DWS gets grilled by Jake Tapper; tries to spin her way out of explaining why she's preventing debate

[ram2008]

Painful- she looks like a deer in the headlights. You can tell she's not even convinced of her own lies...she needs to be fired. Video is self-explanatory.

Good for Jake on pressing her harder.

[Logical]

1. She needs to go! nt

[peacebird]

2. What a tool she is. "Lots of ways to reach voters" outside of debates, while M$M ignores Martin

& Bernie.... She is a total disgrace, hoping Hillarys billionaires will buy enough coverage to get Hill the WH and DWS whatever position she has been promised

[DashOneBravo]

3. Past time to go

I remember watching her on Anderson Cooper getting caught over some email. It was embarrassing.

[NightWatcher]

4. Did she admit, she's doing it for Hillary?

Hillary wants this handed to her without debate or challenge because it's her turn.

And DWS does what she's told...after checking with AIPAC first.

[ram2008]

5. Howard Dean admitted it today

"PLUM LINE: There’s been a dispute among the Sanders campaign and the Hillary campaign over the debates. Where are you on this?

DEAN: We were the ones that instituted six debates when I was chairman. The reason we did that was to protect the candidates…

...I don’t get upset with the DNC. I think they tried to do the right thing to protect the candidates

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/09/08/does-the-sanders-surge-pose-a-serious-threat-to-hillary-howard-dean-weighs-in/

Hmmm I wonder which candidate it protects?

[jfern]

8. Sanders and O' Malley repeatedly have called for more debates

Chafee and Webb probably have too, but no one pays them any attention. So, he really shouldn't have pluralized candidate.

[Capn Sunshine]

11. All of them

No one here seems very concerned about voter burnout.

We determined a few years back that six debates is enough so that the messages can get out there without creating a burnout factor.

What exactly is Bernie Sanders going to accomplish in seven or ten debates that he can't in six? The notion that Hillary needs our help or protection is ridiculous. Protection from what?

Does anyone on the Sanders Campaign understand this kind of carping makes them look ridiculous? Oh right, yes , they do. That's why it's only coming from a bunch of on line shit stirrers and not from the campaign. Them, and Martin O malley, because he definitely needs fifteen debates just to get recognized.

[jfern]

12. What voter burnout?

There were 26 debates in 2008, and it was the highest percentage of the vote for the Democratic nominee since 1964.

[ram2008]

13. Protection from her self-inflicted wounds

We've already seen the longer she's out in the open, the worse she does...

It also protects her from taking solid positions that could effect her in the general. The reason Obama was able to gradually chip away at her lead was because there were so many debates in 08.

If every candidate is saying they want more debates, why would the head of the DNC not approve it if not to protect a certain candidate who she is very close to?

[daleanime]

23. Who's this 'we'?

And if 'determined a few years ago' why were so many in the dark about it just a couple of months ago? And why is it so very important that republicans receive so much unchallenged air time?

The whole thing stinks to high heaven.

[tblue37]

27. Wider exposure to counter HRC's name recognition. Many people still know nothing about

where Bernie (or the others) stand. Televused debates spread the information about their positions to a much wider audience.

[cali]

30. wow. spin until you're dizzy

[jeff47]

36. Why is that your decision to make?

Take away the exclusivity clause. Leave it up to the candidates to decide whether or not a debate is beneficial. They should be the experts on their own campaigns, right?

[frylock]

38. Once again, it's not the number of debates, but the exclusivity clause..

why does this have to be explained over and over and over and.....?

[jwirr]

40. We agreed on six debates? In the 2008 campaign there

were 20 some debates. IMO that is too many but the truth is no one is forced to watch every debate. Yet if we have debates at the beginning of the election and they are over early what about the people in the last elections who will be voting much later and are not interested this early.

Also issues change as the campaign progresses. Addressing those changes is of interest to the people and can be addressed in a later debate.

But what I really resent is the exclusivity clause. Is there anything Democratic or democratic about limiting other debates if the DNC does not want to host them? We adopted this idea from the Rs.

[Uncle Joe]

19. Debates aren't for the candidates, they're for the American People and "protecting" candidates from

exposure to the people is a major disservice to our democratic republic.

It sells the American Peoples' best interests short and only serves to dumb the citizenry down just when they need to be most enlightened or educated.

[oasis]

21. In the word, "Candidates", the "s" is all important. But

I'm guessing you knew that.

[Fawke Em]

43. Protect them from what?

[enough]

6. Yikes, she's awful. That's the first time I've seen her actually talking.

How did this happen, her being in that job? And who would be better?

[appalachiablue]

10. Jennifer Granholm, fmr Gov. of Michigan has been brought up here recently as a new head.

Before DWS it was Howard Dean, before him Terry McAuliffe, current Gov. of VA. He was a good fundraiser I believe.
What's stunning is the confidence and demeanor of WS, and how she deliberately talks around Tapper and doesn't care when he re-emphasizes the objections.
One of the debates, in December, is set for the Saturday before Christmas. The last shopping, errand day and when many employers have their holiday party.
Guess this shows where Dem. voters and party members stand. Couldn't be clearer. The power...
Reminds me of a friend who told their spouse to stop having an affair to which the spouse replied, 'So sue me'.

[daleanime]

24. +1

[Le Taz Hot]

15. She was part of Hillary's consolation package.

Hillary was given the S.O.S. job along with being able to name her good friend, DWS as the head of the DNC. Nice work if you can get it. But DWS isn't showing any kind of partisanship by limiting the number of debates and prohibiting any of the Democratic Party candidates from participating in any outside debates so . . . stop saying that!

[bigdarryl]

7. Jesus what an embarrassment

Clearly she's the worst in that job.Hey Deb how many races are you going to loose in 2016.

[Skwmom]

9. So after a perverted primary process we are just supposed to fall in line in the general election?

Really? I think the geniuses in charge are really miscalculating how fed up people are.

[HereSince1628]

34. As Rahm said... where else they gonna go?

They truly believe they have the left caged.

The way out of that can't involve those enforcing the incarceration.

[Skwmom]

37. On election day, we can stay home. n/t

[HereSince1628]

39. Well, I get a chance to vote for Feingold ...

There needs to be a progressive dem voting bloc that competes neoliberal New Dems

As we encounter people like Sanders and Warren we need to convince them there really -is- a progressive bloc of voters who will work to pull them through for them so that they'll step up and risk running.

[jwirr]

41. Unfortunately I think you are right. All those people

that are coming back into the party to follow Bernie will not want to stick around to help the nominee if this is the game they are playing.

This is why many of them left in the first place.

[Le Taz Hot]

14. Well, we know what the talking point is:

"Our candidates are enthusiastic about the debates . . ." She says it I don't know how many times, word for word.

[BuelahWitch]

29. We should have a party representative who can at least field media questions decently

Repeating talking points over and over does not do her or the candidates any favors. She knows she's in the wrong, but digs in those heels when challenged.

[rhett o rick]

16. She is a tool of the oligarchy and she doesn't care if anyone knows.

I think they are making a big mistake if they think that they can steal the nomination and the millions of Sanders followers will follow them like sheep. Those supporting Sen Sanders are doing it because they are fracking tired of H. Clinton/Goldman-Sachs and the fracking status quo that is killing American children.

[RBInMaine]

31. This kind of talk is off the rails.

[rhett o rick]

35. If it's so far off the rails then it'd be easy to dispute.

I will be glad to tell you what I think is off the rails. The Princeton Study confirmed that we do not live in a democracy but an oligarchy where the billionaires and their puppets rule. They obviously have turned the complete Republican Party into clowns and have co opted the leadership of the Democratic Party. The DNC is being run by a tyrant. She has blatantly said that she will not answer to the grassroots and will severely limit debates which favors H. Clinton. The Clinton's wealth make them members in good standing of the 1%. H. Clinton has been very friendly to Goldman-Sachs and they love her or Jeb. When asked how she will fix the growing problem of wealth inequality, she tap-danced around the question and said that growing the economy will be the answer. Think about that. Growing the economy for the last 30 years means increasing profits for the corporations and exacerbates wealth inequality. Her solutions for college help is to ask taxpayers to pay the bill NOT THE 1%.

While things get worse and worse every day with regard to jobs, health care, college tuition, wars, environmental damage, NSA/CIA/Google/ATT spying, poverty, etc., she offers eight more years of the establishment status quo and some here are fine with that.

Well while some are in denial about the hundreds of thousands of deaths in the middle east, NSA/CIA spying, a poverty rate of 22% of American children, there are millions coming alive with the thought of real change. Not the bullcrap change that Obama promised then immediately forgot, but real change.

[Skwmom]

17. Oct 13th - First Debate. Oct 10th - Farrakhan's March on DC - Justice or Else.

Mere coincidence...

[Uncle Joe]

18. Debate's aren't "just one way" that the candidates can reach the people, it's a "major way!"

Schultz really needs to go, she's either lost touch or just doesn't care about giving the American People the highest quality information to use in their deliberations in determining which candidate would be best to occupy the White House.

Schultz is working to dumb the people down and it's pathetic.

Thanks for the thread, ram.

[Old Crow]

20. Yuck.

So much bureaucratese and doublespeak. She embodies much of what's wrong with American politics today.

She needs to be replaced. Like Yesterday.

[840high]

22. ...+1

[Duckhunter935]

33. This ^^^^^

[cherokeeprogressive]

25. NEVER forget she was the co-chair of Hillary's failed presidential bid. n/t

[Geronimoe]

26. Do the math

Lessing will be entering race and possibly Biden. So we have 6 debates and 6 or 7 candidates. Subtracting out commercials, moderator time, and stupid questions, leaves about 45 minutes for each candidate to address his/her policies concerning many serious issues facing the Nation. Figure there are at least 10 critical issues plus debate, going back and forth between candidates, we end up with about 3 minutes for each issue. 3 minutes for Global Warming, 3 minutes for education, 3 minutes for economy, etc.

Limiting debates could reduce voters going to the polls.

The exclusivity is also undemocratic any of the candidate should be able to have a debate with another candidate, any time and at any place. If Sanders and O'Maley want to hold a debate on C-Span they should be allowed to do so.

[silenttigersong]

28. I think

she should step down because of real or imagined bias.The DnC should compromise and add some more Debates.Petition her.

[jwirr]

42. There are many petitions out there. No one is listening.

[Duckhunter935]

32. She should already be gone