Why Is DNC Chairwoman Wasserman Schultz Afraid of Bernie Sanders and Martin O'Malley Debating Hillar

[elleng]

According to Ed Rogers of The Washington Post, DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz's "desire to hang onto some semblance of power" has resulted in a limited debate format for Democrats in 2016. In a recent piece titled The Insiders: Watching Debbie Wasserman Schultz grovel is painful, Rogers explains why establishment Democrats have decided to protect Hillary Clinton from a prolonged debate format:

This is Washington machine politics at its best -- or maybe its worst. In a year when others are struggling to distance themselves from Washington and politics as usual, Team Clinton is doing what they do best and engaging in blatant, self-serving manipulation...
As I've written before, the Clinton campaign is one that has to avoid crowds and the media, and the latter obviously includes live debates with opponents. Letting Chairwoman Wasserman Schultz prove her loyalty as a fixer is consistent with the predictable Clintonian modus operandi, even if it is misguided.
According to Rogers and many others, the secret is out and Washington D.C., as well as the rest of the nation knows exactly why the DNC wants half as many debates as the GOP. With an ongoing FBI investigation of Hillary Clinton's server and emails (remember, the FBI is only investigating Clinton's server, not Hillary Clinton), as well as U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan and other judges all part of the ongoing saga, it's no wonder that Congresswoman Wasserman Schultz wants to limit debate.

If you were the DNC chair, would you want Martin O'Malley asking Hillary Clinton on national television what the political reasons were for using a private server and thumb drive as a government employee? ((FWIW, I doubt very much that he'd bother with such a question.)) . . .

The history of the 2016 presidential election is still being written and it's not too late for Congresswoman Wasserman Schultz to do the right thing and expand the debate format. If Republicans can have twelve debates, why must Democrats be mired in only six? The Sanders campaign has given the Democratic Party life and energy, and Martin O'Malley once eloquently explained that the presidency "is not some crown to be passed between two families." Jim Webb and Lincoln Chafee also deserve to have their voices heard and their policies presented to millions of voters. Whatever Congresswoman Wasserman Schultz decides, she'll be remembered for generations as the DNC Chairwoman during a turning point in the Democratic Party's history.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/why-is-dnc-chairwoman-afraid-of-bernie-sanders-and-martin-omalley-debating-hillary-clinton_b_8087334.html

[bigtree]

1. she'll do fine with the email questions

...it's the policy questions she needs to worry about. MO'M has said the email stuff distracts from important discussions on issues. Shultz must be worried about maintaining the triangulation Hillary is attempting in this campaign through too many debates.

[elleng]

2. I agree.

And I suspect his articulate presence itself will be most telling and damaging to her.

[questionseverything]

28. her IT guy pleading the 5th

makes it more than a distraction

[hifiguy]

29. He's right.

And he has been right alot since getting into the race.

Simple answer - HRH is NOT good in the debate format. Sanders and O'Malley, from what I have seen of them, will be VERY good in it.

[99Forever]

3. +1

The answer is obvious.

[ibegurpard]

4. She has a lot more to answer for than this

Why is she still in her position after the disaster of 2014? Her retention is symptomatic of very serious structural problems in the party.

[bigdarryl]

14. Two words:President Obama

From what I've heard though who ever the democratic Party nominee is they have the option of picking another Chairman.

[LonePirate]

5. She doesn't want Sanders and O'Malley to receive the free media exposure offered by a debate.

She is merely following the corporate media's mantra in minimizing the public's access to candidates other than Hillary.

Personally, we need more debates simply to counter the incessant fellating of the Repub candidates by the mainstream media.

[kenfrequed]

12. Too true

Whoever we end up choosing, the voting public and the democratic base is not going to easily forgive the appearance of favoritism or coronations.

[rhett o rick]

6. The Wash DC Democratic Elites are willing to risk losing the election to assure

H. Clinton the nomination. The groundswell of populist interest in the Democratic Party will be squandered if the Party Elite pull shenanigans to get the Oligarchy's favorite into the general. Goldman-Sachs was audacious enough to admit that the Oligarchy would love either Clinton or Bush.

The grassroots Democrats have to wrest control of the Party from the puppets of the Oligarchy.

I believe that the Party Elites threatened Sen Warren to keep out of the race.

Don't give the DNC another nickel. Support candidates directly.

[elleng]

7. The grassroots Democrats have to wrest control of the Party from the puppets of the Oligarchy.

Haven't given the party anything in years.

[Motown_Johnny]

8. She must know that Hillary is a fatally flawed candidate,

and the more people see her the sooner they will catch on to it.

[rhett o rick]

9. Democracy at its worst. nm

[Uncle Joe]

10. Democracy Inaction.

[rhett o rick]

11. I've been told time and again here that winning is more important than values. nm

[Uncle Joe]

13. That's a misperceived political approach to the politicians' best interests, not the peoples. n/t

[rhett o rick]

15. Our founders were willing to risk their lives for a chance for freedom and liberty. Now we see the

non-progressive wing willing to sacrifice freedoms and liberties for something even they can't articulate. I believe that they want a strong authoritarian leader to take good care of them.

[Uncle Joe]

18. We've turned 180 degrees since then, thanks in large part to the corporate media's infatuation with

royalty.

Since 1980 the Bush or Clinton name has been continuously kept in front of the nation's consciousness either being the 1st or 2nd ranked nominee or election winner in 9 out of 10 Presidential races and this in a nation of over 300 million people.

What are the odds of that happening if not for corporate media propaganda manipulation of the American People?

If Coke and Pepsi were treated the same way, no one would drink water, tea, coffee, lemonade, fruit juice, milk, cocoa, and a countless list of other tasty and/or nutritious beverages.

Our choices in ice cream would be Vanilla and for the daring, French Vanilla.

We used to poke fun at the Soviet Union for their lack of choice, now we've embraced it.

[hifiguy]

30. Tell me about it, brother.

Sick to the teeth of it, too.

No more Turd Way Bullshit. Period.

[AtomicKitten]

16. DWS will not back down. The Clintons are the puppet-masters and the DNC will defer to them.

The 26 debates in 2007/08 allowed relative unknown Barack Obama the national exposure to ultimately win. The Clintons vis a vis the DNC are not going to make that "mistake" again. Over half (2 million) of Hillary's Twitter followers are fake/inactive. More than 65% of her Facebook likes are bought from third world countries like Myanamr, Thailand, etc. It's a facade to project strength and viability. Every time a poll emerges showing Bernie's epic climb, Hillary's campaign issues a "We've locked up 20% of the superdelegates" type response to try and minimize the news. In other words, it seems a great deal of her so-called frontrunner status is sustained through smoke and mirrors. They will take the Democratic Party down with them before DWS does the right thing.

[elleng]

17. Right again, AtomicKitten.

[AtomicKitten]

21. Cheers.

[arcane1]

33. Perfectly said.

[rhett o rick]

35. Agree. nm

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

19. Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Lord Acton

[elleng]

20. Exactly,

and here we are. Fortunately SOME of us are trying to change things, take power BACK!

[restorefreedom]

22. she knows her candidate is weak

and that sanders and om will have her lunch at a debate. she will do anything to try and shield hillary from the precipice that is waiting. if it costs the wh, she does not care. anything to get hillary the nom and prevent a real progressive from screwing with corporate power, which om and bs would both do

[elleng]

23. Right.

[restorefreedom]

24. my own secret (until now) fantasy

is to bring back mittens and have him debate the dem nom, which will (please universe) be either om or bs.

THAT would be something to see, in either case.

[elleng]

25. Right, one heckuva debate!

[restorefreedom]

26. truly popcorn worthy! nt

[hifiguy]

31. No matter who it is,

I'd bet something big that after 90 minutes on stage with either Bernie or Martin there would be nothing left of any of them but a pair of smoking shoes and an empty suit crumpled on the stage. Bambi, meet Gojiro!

[restorefreedom]

32. heh heh. but only if dws allows real questions. nt

[DonCoquixote]

27. here is what it is not

It is not because Hillary would not do fine.

Surprised, no, because I do think Hillary can debate, the problem is, DWS is incompetent, she knows it, and she knows if Hillary loses, the The powers that be will no longer save her from the millions of democrats that want her head, so she is doubling down on the controlling and stupid because she insists that medicine is what worked, even though she blew the mid terms with it.

[Puzzledtraveller]

34. Many of her positions would be hard to defend.

Particularly when contrasted against Bernie's.