Why would anyone run as a Democrat if they feel this way?

[Uncle Joe]

DNC Chair Closes Door On More Debates

Democratic National Committee (DNC) Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz is closing the door on adding more Democratic presidential debates, and says that a controversial clause penalizing candidates for participating in unsanctioned debates will stand.

Speaking at a breakfast with reporters hosted by The Christian Science Monitor, Wasserman Schultz said the debate schedule was final and there would be no changes.

“We’re not changing the process. We’re having six debates,” said Wasserman Schultz, who has been under fire from several Democratic presidential candidates over the debates. “The candidates will be uninvited from subsequent debates if they accept an invitation to anything outside of the six sanctioned debates.”

(snip)

Regarding the exclusivity clause, Wasserman Schultz said it was to ensure the “debate process doesn’t get out of control.” She cited 2008, when the party sanctioned six debates but the candidates participated in about two dozen.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1204295

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/07/17/1403055/-DNC-Accused-of-Rigging-Debate-Schedule-to-Benefit-Hillary-Clinton#

In 2008, there were eight candidates running for the nomination. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, Bill Richardson, John Edward, Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel. There were a total of 26 presidential debates and the first was on April 26, 2007 in Orangeburg, South Carolina. Two more debates were conducted in June, another two in July and by the end of August, a total of nine debates had been conducted. By the end of December, a full 17 debates had been aired.

It wasn't until January 3, 2008 when the first candidates, Joe Biden and Chris Dodd withdrew from the race. They were followed by Bill Richardson on January 9, Dennis Kucinich on the 24th and John Edwards on the 30th.

(snip)

Democratic presidential candidates will have to meet a certain “threshold” to participate in the party’s six scheduled primary debates, Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz said Thursday, though she did not specify which criteria, such as state or national polling, will be used to determine who qualifies.

(snip)

Apparently, they just haven't decided what criteria to use to eliminate our candidates participation, but hey, they're working on it and they'll let us know when they decide! With only five candidates running, I'm really have to wonder why they want to eliminate any of them.

On the face of it, Democratic Party implies a belief in democracy, the power of a well informed electorate to deliberate on the critical issues of the day affecting their lives.

The debates are more for the American People than the candidates.

So when people toss out a but he/she is/was an independent not a "Democrat" what is a Democrat other than a label?

People have asked When will Bernie join the Democratic Party" and I'm wondering when will the Democratic Party live up to its highest ideals?

[cherokeeprogressive]

1. The DNC threatens punishment for candidates who wish to debate as much as possible...

Who ever heard of such a thing?

[Uncle Joe]

3. That's about as close as you can come to violating the First Amendment without violating it.

[emulatorloo]

76. Only the government can violate the First Amendment

That being said, DWS should resign from the DNC

[Uncle Joe]

78. Is Congresswoman Schultz and the Democratic Party part of the government?

That's about as close as you can come to violating the First Amendment without violating it.

[emulatorloo]

81. No

Therefore the First Amendment doesn't apply.

Must have misunderstood you, I thought you were implying that this was a borderline violation of the First Amendment by the DNC.

I guess I was just confused that you had brought up First Amendment violations in relation to a non-governmental body.

I moderate another website, occasionally members claim we are violating their First Amendment rights. Maybe I have that too much on my brain today.

[Uncle Joe]

82. Congresswoman Schultz and the Democratic Party are intricately tied to the government

as is the Republican Party.

While I don't believe this violates the First Amendment in fact it most certainly does in spirit.

[emulatorloo]

86. No, DNC and RNC are political organization, not government agencies.

At any rate I think, as you do, that DWS is doing a horrible job and ought to go.

[Uncle Joe]

88. They are political organizations but their overwhelming ties to every level of government

can't be denied.

I'm glad that we're agreement in regards to your second sentence.

Peace to you, emulatorloo.

[mythology]

97. No it's really not. If you think it does, you don't understand the first amendment

The first amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Please point to a law that Congress has passed relating to this. And if you're really standing on principle that the debates are somehow sacrosanct, why are you not calling for the inclusion of Willie Wilson, Robby Wells, Lawrence Lessig, Harry Braun and Jeff Boss? They are all official candidates.

Also there will likely be 3 debates between the Democratic and Republican nominees. I don't remember people complaining that 3 debates was too few between either Obama and McCain or Obama and Romney.

Personally I think 6 is enough and I think doing more to shorten the primary calendar would be good. It's silly that the first primaries are in January for an election that isn't until November. Britain manages to hold elections in 6 weeks. Republicans held a primary debate/debacle 14 months before the actual election. It's become utterly absurd and detrimental to U.S. democracy as elected officials are constantly raising money or their profile to either run for reelection or a higher office.

[Uncle Joe]

98. 1. You didn't understand my sentence.

That's about as close as you can come to violating the First Amendment without violating it.

This is a violation of the First Amendment if not by the letter of the law, certainly so in spirit by one of the two major political parties controlling and/or intimately tied not only to Congress but all levels of government.



2. Congresswoman Schultz is a member of Congress, she determined that six, cynically manipulated debates scheduled for when they will most likely not be viewed is enough, the five declared Democratic Candidates have expressed their view that we should have more debates, supposedly even the front runner at this time.

3. If the the candidates hold debates that aren't sanctioned by the DNC, they will be punished, why is this so?

If the campaign season were shortened as you suggest, corruptive big money and celebrity would absolutely rule the day, the only reason the other declared Democratic and Republican candidates stand a chance to ultimately win other than their messages is the ample time given to get their messages out to a nation of over 300 million citizens.

As for the general election, I don't have any problem with having more than three debates between the Democrat and Republican nominees.

As for me, the more the better, a well informed electorate will best serve the nation and relying solely on slanted big money television commercials and advertising is a disservice to the American People.

[bvar22]

2. How "good" a Democrat is DWS, and WHY is she the chair of the DNC?

Lets take a look:

In 2008 Debbie Wasserman Schultz refused to endorse these 3 Democrats
who had won their Primaries and had a chance to win Republican seats:

Miami-Dade Democratic Party Chair Joe Garcia

Former Hialeah Democratic Mayor Raul Martinez

Democratic businesswoman Annette Taddeo

All three had won their local Democratic Primaries, and were challenging Hard Core Republican incumbents with whom Wasserman-Schultz had become cozy.
Not only did the head of the DCCC Red to Blue Program REFUSE to endorse these Democratic challengers,
but she appeared in person at at least one (possibly more) Campaign/Fundraiser for their Republican opponents.



FL-18, FL-21, FL-25: Wasserman Schultz Wants Dem Challengers to Lose
by: James L.
Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 7:15 PM EDT
<snip>

Sensing a shift in the political climate of the traditionally solid-GOP turf of the Miami area, Democrats have lined up three strong challengers -- Miami-Dade Democratic Party chair Joe Garcia, former Hialeah Mayor Raul Martinez, and businesswoman Annette Taddeo to take on Reps. Mario Diaz-Balart, Lincoln Diaz-Balart and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, respectively.

While there is an enormous sense of excitement and optimism surrounding these candidacies, some Democratic lawmakers, including Florida Reps. Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Kendrick Meek, are all too eager to kneecap these Democratic challengers right out of the starting gate in the spirit of "comity" and "bipartisan cooperation" with their Republican colleagues:

But as three Miami Democrats look to unseat three of her South Florida Republican colleagues, Wasserman Schultz is staying on the sidelines. So is Rep. Kendrick Meek, a Miami Democrat and loyal ally to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

This time around, Wasserman Schultz and Meek say their relationships with the Republican incumbents, Reps. Lincoln Diaz-Balart and his brother Mario, and Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, leave them little choice but to sit out the three races.

"At the end of the day, we need a member who isn't going to pull any punches, who isn't going to be hesitant," Wasserman Schultz said.

Now, you'd expect this kind of bullshit from a backbencher like Alcee Hastings, but you wouldn't expect this kind of behavior from the co-chair of the DCCC's Red to Blue program, which is the position that Wasserman Schultz currently holds. Apparently, Debbie did not get Rahm's memo about doing whatever it takes to win:

The national party, enthusiastic about the three Democratic challengers, has not yet selected Red to Blue participants. But Wasserman Schultz has already told the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee that if any of the three make the cut, another Democrat should be assigned to the race.

http://www.swingstateproject.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1537

The bloggers also are furious with Rep. Kendrick B. Meek (D-Fla.), who similarly refuses to endorse the Democratic challengers to the three Cuban American Republicans.

They are calling for Wasserman Schultz to step down from her leadership role at the DCCC. And they're not letting up, even after one Florida liberal blogger reported that the congresswoman seemed "frustrated" by the blogs and had asked to "please help get them off my back."

This prompted even harsher reaction from perhaps the most influential of the progressive political bloggers, Markos Moulitsas, a.k.a. Kos, founder of Daily Kos, who wrote on his blog Wednesday: "On so many fronts, the Republicans are standing in the way of progress, on Iraq, SCHIP, health care, fiscal responsibility, corruption, civil liberties, and so on. Those three south Florida Republicans are part of that problem. And she's (Wasserman-Schultz) going to be 'frustrated' that people demand she do her job?"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/19/AR2008031903410_3.html

Here are Kos comments on the Wasserman-Schultz betrayal of the Democratic Party:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/03/20/480511/-DCCC-Says-Uproar-Over-DWS-Recusal-Much-Ado-About-Nothing


So WHY was DWS promoted to the chair of the DNC?
Because the Party Leadership wanted here there,
which BEGS the question.......?




A lot of time has passed since 2008, but I don't take these kinds of betrayals lightly.

bvar22
Cursed with a memory

"I want to thank Debbie Wasserman-Schultz for being an outstanding chair of our party. (Applause.) She is a great partner."--President Obama

With "partners" like this, we don't need Republicans!

[Uncle Joe]

5. Thanks for the historical addition, bvar.

Peace to you.

[JDPriestly]

18. Debbie Wasserman Schultz needs to change her policy on the debates.

Her management of the DNC is beginning to feel like we could have 1968 all over again next year.

That would be extremely unfortunate for our country -- as it was in 1968.

DWS needs to step down and we need a DNC chair who has no favorite in the Democratic Party race (if such a person exists) or who at least is willing to be fair.

Oh, well. Bernie will win any way.

Just watched a couple of his videos today. He is such a strong candidate. I have neverf seen anything like it in my life.

[RKP5637]

32. Agree! "DWS needs to step down!" n/t

[Scuba]

68. Yet some still deny that our party has been hijacked by conservatives.

[L0oniX]

89. With Dems like Kim Davis the party label doesn't seem to mean much.

[NorthCarolina]

4. If Hillary continues her decline, there WILL be more debates.

She'll demand it, just as she did when polling placed her 2nd fiddle to Obama.

[Uncle Joe]

7. I thought about making an OP just to that point.

Schultz will expand the Democratic Debates when any announced candidate exceeds Hillary Clinton in the national polls.

Suddenly there will be an epiphany, a new awakening to the power and intrinsic value of democracy, but not a moment before.

Peace to you, NorthCarolina.

[NorthCarolina]

10. It's obvious really. As soon as the advantage becomes a disadvantage,

they will gladly make the change....and all they have to do is say "We've listened to our base who have been demanding more debates and so...yadda, yadda, yadda.

So predictable really.

[Fawke Em]

43. After the latest polling, that will be in about a month. eom

[NorthCarolina]

44. Or sooner. eom

[RufusTFirefly]

6. Additional debates might give unfair advantage to voters over contributors

And we can't have that, now can we?

I watch in horror as it becomes all too clear that candidates are products, contributors are investors, and voters, rather than serving as citizens, are merely consumers.

[Uncle Joe]

9. You nailed it, RufusTFirefly.

[RufusTFirefly]

31. Thanks, Uncle Joe!

And thanks for the OP!

[Fairgo]

48. Succinct, like a punch in the nose

If corporations = people and money = speech, then capitalism = democracy. It is truly horrifying logic.

[L0oniX]

91. ^^^this^^^

[merrily]

92. BOOM!

[Spitfire of ATJ]

94. They sell us the president the same way they sell us our clothes and our cars.

[stuffmatters]

95. Yes, DWSchultz is apparently a huge supporter of SCOTUS Citizens United

She's clearly stopping, prohibiting tens of millions of dollars in free MSM airtime for the candidates' Dem message. That's a gap that has to be filled with MIC,Wall Street, Big Pharma,Big Oil, private prisons ads via donations to DWS and "her" DNC.


I doubt there will ever be a DNC ad explaining that the necessary adjustment to soc sec is to "scrap the cap" so both millionaires and the corps that employ them must pay automatically the same % of salary as nurses, or a DNC ad promoting the right for medicare to negotiate drug prices & all Americans to buy Canadian, or any solutions to carried interest,introversion, double irish tax tricks, any outrage that the unfuctioni8ng F-35 has cost taxpayers over a trillion dollars....nope none of these would be ads from the DNC because of their "conflict of interest" with their donors.

The DNC under DWS Schultz does not represent the "Democratic wing of the Democratic Party" It's Third Way, pro Wall Street all the way. With her in (apparently) omnipotence, there will be a very limited, public debate exposure for the truly Populist and overwhelmingly popular message of our Party to reach American voters.

Instead DWS has decided that the Dem/DNC message should be delivered by ads sponsored by corps and wealthy who benefit most from tax subsidies and both financial and criminal protections in the existing status quo. She's giving Democracy a big thumbs down and Citizens United a resounding thumbs up.

Yep, what kind of Democrat thinks like that?

[NorthCarolina]

8. They will not be able to decide on the criteria to use for participation until

the final moment. If they were to make that decision now, they would lose any exclusionary power.

To be honest, I'm quite sure they are sweating just the six debates since it is 5 more debates than Bernie will need to expose Hillary as the Wall Street water girl that she is.

[Uncle Joe]

11. Schultz also scheduled the debates for when they would most likely not be viewed.

Holiday weekends instead of during the week, limited in number and at the last moment before the primaries and caucuses.

[NorthCarolina]

13. Of course,

look at where each candidate stands on the issues important to Americans.

Social Security: Clinton, means testing, cuts, raise retirement age. Bernie Increase cap, expand benefits.

Iraq War: Clinton FOR Bernie AGAINST

TPP: Clinton Played a major role in drafting it. Bernie NO

Healthcare: Clinton, for profit Insurance middleman in the mix. Bernie, Single payer.

and on, and on.

Knowing where the bulk of Americans are on each of these salient issues, wouldn't you also try to prevent folks from watching it to the largest extent possible if it was your job to protect the status quo?

[Uncle Joe]

15. Much of the corporate media is in collusion with obfuscating the issues as well, ie: Wolf Blitzer's

interview with Bernie, not once did Blitzer ask a direct question or even make a rebuttal regarding the issues it was all about personality and the horse race, Bernie to his credit stayed on message.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1017&pid=292533

[NorthCarolina]

17. Yes, but to his credit Bernie got his positions on the issues out regardless. eom

[JDPriestly]

21. To no avail. We have YouTube.

I'm trying to figure out if there is some way to take Bernie videos and show them to the public when I table. Any ideas?

[Uncle Joe]

29. I agree, JDPriestly, the Internet is a most valuable First Amendment enhancer, but

we shouldn't underestimate the power of the establishment corporate media's ability to take snippets of a very few debates and run them adnauseum on television, television is still a powerful medium when it comes to brainwashing the people.

With few televised debates there is less chance for the candidates to clarify their positions or clear the air regarding misperceptions of their positions on the issues or for that matter anything else.

[Fawke Em]

45. Download them to a thumb drive and play them on a laptop, surface or tablet.

My company has videos and powerpoints we stream on a laptop when we table at conferences.

[frylock]

33. The December 19 debate is also going up against the Jets-Cowboys game

[Uncle Joe]

36. I'm sure that was just a cosmic coincidence....

and you know the people most likely to be reached had it not been, that would be Trump's misdirected minions.

[frylock]

37. What do you want to bet that Trump will be at the game in Jerry Jones' suite?

Getting all kinds of free pub and face time. Another brilliant PR maneuver by Debbie Waterboy.

[Uncle Joe]

39. I wouldn't take a bet against that, frylock.

[left-of-center2012]

12. There will be more debates !!!

When Hillary decides it's to her advantage,
and she orders DWS to do so.

[Historic NY]

14. How Democratic debates many were held in 2000?

Maybe the DNC should use FOX wouldn't that be a hoot.

The DSP has ponied up even a thin mint.

[Uncle Joe]

35. There were two democratic primary candidates in 2000 and they held nine debates.

One other point, in 2000 the primaries weren't as compacted as they are today.

[Gman]

16. The only thing more debates will accomplish

Is to give more exposure to candidates that have no significant money.

[NorthCarolina]

19. What has "money" got to do with it?

American Democracy has a Pay to Play requirement? I don't recall discussing that in civics class...of course that was back in the 70's...when they still had civics classes.

[Uncle Joe]

23. The Republican dominated Supreme Court did say that money was speech and elevated

the almighty dollar over the actual voices of the people.

Schultz has taken that message to heart.

[NorthCarolina]

26. She has taken that message to her own political detriment.

I am inclined to believe she is currently serving her last term in the US House of Representatives.

[Gman]

25. It's the stuff they didn't talk about in class.

[NorthCarolina]

27. LOL...

I guess you're right. They taught us that ANYONE regardless of their means could run for public office. Those lying bastards!!!!

Actually, at one point in time I do believe that was correct. Now Bernie wants to return us to that style of Government. Do we really want to turn back the clock and have an actual Democracy again? Hmmm, I guess I actually do!

[Uncle Joe]

20. Yes but it isn't the candidates that Schultz is afraid of, it's their competing ideas and arguments

which strongly resonate with the American People.

It's all about protecting the status quo establishment and not rocking the boat by moving the U.S. significantly into the 21st Century.

[frylock]

34. And we can't have that.

[WillyT]

22. Thanks For The Tread, Uncle Joe !!!

[Uncle Joe]

24. Thank you, WillyT.

[Dustlawyer]

28. If the only penalty is not getting in any of the DNC debates they should agree to boycott the

Democratic debates and have their own. Hillary can debate herself!

[Uncle Joe]

30. I agree in principle, but I see two problems with that approach.

1. The corporate media would be unlikely to cover independent debates to any real extent

2. I believe by bucking the DNC, the candidates would make an already tough job of getting super-delegate endorsements all the more difficult.

[Marty McGraw]

93. That would give her

perfect control of the Venue that the DNC is looking for. She'll master debate in the corner while the true winners of society go out and speak what is really needed to be discussed with the nation.

(you just had to set me up for that one didn't ya DL)

[Arugula Latte]

38. DWS the DINO has got to go.

[tomm2thumbs]

40. I can think of a few other words for those initials

and they aren't kind

[blackspade]

41. The DNC is full of political hacks

And DWS is the head hack in this pathetic morass of crap.

[Uncle Joe]

42. And Schultz is doing nothing but helping the Republican Party on multiple levels, especially Trump

http://www.fbschedules.com/nfl-15/2015-dallas-cowboys-football-schedule.php

Saturday
Dec. 19 Jets New York Jets
AT&T Stadium, Arlington, TX 8:25pm ET
NFLN Buy
Tickets

Saturday, December 19, 2015
ABC News Democratic Primary Debate
Location: Manchester, New Hampshire
Sponsors: ABC News, WMUR
Candidates: TBD

Read more at http://www.2016presidentialdebateschedule.com/2016-debate-schedule/2016-democratic-primary-debate-schedule/#7yZMKmXpxkqFw8Dz.99

[blackspade]

49. Yeah, I've seen that before...

But that is good to keep circulating!

[Uncle Joe]

50. That's the way I feel, blackspade, we have to do whatever we can to offset

the emphasis on slanted big money commercials to rule the day.

Peace to you

[RoccoR5955]

46. AFAIC The DNC has not been

democratic (small d) for quite some time.
Their middle of the road stance, their refusal to fight, and do every thing to "compromise," thus giving up any of their demands, is far from democratic.

[Phlem]

47. The Third Way minions have penetrated and lodged itself in all aspects

of government just as Bush's have during his abomination of 8 years.
They have mated and had babies, if we want the party back we need to lean left.
Left of center is in no where near center and start replacing centrists because they are not.

They are the keepers of the status quo.

Obama pulled the party to the right when he threw the "Professional Left" under the bus on FOX news.

[MohRokTah]

51. Why would somebody run for the Democratic nomination when they are not even a Democrat?

[Uncle Joe]

52. Because first and foremost, they're an American, having said that if their ideas, message and

arguments didn't resonate with the American People, they wouldn't even register as a blip on the Democratic political screen.

[MohRokTah]

53. See my sig. eom

[Uncle Joe]

54. So if Bernie wins the

Democratic nomination, you're going to sit out and not vote because a label means more to you than the issues?

[MohRokTah]

55. I reserve that right since there would be no Democrat on the ballot. eom

[Uncle Joe]

56. That answers that question, thanks for your candor, MohRokTah.

I'm curious though what does "Democrat" mean to you, other than being an official member of a political party, in your mind, what kind of ideals or values does the Democratic Party stand for?

Should money trump free speech?

[MohRokTah]

57. A Democrat is a member of the party. eom

[Uncle Joe]

58. So it literally makes no difference what that Democrat believes so long as they're a member

of the party?

[MohRokTah]

59. Willingness to join and be loyal to the party holds much weight.

I would sit out an election where Lincoln Chaffee or Jim Webb were nominated as they are both Republicans.

[Uncle Joe]

60. What does "loyal to the party" mean? Can an organization only be changed for the better

from the inside?

Can an "outsider" greatly influence and even aid a struggling political party?

[MohRokTah]

61. For me, yes to your first question and no to your second. eom

[Uncle Joe]

62. An yet Bernie's track record along with testimony from many major Democratic Leaders

would suggest otherwise.

[sibelian]

77. Stalinist bilge.

"A democrat" is whatever you say it is.

This is utter drivel.

[cui bono]

64. So what policies that Bernie fights for do you disagree with?

[slipslidingaway]

65. "...when will the Democratic Party live up to its highest ideals?"

that is a question that needs to be asked!!!

The younger generation is asking this question and not getting answers.

They are not as constrained by the old labels, they could care less what letter is, or is not, after a candidates names.

Many of them care more about the issues than a label, we should pay attention.

[Uncle Joe]

66. And in this regard and so many others, Bernie Sanders is greatly helping the Democratic Party

I fervently hope they take his message to heed.

I'm gong to bed, have a good night and peace to you, slipslidingaway.

[slipslidingaway]

67. From my view the younger generation will either vote FOR a candidate or not at all ...

they will not be boxed into voting for the lesser of two evils, they will just sit out this election if need be.

In a way they are smarter than we are, they will not be pushed into a corner between the two corporate parties.

[Scuba]

69. Yet some still deny that our party has been hijacked by conservatives.

[rosesaylavee]

70. The "certain threshold”

phrase is what gets me. If I were the Sanders or O'Malley campaigns, I would take that as threat. Some people just can't handle power well and Debbie Wasserman Schultz will be well remembered for this -- well beyond 2016.

Thanks for the great post -- thoroughly agree with you on all the points. Exactly when will the Democratic Party live up to it's highest ideals?

I am thinking of becoming an Independent after this election. Not that I think 'both parties alike' but am not sure I want to be affiliated with this behavior.

[Uncle Joe]

72. rosesaylavee, it's good to see you here.

[wyldwolf]

71. Why would anyone run as a Democrat if they feel this way?

"It would be hypocritical of me to run as a Democrat because of the things I have said about the party."

"The Democratic and Republican parties are tweedle-dee and tweedle-dum."

“Why should we work within the Democratic Party if we don’t agree with anything the Democratic Party says?”

“I am extremely proud to be an independent. The fact that I am not a Democrat gives me the freedom to speak out on the floor of the House, to vote against both the Democratic and Republican proposals.”

[bvar22]

73. Probably because he feels THIS way:

Cornerstones of the Democratic Party

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be[font size=3] established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.[/font]

Among these are:

*The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

*The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

*The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

*The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

*The right of every family to a decent home;

*The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

*The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

*The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

[font size=3]America's own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for all our citizens.[/font]

Please note that the above are stipulated as Basic Human RIGHTS to be protected by our government,
and NOT as COMMODITIES to be SOLD to Americans by For Profit Corporations.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

84. That second Bill of Rights, as well as the first,

that's what I want the Democratic Party to fight for.

“This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights… They were our rights to life and liberty. As our Nation has grown in size and stature, however — as our industrial economy expanded — these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.” But, he continued: “We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence."

http://www.rooseveltinstitute.org/new-roosevelt/fdr-s-second-bill-rights-necessitous-men-are-not-free-men

All of those RWers and Libertarians who claim to care most about freedom need to recognize that fact. The Democratic party needs to lead the way. If not, maybe we need a new party.

[bvar22]

85. Either that,

or a revival/revolution inside the Democratic Party that returns us to the values and ideals that made our Party GREAT.
The Economic Policies of FDR-LBJ built the largest, wealthiest, and most upwardly mobile Working/Middle Class that World had ever seen.
We KNOW what works.
Lets try that again,
.
.
.
.
but first we have to get rid of the Republican-Lites that have fought against progress (except for the 1%)
ever since Reagan.

[Uncle Joe]

74. Actions and track record matter more than words

http://ballotpedia.org/Bernie_Sanders

Bernard "Bernie" Sanders (b. September 8, 1941, in Brooklyn, N.Y.) is an Independent member of the U.S. Senate from the state of Vermont. Sanders was first elected to the Senate in 2006. While he considers himself a socialist and ran as an Independent, he is a member of the Senate Democratic Caucus.[1][2]

(snip)

Based on analysis of multiple outside rankings, Sanders is an average Democratic member of Congress, meaning he will vote with the Democratic Party on the majority of bills.

and a nice historical post by bvar on this thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=586069

How "good" a Democrat is DWS, and WHY is she the chair of the DNC?

[Attorney in Texas]

75. US election campaigns are WAY, WAY, WAY longer then the campaigns in every other democracy on the

planet.

Shortening the campaign is not a bad thing. It is not an "antidemocratic" thing. The idea of restricting the number of debates and controlling the format of those debates is not a new idea or an idea that has found support in only one party. Both parties limit the number of debates and set parameters for those debates, and that has been true for many election cycles now.

Both the Republicans and the Democrats had an unprecedented number of debates in 2008 for Democrats and 2012 for Republicans. The common perception was that (1) debates before the voters were paying attention were not very helpful, (2) lots of debates led to voter fatigue and burnout with the candidates, and (3) too many of the debates actually helped the opposing party gather soundbites for use in the general election.

The restricted number of 2015-2016 debates (both by the parties) was a reaction to these concerns. I might have preferred more debates, but there is nothing "evil" or a "conspiracy" about the debate schedule.

If there are not enough debates for your taste (or my taste), that is probably because you and I are "high information" voters. The amount of information and debates that you or I would prefer is WAY too much information for the average voter. The debate schedule to set to accommodate the average voter, which is naturally frustrating to you and me.

[Uncle Joe]

80. Sure it is, this isn't just a question of restricting the debates to only six, although that's

part of the problem.

The cynical and manipulative scheduling of those debates to times when they would least likely be viewed is also a factor

I also dispute your contention that the number of debates doesn't aid the political party with the additional air time, in 2008 the Democrats gained advantage and in 2012 the same held true for the Republicans.

If you and I have the advantage (unless you don't consider it an advantage) of being "high information voters," the answer isn't to keep the low information people in the dark or dumb them down, but to do everything in our power to elevate their awareness, this can only help our nation.

A well informed electorate is critical to our nation's success and we shouldn't abandon that concept, just to give aid and comfort to the ignorant.

Furthermore our nation is too large, diverse and spread out to gain any benefit by shortening the campaign season unless you're absolutely enthralled by the almighty dollar and celebrity, this holds especially true after "Citizens United."

[Attorney in Texas]

83. No one is keeping the voters in the dark. The debates are scheduled when they are paying attention

rather than in the months before most people pay attention.

The debates aren't scheduled when they would be least likely to be viewed; they're scheduled when they would be most likely to be viewed.

Do you think the early debates are helping the Republican field? The answer isn't just NO; it's HELL NO.

Sanders is building his grassroots campaign at an appropriate pace (and doing a flawless job). Why rush it? Clinton is building her campaign in her way. Why not leave her to that task?

Why the rush to nationalize the campaign when it is working out perfectly for Sanders at the exact pace we are on right now? Give Sanders the time to expand his grassroots campaign beyond Iowa and New Hampshire without rushing to a national campaign which will be more about money and less about grassroots support.

The earlier the campaign goes national, the more expensive it will be. If the campaign becomes more expensive sooner, that will favor money politics and put fundraising ahead of policy. Who wants that? Every Democracy in the world EXCEPT the US (where $$$ = free speech under Citizens United) believes a campaign costing millions and just a couple months is sufficient to inform the voters. Only in the US do campaigns cost billions and last a year and a half. Do you really think we are doing it right and the rest of the globe is wrong?

If you agree that US campaigns are too expensive, you should also consider that the length of our campaigns is a big part of why they are so expensive. If you want to schedule debates earlier and earlier, you are doubling down on lengthy and expensive campaigns. Who does that favor?

[Uncle Joe]

87. 3 of the first four debates are scheduled for the weekend not the week, when they're most likely

to be viewed.

The Dec 19th debate is not only on a holiday weekend when most people are out at Christmas Parties but opposite of a prime time football game between the Dallas Cowboys and New York Jets, many pro football fans would be misdirected Trump supporters making it even less likely they would see a real time opposing point of view. The others would be people from New York and if I remember correctly Hillary was a Senator from that state, coincidently New York also happens to be Trumps' home turf.

Expanding a political campaign and getting your message out past the early smaller states infinitely increases the cost, slanted television commercials and advertising come much more into play and that in turn is more dependent on big money.

Debates serve the purpose of giving real time, national exposure to the candidates and their messages with a minimal cost in dollars to the candidate.

Furthermore, debates aren't just national in scope they serve local political interests as well, everyone down the food chain can be hurt or helped depending on their stands on the issues that are discussed and rebutted at length during debates.

If we went with your idea a of a dramatically shortened campaign season, Trump would already be the nominee for the Republicans as would Clinton for the Democrats.

The primary reason that Bernie is gaining ground on Hillary and has a chance to win, other than his message is the time allowed of a lengthened campaign season to get his message out to the people, debates would greatly expand that message to millions of Americans for Bernie and for the other candidates as well.

[valerief]

79. DINOs. That's what these neodems are. nt

[Hollingsworth]

90. When it suits Hillary, the debate schedule will change.

Wasserman is a lacky and she does not deserve that important job. She is a traitor to democrats and a really bad example of fairness.

[Beowulf42]

96. DWS has to go.

We're seeing gross manipulation of the system to favor one candidate. And the Democratic party wonders why they can't win elections when they so consistently do exactly the wrong thing at the wrong time.