O'Malley may buck DNC, participate in non-sanctioned debates.
Martin O'Malley warned Tuesday that he and his fellow Democrat candidates for president would "probably" take part in debates that aren't sanctioned by the Democratic National Committee.
O'Malley has already warned he wants the DNC to hold more debates during the 2016 cycle, and his threat raises the prospect that he and others might buck the DNC if needed. He told WKBK radio in New Hampshire that he'd participate in "as many forums" as possible, and said he doesn't think the DNC can legally bar candidates from their sanctioned debates if they participate in non-sanctioned debates.
Host Dan Mitchell asked if the DNC was limiting debates to protect Hillary Clinton, the front-runner, and asked if O'Malley and other Democrats might get together and hold their own debate.
"Well, I think, probably, that's what will happen," O'Malley replied. "I've called upon all of our presidential candidates, including Secretary Clinton, to step up and say we should have more than just one debate in Iowa or one debate in New Hampshire. And to add injury to insult, for them to schedule this in New Hampshire on the 19th of December when everyone's out getting ready for Christmas or doing their stuff with their church choir or what have you, that's just really outrageous."
"We're supposed to be the Democratic Party, not the un-democratic party," he said. "We should be having more debates than the other guys, not fewer, because we actually have ideas that will move our country forward. That's what we've done in the past as a party, and that's what we need to do again."
"I'm going to go to as many forums as I can," O'Malley added.
O'Malley also said he's asked the DNC to stand down on its rule that says candidates can't participate in sanctioned debates if they participate in others.
"[T]hey're in essence saying that if you participate in an unsanctioned debate, one of the three they're allowing across the country before the New Hampshire primary ... that if you participate in an unsanctioned debate, unsanctioned, that is, by the DNC power brokers, that you are going to be prohibited from coming to the other debates," he said. "I don't think legally they have the ability to do that. So we'll see."
While O'Malley has been an outspoken critic of the Democrats' decision to hold six debates, with one each in Iowa and New Hampshire, this is the first time he's raised the prospect of rebelling against the party in this fashion. DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz has consistently defended the party's "robust" debate schedule, which was announced on Aug. 6, the same day the first Republican debate was held.
The debate stage could be where O'Malley breaks out of the basement of polling. Currently, he sits in fifth in the latest RealClearPolitics average with only 1.8 percent support, which only tops former Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee in the field.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/omalley-may-buck-dnc-participate-in-non-sanctioned-debates/article/2570387
= new reply since forum marked as read
Just ridiculous.
And infuriating.
6 debates and one on Dec. 19th. Splendiferous job. 
Okay, I'm even more mad after looking up the other dates for the debates. We will only have FOUR debates before the Iowa caucus. With one of them on Dec. 19th. How's that for minimizing exposure?
Two might even come after New Hampshire and a few other primaries as well.
It is CLEAR as day what they are trying to do here. It's not cute. And, there is the potential for some of our voters to be so completely disgusted that they just won't vote in the General. I am disgusted by this.
but as usual there's a LOT of substance to what you say.
'But the Vermont Senator, who is attracting large crowds at campaign rallies—including 28,000 at a recent event in Portland—is less eager than O’Malley to pursue a path that would put him at odds with the Democratic Party. He is highly unlikely to participate in a debate that does not include Clinton, and his campaign spokesman said Wednesday that the debates must include all candidates.
Tad Devine, a top advisor to Sanders, called the “debate debate” a “distraction.”
“I don’t think we’re looking to be part of some splinter group or something like that,” said Tad Devine, a top advisor for Sanders’ campaign. “Our view is we want to work with the Party and not against it.”'
Hate to say this, but feels 'chicken' to me. They're ALL hiding from MO'M
edit: but there's this: A lawyer for O’Malley’s campaign has said the DNC’s exclusivity rule is “legally unenforceable,” arguing that under Federal Election Commission rules, the format and structure of debates is controlled by the debate sponsor, and not by the political party. O’Malley and Sanders have both called for a more open debate process.
“I do not believe it’s enough,” Sanders said on the debate. “Debates are one way to engage people in the democratic process.” He said Wednesday he would like to see the AFL-CIO or other groups sponsor additional debates.
So what REALLY is Sanders position??? 
PPS, How's THIS, what happens with MO'M and debate(s) will show a fair amount about his ability to deal with governing matters.
(as I've said before!) 
So he'll have to do 'noisy' stuff on his own, like beating drums in Las Vegas at trump's palace, and get UNION attention!!!
