media or in a debate setting after dealing with the negativity she's encountered for DECADES, you must be new to politics - like VERY new.

Only according to DU. In the real world, she's still the frontrunner.

If Sanders and O'Malley are unhappy with the number of debates, I'm sure they are both capable of fighting that battle without anyone else's help.

We're I a Hillary Clinton supporter.

When you do personality politics you are saying let's get personal.

We should just stick to the issues and leave personalities of DU.

But, yeah, she is being reclusive these days.

He's consistently rebuked the MSM for asking stupid, shit-stirring questions. His campaign is quite unlike the cult of personality campaigns we've seen too frequently. He answers every question put forth to him. He's a no frills, no nonsense candidate, and I'm very proud to support his candidacy.

HRC has never backed down from a fight - and she's has had plenty of fights thrown at her for decades.

THAT was the point of this OP. If you have any evidence to demonstrate that Hillary is "in need of protection" from debates or the media, please post it.