Sanders to Clinton: If you want NH debate, sign up for more!

[kcjohn1]

Calling her out. If she all of sudden has come around to debates are great, than sign up for more 3 additional debates.

:large

Lets see what she says to this. Her strategy is to have adhoc debates when it benefits her. She is so entitled and thinks the world revolves around her.

[awake]

1. Check and Mate

[peacebird]

5. Simply Perfect!

[840high]

136. ......

[Unknown Beatle]

207. Good one.

[monmouth4]

2. Perfect!...n/t

[floriduck]

3. BINGO!!! nm

[frylock]

4. The ball is in your court, Madame Secretary.

[Fumesucker]

6. All your debates are belong to us!

[MrChuck]

17. lmao eom

[alcina]

53. Nice!

[klook]

63. Somebody set us up to bomb.

Main screen turn on. You have no chance to survive make your time.

For great justice.

[Live and Learn]

86. ROFL nt

[farleftlib]

7. Hey Hill, you got served!

[ViseGrip]

102. "at the whim of the Clinton campapign" exactly! The total MSM is now exposed!

[SunSeeker]

163. It was set by Rachel Maddow/MSNBC after all three candidates agreed to another debate.

It was not set at the "whim of the Clinton campaign." That is a lie.

Rachel documents how the debate was set in the following video:
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/watch/one-more-democratic-primary-debate-maybe-609555011560

[nc4bo]

8. Touchè! Ball is in your court now Hill/DWS. nt

[ejbr]

9. yup

[morningfog]

10. BAM! He shut her bullshit down. This is great.

[840high]

138. Yes. Yes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Juicy_Bellows]

11. Kick!

[FlatBaroque]

12. A candidate has so much flexibility

when his campaign is based on truth telling.

[TCJ70]

14. The truth shall set you free...

...really seems to apply in this case.

[reformist2]

13. She's trapped. She's going to have to say yes, or else she won't get her rigged debate in before NH!

She'll figure out how to wriggle their way out of the others later!

Her campaign is a trainwreck.

[Matariki]

15. Perfectly fair.

[Luminous Animal]

16. A most excellent response.

[Chathamization]

18. Yeah. It's bizarre that Clinton seems to think that debates should happen suddenly whenever she

feels it would be beneficial to her.

S: "Let's have more debates."

C: "Sorry, not interested in any more debates."

****

C: "Oh, I'm down by a lot in New Hampshire? Then we need to have a debate ASAP before the New Hampshire primary."

S: "Wait, are you saying you're interested in more debates? OK, let's discuss more debates, I think 3 more would be good, and maybe we can have them around..."

C: "Sorry, no, I'm only interested in a debate before NH because I'm down there right now. If I'm down in another important state before the election I'll let you know that we need to have a debate at that time. We're going to have debates whenever I feel it's beneficial to me. End of story."

Man, Sanders is such a hypocrite. First, he says there should be more debates. Then, he says he thinks the additional debates should be decided on before hand rather than being suddenly and arbitrarily thrown together whenever Clinton wants them.

[CoffeeCat]

158. LOL! Great dialog! Spot on! (nt)

[Mike Nelson]

19. Hillary asked for the new debate?

I thought it was MSNBC? Of course, if they think Hillary secretly went to MSNBC, Chuck and Rachel - I understand. I don't believe she did, but I can follow the reasoning. Also, from reading here on DU, many Bernie supporters believe Hillary is arranging the debates, secretly - so I guess that explains proposing more to Hillary... but I don't think it's going to be productive. She'll just say she doesn't arrange debates.

[Luminous Animal]

43. The statement does not say she asked for a new debate. It says that she has asked to

change the rules. And she has.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

52. You really kicked the stuffing out of that straw man!

And you'd so carefully created him in the first place!

[Pharaoh]

109. Brrrrrrrrrrrraaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!

[Ed Suspicious]

98. What is up with all the

bolding?

[hedda_foil]

104. Of COURSE Hillary didn't ask for it. Her campaign staff clearly does that kind of thing.

But you knew how campaigns work already. Didn't you?

[Change has come]

145. The bold letters and words really stand out.

This seems important!

[CoffeeCat]

160. Well, then I guess she's SOL!

Play games. You own up to them. Otherwise, you don't get your last-ditch effort to save your Titanic of a campaign that is behind 15 points in NH.

[cannabis_flower]

20. Can you provide...

the link to the twitter feed?

[raindaddy]

21. Who do we want sitting in the White House?

If campaign strategy is any indication Sanders gets my vote...

[Indepatriot]

23. DROPS MIC.....

[CoffeeCat]

161. He's outsmarted those jerk weasels at every turn

starting with the "data breach."

I gotta say, he's my hero for dealing with these jerks on the front lines. We can sit in the comfort of our homes and discuss this. Bernie has to deal with these vipers.

Can you imagine the shit that he's seen through the years?

That's why he's probably so astute at handling their games. He's one of the only decent Congress members that we have left. He's not afraid or intimidated by them.

He's amazing!

[senz]

170. Exactly. Hillarians pretend "Bernie has no experience"

but he served eight years as mayor and 25 years in the U.S. House and Senate, not riding on anyone's coattails, none of it handed to him. He doesn't schmooze with millionaires and billionaires, but he knows politics, knows government, knows D.C. inside and out.

He is a thousand times more experienced than Hillary.

[dinkytron]

202. No shit. Right?

[awake]

22. Bernie continues to show why he is the best qualified to be POTUS

the way that he handles Hillary and her tricks shows me that he plays the long game and can handle what ever come his way.

[SammyWinstonJack]

48. +1000000

[senz]

172. +1000000

[sarge43]

203. He probably saw this one coming before the Clinton tricksters even thought it up,

got ready and boom! gotcha.

He could teach master classes.

[farleftlib]

24. Game, set and match to Bernie

Well played!

[BeanMusical]

25. Kick and R

[RoccoR5955]

26. I wonder how much her butt hurt

after that kick in the rear end.

[840high]

141. A lot.

[Broward]

27. Will Hillary "duck" these debates?

[pnwmom]

28. So Bernie should be able to dictate the terms of any new debates?

Why didn't he just say he was willing to negotiate with both the other candidates for more debates?

[farleftlib]

29. HAHAHAHAHA, that's just stupid

No, Hillary tried to back him into a corner and she got the answer she deserved.

[Joe the Revelator]

31. You serious, Clark?

[bvf]

99. ROFL! Spot on! n/t

[pangaia]

40. Ooppssie.......

I could say something... but I won't...

[nc4bo]

56. !!!

[IMG][/IMG]

[pangaia]

59. WHEW ! It WAS close. Very close.

I may need your encouragement next time, though.

[ChiciB1]

49. As I Recall, Both He And O'Malley Did Want More Debates...

and the head of the DNC said NO!! She set them up, she negotiated them and would not budge or change anything. I DO NOT think MSNBC just decided they wanted a debate. They KNOW what was set in stone and for them to just do this out of the blue is disingenuous at the very least. Why would DWS say yes to THEM and not to the other candidates in the first place?

NO, this wasn't one sided in any way! I ain't buying this wooden nickel!

[SunSeeker]

67. MSNBC did not do this "out of the blue." They asked each candidate.

During each of the three candidates' recent appearances on the Rachel Maddow show, she asked them if they would do an additional debate. They each said yes.

It's all documented here:

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/watch/one-more-democratic-primary-debate-maybe-609555011560

[pnwmom]

73. Thanks for the info. Some people here have short memories. n/t

[slipslidingaway]

112. Some people sure do!!! nt

[Luminous Animal]

122. There is no February 1st debate. That is the night of the Iowa caucus.

So, I would take that info with a basket full of salt.

[JimDandy]

175. Actually "out of the blue" could be accurate. They did not ask each candidate.

And they did not "each (say) yes".

First off, O'Malley doesn't appear in the Maddow show you linked to, only clips of Clinton and Sanders do. So, if O'Malley at any time ever said yes on Rachel's show, it wasn't "all documented" on this one.

Clinton was simply asked if she "wish(ed) there were more debates" and she didn't answer the question. So, Clinton didn't say yes either. (You're 0 for 2 at this point.) Even on the full Jan 18 clip of her, Clinton never answers the question! Of course Rachel didn't press her on it the way she did with Sanders.

Rachel to Sanders:

1. "Is this lack of debates on the democratic side, and hiding them in obscure places in the schedule, is it a big enough problem, that you and the other candidates might try to revolt and try to at least get another one scheduled?"

2. "Senator, I don’t, I’m going to press you on this one part of it, and it’s not because I’m trying to foment any sort of revolt here. I’m really not [laughs], but I’m trying to follow what you said..."

3. "Do you and Governor O'Malley and Secretary Clinton envisage the three of you getting together and telling the party to stuff it, and doing it the way I've heard all three of you articulate you'd rather do it?" (Come on Rachel, let the rest of us hear how Hillary articulated to you how she'd rather do it--how she wanted to tell the party to stuff it. That would be amazing to hear, because on your show she wouldn't even say she wished there were more debates.)

After being pressed and then told that the other two candidates had articulated to Rachel how they would rather the debates had been done (differently is implied here) Sanders finally agrees.

Sanders: "Well, count me in as one person, if, if Secretary Clinton and Governor O'Malley want to do it, I'm there. ...so, I'm in."

Rachel laughingly says: "I’m never the one who starts these things, but I feel like I might be starting something here."

----------------------

Rachel specifically said she is not trying to foment revolt and laughed off the very idea. and then, again laughingly, she said she feels like she might be starting something here. That's not the behavior of someone I'd be expecting to actually facilitate an unsanctioned debate. So, yes, while not entirely "out of the blue", noone could have been expected to take her seriously. As of last night, Sanders hadn't even received an invitation to this "debate!" Perhaps Rachel and the NH Union Leader were trying to keep the candidates above the fray by being the ones to push for this unsanctioned debate. All I know is that, after today, I'll never have to wonder, "Who does that? Who schedules and publicly announces a debate before inviting a single debatee to the debate?!"

[cui bono]

205. Thank you.

[JimDandy]

220. Your very welcome!

[jeff47]

65. Because the DNC is the one forbidding the debate.

But you might be on to something. Obama should negotiate with Gov Snyder to end the OR standoff.

[morningfog]

128. Because it's not up to the candidates thanks to the stupid ass DNC

exclusivity clause.

[Joe the Revelator]

30. Oh that is a masterful fucking response.

Well done.

[TIME TO PANIC]

32. K & R !

[Bjorn Against]

33. It seems the people who insisted he was ducking debates have suddenly disappeared

[winter is coming]

140. Return to base for new instructions! n/t

[pangaia]

34. Damn these guys are smart !!!!!!!

YES !!!!!!!!!!!

[CharlotteVale]

35. Brand spanking new memes furiously being manufactured as we speak.

[libdem4life]

42. Manufactured at the same exact moment...they are fast, give them that.

[CharlotteVale]

44. I just noticed that, LOL. They've had plenty of practice!

[Matariki]

186. LOL! After reading your post I see a new one right below yours

"blackmail"

[libdem4life]

187. Got to be Quick on the Click, if you know what I mean.

[Beacool]

36. So, now the Sanders campaign is reduced to blackmailing another campaign?

How revolutionary, how progressive......

BTW, Hillary is not the one who asked for the NH debate.

[morningfog]

38. Save you pearl clutching. It's not blackmail.

It's calling out hypocrisy. Everything in the note is accurate.

[Bjorn Against]

39. Blackmail? Are you seriously claiming that calling for more debates is blackmail?

[VulgarPoet]

57. Haven't you read the Camp Weathervane playbook?

Scream FUD into the wind to mask the fact that the weathervane is spinning fast enough to emit a constant squealing tone.

[pangaia]

41. What a joke !!!

Bernie is a grand master. And an honest one.

Obama is backing the wrong team.

[Luminous Animal]

47. And the Sanders campaign never said she did. It says that she is asking to change the rules.

And she has asked.

[SunSeeker]

62. Yes, the Sanders campaign did say that.

Last edited Thu Jan 28, 2016, 05:26 AM - Edit history (1)

As the quote in the OP states, "we are not going to schedule them on an ad hoc basis at the whim of the Clinton campaign."

[Luminous Animal]

64. Nice pretzel logic you got there.

[SunSeeker]

69. Nice nothing you got there.

[Luminous Animal]

85. This issue would never had gotten legs if Hillary hadn't tried to run over the Bernie campaign.

She IS the one who publicly called out Bernie to break the rules and commit to the debate even though she herself was unwilling to do so. It was her campaign spokesperson who made the false claim that if all 3 showed up the DNC would be compelled to sanction the debate. What was the DNC's response? We will not sanction this debate.

Hillary's campaign took the lead on this… trying to put Bernie in between a rock and a hard place... and now they have to live with the consequences.

[thesquanderer]

80. Feb 4 is the date originally proposed by MSNBC/Maddow, not Feb 1

and Bernie is agreeing to their proposed date, as long as they also add debates in March, April, and May.

Nobody would ever have considered Feb 1 -- that's the day of the Iowa caucus itself.

[JimDandy]

55. The real blackmailer was DWS who created the sanction rule

to protect Clinton. This rule NEVER existed before, not even when Clinton ran in 2008.

"Our (crummy scheduled) DNC debates only, or else..."

Yeah, who is the blackmailer?

[Beartracks]

71. Blackmail involves a threat. There's no threat here.

I re-read the announcement. I only see: "We don't HAVE to have more debates, but if you want more debates, here are our requirements."

================

[frylock]

75. It's called negotiating..

something you may be unfamiliar with if you have been watching Obama's technique.

[Javaman]

103. ha ha ha..

Bwahahahaha! >wipes tears from eyes< ahhh hahahahahaha!!! >snort< hahahahahaha!!!

[Feeling the Bern]

37. Smack, meet down!

[ChiciB1]

45. What A Great Reply... If He Agrees To The Debate She Wants

that's not SANCTIONED by the head of DNC, I think that disqualifies him from any more debates. I think I know WHY Hillary wants to debate, but THE RULES were set by The Powers of The Head of the DNC! Hmmmmm, now who is that???

I wish she hadn't done this, I honestly do, but it makes me even more upset and angry at what MY Democratic Party has become. This just goes against what I believed about this Party that I joined many years ago. The only political Party I've ever been a member of, but will say it again. Depending on who wins this nomination I'm sure I won't be a member again. I can no longer "play" these games. I never signed a loyalty oath, but I've always been loyal. I no longer feel I owe any loyalty to a political Party that seems to have forgotten that they owe us some loyalty by working for "we the people" and should stand up against the Greed & Gluttony of the money that buys them!

I wish that the people of this country had a way to level the playing field and provide monetary help to ALL candidates so that NONE could take Millionaire and Billionaire money. This is just so wrong and UN-DEMOCRATIC!

[kristopher]

58. +1

[draa]

61. You're not leaving without me. D

As soon as the Florida primary is finished I'm leaving the Democrats after 3 decades. I can't stand this crap anymore. Lies, smears, protecting a corrupt system. It's a damn disgrace and the worst part is people will willingly vote for that so I'm done.

[VulgarPoet]

68. Count me in that group.

4 years watching my vote that I thought was going to go towards momentum for change get squandered, and in some cases, outright abused had neutered just about any passion I had for the Democratic party until Sanders announced he'd caucus with the Democrats. If this doesn't work, I'm registering Independent and looking for more socialists. I'm done with the kleptocratic oligarchy bullshit, and I'm not selling my conscience away again. I'm already doing it for college.

[PFunk1]

176. Im on the verge of going democratic independent

I'm staying in the party so I can have my say in who gets elected in OH. But what happens afterwards will determine if I stay or leave.

[VulgarPoet]

178. I'm likely going Green

since Iceland's Pirate Party will likely never gain a foothold here; and they support the same policies I do concerning crypto and the internet.

[Duval]

196. PFunk1, I mentioned doing just that to my husband last night.

[litlbilly]

213. I was already in that group, i joined just to vote for Bernie in the primary, will go back

to independent after.

[ChiciB1]

210. This Is A Really Late Reply, But I HAVE To Respond...

I don't know how long you've lived in FL, but my husband was born here and we were both "Army Brats" living in TX. After his father retired he came back to FL and we soon followed. I've lived in the same house since 1984. So I've SEEN so much CRAP here and now the total erosion of our Democratic Party which has gone bonkers and leans so far to the right... THE DLC/THIRD WAY wing that took over the Party.

I would like to believe that many of the DLC/THIRD WAY Democrats never knew the Democratic Party I joined so many years ago. I'm a Boomer and my father introduced me to politics when I very, very young, like 11 yrs. old. He believed the Democratic Party was the Party of and for the people, but THIS Democratic Party is very, very different. The only reason I've stuck around so long is because of Bernie. If he wasn't running I think I'd be gone already. I have said I'll vote for her because of the Supreme Court, but even that issue may not go well. I honestly DON'T KNOW for sure who she'd pick, just a crap shoot for me.

Every time I see a picture of Paul Wellstone I feel a stab in my heart. His death has always been suspicious to me, AND he lost his life on my birthday! Couldn't believe it. October 25th.

I see the long knives of the MONIED PEOPLE descending on Iowa to kick Bernie around, and most of them are our very own Democratic Senators and Representatives. As I see it, these people have no spine and many who I NEVER thought would roll over and join the GREEDY Bastards no longer have my respect.

So yeah, if it's not Bernie... Bye, Bye!

[draa]

214. Thanks for the reply. Always good to meet another Floridian.

And my family settled in Florida in the 1830's. I've been here my entire life other than the stint I served in the Navy in the early 80's. I love this state but it's grown so much that I barely recognize it anymore. Especially south of Orlando. Wow what a mess.

Anyway, I've been a Democrat for over 3 decades but it's not the party my grandfather loved and worked so hard to build. It's a shell of it's former self and in large part because of the neoliberals who've taken over the party. Much like the neocons the neocrats of our party don't care about anything but greed.

They allow 22% childhood poverty while the 1% get even richer. They smear a good man while the war criminal gets a free pass. They protect our abusers and then demand we voter for the protectors. They say "we're here to help" while they screw us even harder. No more voting for that. Not ever again, and I don't care what party we live under because I've had enough. If shit fails it fails, but since I have nothing left after 2008 it matters little to me.

The fact is you shouldn't have respect for them anymore than you would respect pond scum. And I'll tell you, if you respect yourself you shouldn't vote for this shit we currently see from this party. No one should if they call themselves Democrats.

As far as the Supreme Court? We've made more gains under the current SC than we've had in decades under our party rule. The Republican SC gave us Marriage Equality and the ACA. How anyone could believe the Democrats are the real protectors of Liberalism is beyond me because recent history proves it's a lie.

I'm not worried regardless. If the Democrats were that worried they wouldn't pick people like Clinton in the first place. If she fails then it's one them and not people who have etihics and values like us.

Ok, thanks for letting me rant. This entire election has opened many eyes and hopefully the voters behind them will make their voices heard before we're through. Thanks again and good bye.

[AtomicKitten]

46. I'm glad Bernie is calling her on this nonsense.

The DNC created the debate schedule and imposed the exclusivity clause and rules with Clinton's input, preferences, and approval. And now - yet again - Hillary is trying to change the rules in the middle of the game. She needs to pull up her socks and take it up with the DNC.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

50. She's put herself in quite the pickle!

[SoapBox]

51. Absolutely spot on!

Thank you Jeff for saying it!

And then instead of meeting with everyday people in Iowa today...she's shaking hands and sucking up to millionaires/billionaires for their money. I'm sure she'll then tell them to, Cut It Out, as it's a "finance industry" fundraiser.

She is not the President America needs.

[SunSeeker]

54. Sanders already told Rachel Maddow (whose idea this debate was) that he would do it.

Last edited Thu Jan 28, 2016, 01:14 AM - Edit history (1)

Now, after Rachel got a yes from both Hillary and O'Malley as well, Sanders comes up with special conditions. That is called going back on your word.

The first post-agreement special condition he made was that he would only do the debate if it was sanctioned by the DNC. How very revolutionary of him. Suddenly he's a big rules guy. When that started looking ridiculous after both Hillary and O'Malley showed they weren't afraid of repercussions of doing an "unsanctioned debate," he came up with new condition (s).

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/watch/one-more-democratic-primary-debate-maybe-609555011560

[nc4bo]

66. Or he could have been well prepared for HRC & Co.'s

Bullshit and the old Jewish guy with the wild hair, funny (but genuine) accent and nutty radical leftwing ideas, is anything but naive, politically stupid or a coward.

[SunSeeker]

72. Or not.

And wow. If a Hillary supporter had described Sanders physical appearance that way, they'd have gotten a quick hide.

[nc4bo]

77. They have.

I do not have the desire to dig up those posts, I'm sure someone has them bookmarked for prosperity. They do exist, on DU.

This incredible candidate has my vote. He's earned it several times over, jmho.

[SunSeeker]

84. Oh please, one was recently hidden just for using the "o-word" you used.

But despite certain DUers attempts to silence Hillary supporters, we will continue to support her, and she has our vote. She has earned it more than Sanders has, and she will assure we will not be living under a President Trump.

[nc4bo]

90. You haz mad? It'll be ok.

Primary season is DUs cray-cray time.

I'm glad Hill has her strong voices showing support.

[SunSeeker]

117. No, I don't. That was rather ugly of you.

But is all you've got.

[Ed Suspicious]

118. Of course.

This place is ugly.

[cali]

174. The old xian woman wasn't prepared for anything but a coronation

[JimDandy]

70. Link?

For where you got info that Sanders told Maddow he would agree to an unsanctioned debate to occur on Feb 1st.

[SunSeeker]

74. None of the three candidates made any conditions on the debate date when they said yes.

Rachel showed all the clips on her show last night. Go to Rachel's website.

[JimDandy]

82. So really, they were asked, in a general way, if they would like

to do an additional debate, and, in GENERAL they all said yes. And Rachel, unbeknownst to them, tried to do a 'Gotcha' and quietly engineered an unsanctioned debate and sprang it on them all. Is that the gist of it...Maddow trying to create the news now instead of report it?

Just trying to understand the chain of events.

[SunSeeker]

89. BS & MOM were complaining that the GOP was having another pre-Iowa debate and Dems weren't.

Last edited Thu Jan 28, 2016, 01:20 AM - Edit history (1)

Rachel documents how she got the debate set here:

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/watch/one-more-democratic-primary-debate-maybe-609555011560

[thesquanderer]

171. There is no consideration being given to having "another pre-Iowa debate"

The question, as explained in the link you provided, is whether there will be a pre NEW HAMPSHIRE debate... according to your link, the DNC says they will not consider sanctioning any more debates until after the NH primary, so as of now, any possible Feb 4 debate would be unsanctioned.

Though Rachel also makes a good point there that, sanctioned or not, what can the DNC do if all three candidates agree to debate before New Hampshire? Would the DNC really cancel the subsequent sanctioned debates? I suppose nothing would stop the three candidates from getting together and debating on those days anyway (that's what they would theoretically be doing on Feb 4, i.e. debating without the DNC's blessing)... though having those debates "officially" cancelled by the DNC might also give an "easy out" to anyone who didn't want to do any more debates.

Anyway, I think there is a worthy underlying issue here, that the debate schedule should not be based on what just one of the three candidates wants. It is an interesting indication of a shifting balance of power... from "whatever Hillary wants, Hillary gets" to possibly "what Bernie wants is now important, too." Before, Bernie had to settle for a schedule that benefitted Hillary, because he really had no power. Now that he is showing strength, he has some power. It's not surprising that Bernie supporters are fine with having him use it, while Hillary supporters may have a different opinion.

[Luminous Animal]

100. He has said from the beginning that he wanted more debates but he would abide by the

DNC rules to which he agreed… that he would not participate in any unsanctioned debates.

And there is no February 1st debate. That is a complete fiction.

Hillary HAS NOT committed to an unsanctioned debate. In every interview she has stated that she wants the campaigns to meet with the DNC in order to have the February 4th proposed debate sanctioned.

Hillary has committed to the idea of a debate but, as yet, to actually attend it if it is not sanctioned by the DNC.

[Luminous Animal]

116. The "special condition" that Bernie is abiding by was instituted by the DNC. It d originated

from the DNC. It is called the exclusivity clause and states that any candidate who participates in an unsanctioned debate will be barred from participating in future DNC debates.

Hillary HAS NOT agreed to participate in the February 4th debate. She has stated that she wants the DNC to sanction it so that the candidates can participate with no repercussions.

And their is no such thing as a February 1st debate.

[SunSeeker]

127. Sanders to Maddow on 1-19-16: "If the other candidates are in, you count me in."

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/watch/one-more-democratic-primary-debate-maybe-609555011560

And your assertion is NOT what Hillary said. As noted by Rachel at the above link, Hillary said she would be "happy to participate in a debate in New Hampshire if the other candidates agree, which would allow the DNC to sanction the debate."

[morningfog]

133. Hillary cannot speak for the DNC, and in fact DWS made clear

the DNC will not sanction it. Hillary could not dictate whether the DNC would sanction it.

Or are you suggesting she could?

[SunSeeker]

139. As Rachel pointed out, what could the DNC do?

If all three candidates agree to do the unsanctioned debate, what would the DNC do? Not let them participate in the only two remaining DNC debates? Why would the DNC do that?

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/watch/one-more-democratic-primary-debate-maybe-609555011560

[morningfog]

146. The DNC could cancel the remaining debates.

Regardless, DWS said the debate would not be sanctioned.

If the DNC had sanctioned it, or waived the exclusivity clause, it would be different. Sanders talked to DWS, and she said it will not be sanctioned.

[Luminous Animal]

137. Really. You have that DNC contract? Because the DNC has stated otherwise.

They state unequivocally, they will not sanction this debate.

Until someone can show me the contract where it states that if ALL the candidates buck the rules then the DNC will be forced to sanction, then I'll believe it. But, as yet, not one person I have asked who assert this claim are able to provide me with the document that all the candidates signed with the DNC.

[SunSeeker]

149. Then why did Sanders agree to an unsanctioned debate on 1-19-16 when talking to Rachel? nt

[Luminous Animal]

152. He didn't. He agreed that he would like more debates. (FYI, there are no debates on Feb.1 - caucus

day.)

Back to the subject. He never said he would participate in an unsanctioned debate. He has said the complete opposite from the moment he became a democratic candidate.

[Duval]

194. Ah! Thanks for this!!

Some seem to forget!

[morningfog]

132. Unmitigated bullshit. Hillary's participation was conditional on the same terms

from the beginning. She said she would do it IF it was sanctioned.

Don't play lose with the facts.

[winter is coming]

147. The caucus is ON February 1st. Stop giving the wrong date.

And Bernie hasn't gone back on his word. Rachel issued a "y'all come" invitation to do another forum, like the one she hosted in South Carolina, and Sanders indicated he was open to that possibility. By refusing to participate in an unsanctioned debate, Sanders is keeping/i] his word by following the DNC's strictures.

[A Simple Game]

200. Do you ever get sick of trying to sell something nobody's buying? n/t

[DJ13]

60. I sure wouldnt want to have been near Hillary when she heard about this.......

!!!!!!!!!!

[grasswire]

81. didn't she throw a lamp at Bill in the WH?

Or was that Laura and George?

[DJ13]

97. I seem to remember that being the rumor explaining Bush's black eye

Though I bet Hillary can let loose when she wants to.

[hedda_foil]

113. Nope. That was Hillary. Very soon after she and Bill moved into the White House iirc.

[JTFrog]

151. Nope.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/lamp.asp

Just more Republican baloney.

As to where the rumor might have come from, in May 1993 columnist Molly Ivins wrote the following, which she'd harvested from an article in Time about the Clintons' first one hundred days in the White House:

A Republican consultant told a network newscaster that his job was to make sure Hillary Clinton is discredited before the 1996 campaign. Each day, anti-Hillary talking points go out to talk-show hosts. The rumor machine is cranking out bogus stories about her face (lifted), her sex life (either nonexistent or all too active) and her marriage (a sham). Many of the stories are attributed to the Secret Service in an attempt to give the tales credibility.

Some things never change.

[SusanCalvin]

76. Perfect. - Oops, not.

Last edited Thu Jan 28, 2016, 12:24 AM - Edit history (1)

On edit. I just watched the Maddow segment.
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/watch/one-more-democratic-primary-debate-maybe-609555011560

Bernie, I regret to say, has stepped in it.

Well, on further edit, maybe not as much as I thought. Neither the Feb. 1 date nor the Weaver-proposed Feb. 4 is before the Iowa caucuses, and both are before the NH primaries, so what's the diff? And the Weaver proposals are just that, proposals.

What I think/thought was Bernie stepping in it was the "I'm in" re unsanctioned debates agreed to by all three candidates. I think even Bernie should have left a little wiggle room in the event of attempted ambushes.

[SunSeeker]

78. Hey Jeff Weaver. There is already a debate arranged for Feb. 4.

Last edited Thu Jan 28, 2016, 01:27 AM - Edit history (2)

Your client told Rachel Maddow he'd do another debate. Maybe he forgot to tell you.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/watch/one-more-democratic-primary-debate-maybe-609555011560

[JimDandy]

87. No evidence Bernie agreed to an unsanctioned debate

and certainly not on an agreed upon date of Feb 1. Interesting. Maddow seems to have engineered this whole thing. And she's in the tank for Clinton. Hmmm...

[SunSeeker]

96. Sanders was complaining that there were not enought debates before Iowa.

Last edited Thu Jan 28, 2016, 01:18 AM - Edit history (1)

He was on recently and Rachel asked him if he'd do another debate and he said yes. So did MOM. So did Hillary. It appears all this went down within the last week.

It is all documented by Rachel at the below link:

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/watch/one-more-democratic-primary-debate-maybe-609555011560

[BainsBane]

101. Yet he now proposes three unsanctioned debates

for a time period after a nominee is likely to have already been decided. That benefits no one but the GOP.

[Luminous Animal]

105. Um no. He is not. DWS herself said that she would be willing to sit down with the campaigns after the

caucus and primary and talk about an expanded debate schedule.

[BainsBane]

115. I can guarantee you the party will not approve debates into April and May

That would be incredibly destructive to the party's electoral prospects.

I imagine Bernie knows that and is floating this scheme in order to avoid admitting he doesn't want to debate in NH. He could just say, I'm ahead in NH therefore I don't want to debate now.

[Luminous Animal]

119. April 16th 2008 was the last Democratic debate during the Dem primaries. How DESTRUCTIVE!

Conducted by ABC and attended by Obama and Clinton.

[BainsBane]

155. That was a very close election

quite unprecedented in recent history. If this primary is still unresolved in April, they can schedule debates at that time, but to plan them now for April and May is absurd, destructive to the party.

That points to another problem I have with Sanders. He has no commitment to strengthening the Democratic Party. Despite the fact none--I mean none--of the promises he has made could be passed without a huge turnover of seats to the Democrats in the House and Senate, he has demonstrated no interest in helping that happen. Clinton is not only sharing her campaign contributions with the party--to fund races at the congressional and state level--but is instructing her staff to assist local candidates who have endorsed Sanders rather than her. She wants more Democrats in office for the good of the party and the country. Bernie has showed no interest in doing anything to advance anyone's election but his own. This debate schedule only adds to that situation.

[Luminous Animal]

159. You can tell the future that it won't be a close election?

[SunSeeker]

131. Here's your evidence.

Sanders to Maddow on January 19, 2016:

"If the other candidates are in, you can count me in."

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/watch/one-more-democratic-primary-debate-maybe-609555011560

[slipslidingaway]

144. Wrong, no proof in that video to the scheduled Feb 1st debate, try again. nt

[SunSeeker]

162. Sanders: "If the other candidates are in, you can count me in."

It's right there in the video. http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/watch/one-more-democratic-primary-debate-maybe-609555011560


Hillary and MOM agreed to the Rachel/MSNBC debate, they're "in." But Sanders went back on his word.

[slipslidingaway]

164. Keep kicking the thread, where did Sanders agree to the Feb 1st date, exact time in the video. nt

[Luminous Animal]

92. The next debate is not scheduled until February 11.

[slipslidingaway]

107. Post a link to the February 1st debate previously scheduled by the DNC. nt

[Luminous Animal]

120. There ain't one.

February 1st is the Iowa caucus.

[slipslidingaway]

121. Oh my, well then these are just tall tales being posted. nt

[Luminous Animal]

124. Hey SunSeeker. February 1st is the night of the Iowa caucus! No debate scheduled at all.

[hedda_foil]

125. February 1 is the day Iowa caucuses. Confusing it with the scheduled Feb 11 debate perhaps?

[hedda_foil]

129. Hey sunny, what day do you think is the Iowa caucus, hmm? Hint: it's a Tuesday.

You are spewing misinformation and have been corrected on it several times in this thread already. That's not very professional of you. I'll bet a timeout to recheck your talking points might be helpful.

[Luminous Animal]

148. They are February 1st.

http://iowademocrats.org/about-iowa-caucuses/

[winter is coming]

150. And a classic disenfranchisement tactic rears its ugly head. n/t

[Luminous Animal]

154. Yep. 100%

[ljm2002]

166. Wow...

...I was reading this thread and wondering why a poster who has been corrected several times on the caucus date, has neglected / refused to correct any of their obviously false claims.

Then I saw this post of yours and a light bulb went off. What you say makes perfect sense.

Well that's one to keep an eye on...

[grasswire]

79. GENIUS poker

Hahahahahahahahahahaha!!!

[thesquanderer]

83. I think Bernie will handle foreign policy negotiation just fine. (n/t)

[Live and Learn]

91. Definitely. nt

[SunSeeker]

165. Yeah, foreign governments love it when you go back on your word.

[thesquanderer]

179. When did he go back on his word?

He never agreed to participate in any non-DNC-sanctioned debate.

[SunSeeker]

180. Sanders to Maddow on 1-19-16: "If the other candidates are in, you count me in."

It's right there in this video: http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/watch/one-more-democratic-primary-debate-maybe-609555011560

So now the other candidates are in, but he's not. He went back on his word to Rachel Maddow.

His flip flop is not going unnoticed:

The unsanctioned debate will be moderated by Meet the Press host Chuck Todd and MSNBC anchor Rachel Maddow, and will also include questions from local reporters, the Union Leader announced. Two of the party's three candidates have already announced they would be participating; Hillary Clinton and Martin O'Malley. Despite initially complaining of the limited debate schedule, Bernie Sanders's campaign has said he will not be participating.

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/us-election-2016-clinton-omalley-034850592.html

[thesquanderer]

181. His "word" did not include participating in an *unsanctioned* debate...

...which was so far outside the realm of possibility at the time that you can't expect anyone to have even considered such a thing when talking about debating. I mean seriously, who would have ever imagined *Hillary* would be suggesting an unsanctioned debate?

Secondarily, you are considering his answering Rachel's question by saying "if Secretary Clinton and Governor O'Malley want to do it, I'm there" to be the same as "giving his word" which is, itself, a stretch. In his response, I don't think he was "promising" to do it, much less promising to do it unconditionally.

Though I think its funny that some Hillary supporters seem to be SO eager to look for places where they can say Bernie flip-flopped. I guess it's so they can say "See? He does it too!" Though even if he actually does genuinely change a position, his one or two or three times is nothing compared to the other side, so the whole "argument" seems counter-productive to me... the difficulty of pinning flip-flops on him only emphasizes how easy it is to find them for HRC. It's kind like the driver of the car pulled over for doing 120 in a 65 saying to the cop, "but hey, it's not just me, look at that guy over there doing 70!"

[SunSeeker]

188. His only condition was "if the other candidates are in."

They're in.

He reneged.

[thesquanderer]

190. Was it really necessary for him to say "if the DNC sanctions it"?

At the time, would anyone have reasonably considered the possibility that Hillary would want to participate in a debate if the DNC did not sanction it?

The lack of putting forth conditions doesn't mean you preclude the ability of there being conditions. You'd have to instantly anticipate every possible scenario (and in this case, even some almost impossible ones).

In fact, there are all kinds of "implied" conditions which he did not also state, but presumably apply... i.e. that he's still in the race, that he's not laid up in the hospital, that there hasn't been some kind of disaster requiring his presence in Vermont, or some personal emergency... saying that you're willing or even eager to do something is not a legal contract convering every variable, nor would anyone expect such a list in normal conversation.

Now, why might he not want to participate in an unsanctioned debate (a scenario that no one would have anticipated in the first place)?

Consider this: The debate happens. Due to the terms of the debate agreement between the DNC and all the campaigns, the DNC could choose to cancel the two remaining sanctioned debates. Let's say that Hillary then decided it was wrong to try to undermine the authority of the DNC (or, alternatively, simply finds herself ahead by enough that she thinks further debates will be counterproductive to her campaign) and therefeore says she will respect the DNC decision to cancel the next two debates, accompanied by a mea culpa for having participated in the unsanctioned debate. Where does this leave the other two candidates? In this case, what you see as Bernie reneging could be seen as Bernie avoiding a trap. Once he agrees to any "unsanctioned" debate, the agreed upon DNC debate rules are out the window, and he might never be able to get Hillary to a debate again! At least, not unless it's what *she* wants. So for the sake of being true to a conversational comment *you* seem to see as some kind of unconditional vow, forcing him into a situation he could not have reasonably anticipated, he's supposed to concede all future debate authority to Hillary's whim?

[SunSeeker]

192. Yes it was; Rachel made clear she was putting together the debate, not the DNC, hence unsanctioned.

There is no way the DNC would cancel the last two debates if all three candidates did the Feb. 4 debate. If Sanders is afraid of that, why doesn't he just ask the DNC if they would cancel the other two if the candidates did the Rachel debate?

Instead, he throws in a poison pill condition of three additional late season debates (out to May!), for a total of 4 additional debates he now wants the DNC to sanction. He doesn't want Hillary to accept this deal and the DNC to sanction these debates because he doesn't really want to debate on Feb. 4, when it might affect his lead in New Hampshire. The reality is Hillary has proven to be a better debater than Sanders.

Hillary didn't set up this debate, Rachel did. It was Rachel's "whim."

[thesquanderer]

197. The actual proposal of an unsanctioned debate did not happen until Jan 27...

Last edited Thu Jan 28, 2016, 08:45 PM - Edit history (1)

...and the Bernie quotes you are referring to were from Jan 17. (And they were impromptu responses to a general theoretical question. There had been no real possibility of an unsanctioned debate at that point.)

(BTW, Rachel didn't set it up, the New Hampshire Union Leader did--or is trying to--though she would be a moderator.)

re:

There is no way the DNC would cancel the last two debates if all three candidates did the Feb. 4 debate. If Sanders is afraid of that, why doesn't he just ask the DNC if they would cancel the other two if the candidates did the Rachel debate?

DNC rules already answer the question, no need for him to ask. The only way they don't get disinvited to future debates is for the DNC to say that doing this one is okay. By definition then, the DNC needs to sanction it (that is, they need to say it's okay). So, Bernie asking them to sanction the debate is identical to asking them to not freeze them out of future sanctioned debates for participating in this one.

In fact, in now taking another look at Hillary's response, even she actually basically said she would need the DNC to sanction it (O'Malley is the only one who didn't seem to care). The quote from your link, from HRC's spokesperson: "Hillary Clinton would be happy to participate in a debate in New Hampshire if the other candidates agree, which would allow the DNC to sanction the debate." Well, it might allow them to, but it apparently doesn't force them to, since at least so far, they seem to be refusing. So ironically, after all this discussion, when you get down to it, both Sanders AND Clinton seem to want the DNC to sanction this debate in order for them to participate.

The twist is that Sanders wants this renegotiation of the debate schedule to open up more than just this one debate. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. (Though at this point, it does not appear that the DNC is willing to acquiesce to either just the one or a group, at least not before the NH primary.)

I do agree with you about one thing... I think Hillary is a better debater than Bernie is. I think sometimes his content is stronger and he reaches people that way, and he's still at a point where just getting exposure helps him, but strictly on debate skills, Hillary is better.

[A Simple Game]

206. How can you say he reneged? He said he would be there, he didn't say he would be on the

stage with O'Malley and Hillary. He probably wants a front row seat so he can wave to the viewing audience when they pan to him for his facial responses to Hillary's gaffs.

[zentrum]

88. Let her

…..eat the cake she baked.

She's obviously planning some super-slick new attacks on him that she wants to air in the debate format before NH in hopes of turning the tide of her flagging campaign.

[arcane1]

93. This should put to rest this asinine "flip-flop" meme that some intern should be fired for inventing

But it will continue for a day or two until the team can scramble up some new bullshit and get it distributed.

[BainsBane]

94. He wants to debate after the nomination contest is over?

And what would be the point of that?

[benny05]

95. K & R

[WillyT]

106. LOL !!!

[askew]

108. The Iowa Caucus is February 1st on Monday so there is no way the debate would ever be

Before the IA caucus. MSNBC's proposed debate was always going to be post-Iowa, pre-NH.

[slipslidingaway]

111. Reply #78 states there was a debate already scheduled for February 1st and Sanders is now going ...

back on his word.

Maybe another Sanders in another country.

[askew]

114. Yeah, I have no idea what they are talking about.

I do think it is best for the party if we start holding more debates so I hope both Hillary and Sanders get over it and agree to a schedule that works.

[slipslidingaway]

123. Me too, Sanders and O'Malley both advocated for more debates months ago. nt

[Luminous Animal]

126. February 1st is the date of the Iowa caucus. Of course there is no debate scheduled.

The next DNC debate is February 11 hosted by PBS.

[JimDandy]

199. That poster's misinformation all over this thread was a hot mess.

That poster finally fixed many of those posts.

[slipslidingaway]

217. A hot mess of misinformation ...

maybe too much sun?

[JimDandy]

218. LOL

[slipslidingaway]

219. I just saw an opening ...

[winter is coming]

130. LOL. It's time to put up or shut up. n/t

[Truprogressive85]

135. Lets take a trip down memory lane

[840high]

143. Thanks.

[Nite Owl]

142. I would love to be behind the Clinton

Curtain seeing there faces drop, like we don't know just what they are trying to do. The last softball debate didn't seem to help her much.
Good job Bernie!

[merrily]

156. All righty, then.

[CoffeeCat]

157. I knew Bernie would handle this well!

OMG...this is the candidate we've been waiting for!

You know how politicians play these games with each other, and they never really say what they're thinking? They never call the other out. No one cuts through the baloney and just says, "Listen asshole, you're acting like an asshole."

OMG, how many times have I come to DU--and read so many pithy, astute, honest comments about what is happening with major political issues. Whether it is foreign policy, or Obamacare passing without single-payer being discussed or Democrats kicking around Social Security cuts in order to compromise--we never get the honest back-talk from our politicians.

THIS is so refreshing. It's not mean. It's not rude. It's honest. And it calls out EXACTLY what the situation is. That lil Miss inevitable didn't want debates when she thought she had it in the bag. And she had Little Debbie to be the gatekeeper. Now, she wants more debates when she's behind and Bernie calls her out. He also calls out their insipid scheduling of debates on weekends. HA!!

I am more in love with this man every day!!

[senz]

168. Beautiful response. Clear, logical, principled, fair, cuts through the entitlement b.s.

How could anyone prefer Hillary over Bernie?

He is upright, she is sleazy. By nature. Both of them, by nature.

[slipslidingaway]

169. I want these people to negotiate foreign and domestic policy for me! nt

[Bernin]

173. Bernie

continues to play Chess like Bobby Fischer.

Hill and the Weathervane gang have yet to figure out the rules to Tiddlywinks.

[MauriceLawrence96]

177. Sounds fair to me! nt

[nichomachus]

182. I suppose she'll have to check

And see if Wall Street has her booked for any more $50,000-a-plate appearances.

[Gregorian]

183. Who would you want negotiating on your behalf?

Looking at the logic of negotiation that Bernie Sanders has exhibited, it's clear he has far greater capability to deal with these kind of circumstances than Hillary Clinton.

This is a clear example of who is more qualified to be president.

[Betty Karlson]

184. And that is how a president negotiates: telling the other side to put their

money where their mouth is. And boy, does Clinton have a lot of money.

[silvershadow]

185. i keep asking DWS on her FB page about this..so far, no response. nt

[LiberalLovinLug]

189. BAM!!!!

[Ivan Kaputski]

191. Eat that DWS!

[Duval]

193. Perfect!

[Enthusiast]

195. Kicked and recommended a whole bunch!

[Duval]

198. K&R

[Uncle Joe]

201. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, kcjohn.

[cui bono]

204. One more condition should be added. Sanders campaign gets to approve or even select

the moderators.

.

[Babel_17]

208. Bingo

Alternatively, "J8", "you sunk their battleship".

[Babel_17]

209. The video response to the Sanders proposal

Go to the 36 second mark.

[PatrickforO]

211. Well, Clinton did say, "We need more vigorous debate..."

Perhaps a nice town hall format where Secretary Clinton does not have advance notice of the questions.

"I can SEE why they gave you this question..."

http://usuncut.com/politics/this-20-second-clip-probably-definitely-shows-dem-iowa-town-hall-questions-planted/

'Probably definitely' is kind of strange, but then so was the kid saying that.

Honestly, I think both Bernie and Hillary could do pretty well just thinking on their feet. So why the scripted questions courtesy of CNN????

Just askin'

[ronnykmarshall]

212. And STILL you all are complaining.

WTF? Hillary agreed and still you the Bernie peeps are throwing shade and shit.

We all wanted more debates, now put a cork in it.

Childish tantrums as usual.

[polichick]

215. Well done!

[Paka]

216. K&R