Video: Hillary Clinton declines to call for more Democratic debates

[portlander23]

Last edited Thu Sep 17, 2015, 11:31 PM - Edit history (1)

Hillary Clinton declines to call for more Democratic debates

Hillary Clinton on Thursday declined to call on the Democratic National Committee to add more presidential primary debates, though she said she would participate in them.

“I have said from the very beginning I look forward to debating,” Clinton said. “I will certainly show up anywhere the democratic national committee tells us to show up.

But when Blizter asked if the Democratic front-runner would call on DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who controls the process, to schedule more debates, Clinton demurred. “That’s up to them. They can – they made their decision, but I have made it clear that if they want to do more, I’m happy to do them,” Clinton said.

“I’m pretty sure that if the Clinton campaign made their voice heard and said they want more debates, it would happen,” O’Malley campaign manager David Hamrick said after giving a speech to the demonstrators.

Hamrick added that he thinks it’s “pretty clear” the reason Wasserman Schultz set up the debate schedule as she did “is because she thinks it’s in the best interest of the Clinton campaign.”

Bernie Sanders, who has pulled ahead of Clinton in recent polls in New Hampshire, has also called for more debates, but he has declined to push hard for the issue. Sanders’ campaign is willing to participate in debates that include all the candidates, but would be far less interested in a debate without Clinton.

Wasserman Schultz has shown no signs of budging, saying the six-debate schedule is final.

If Mrs. Clinton survives the primary, she should have Mrs. Wasserman Schultz cancel the general election debates too.

[randys1]

1. I would think she would have given in by now, told DWS to allow more debates.

[elleng]

3. She can't afford to enable publicity for Governor O'Malley

who will likely chip away further at her numbers, as is Senator Sanders. Simple as that imo.

[restorefreedom]

15. yup. that would open the door

to people realizing that there are at least two real progressives running not named hillary clinton. they would have a real choice between two great candidates and would not have to choose between hillary and the guy who is "not hillary."

that choice cannot be allowed. ya know, for a group that wants to be all about choice for women, they sure don't want that choice extended to voters.

funny, that.

[hifiguy]

23. She's scared to death to get on the same stage with the two of them.

Their straight-talking, unabashedly progressive style is the antithesis of her focus-grouped and Goldman-approved platitudinous nothingness.

[in_cog_ni_to]

48. She should be scared to death.

She's going to have her ass handed to her and she's just making it worse than it would have been had she just had the guts to get on that stage and debate the fringe Progressives.

It is SOOOOOOO obvious what's going on! The DNC/DWS/Third Way want Hillary and they plan to try to override our votes.

Can't believe I use to like both Hillary and DWS. Now their BOTH on my shitlist.

[hifiguy]

54. After an hour and a half on the stage with Martin and Bernie

she'd be in fourth place in a three-horse race.

[in_cog_ni_to]

58. BINGO!

And THAT, my friend, is the problem. They're so transparent. I think she's going to lose supporters over this crap.

[Betty Karlson]

83. But maybe not as many as she would lose from actually debating:

That is the sad state of the DNC right now: they, and a certain campaign team, are in full damage control mode.

[senz]

75. Plus, they're both very likeable.

[hifiguy]

80. That's because they are both

Completely comfortable in their own skins. They are never "on" and are always themselves. They know who they are and don't need to remember who they're "supposed to be" for a particular audience. Like Popeye they yam what they yam.

An immense advantage.

[senz]

85. So true. They can afford to be real.

It's sad and horrible.

Sad for Hillary. It's almost like she doesn't really want to do this. Or doesn't like people very much.

Horrible, because it feels like she's being shoved down our throats by the DNC. It's as if she and we were lined up for a forced marriage. How can something like that possibly turn out well? And when will the pundits start talking about it openly? It's the elephant in the room that everyone (except us) tries not to see.

[GoneFishin]

109. You are correct, it can't turn out well.

[daleanime]

2. "certainly show up anywhere the democratic national committee tells us to....."

everyone else can piss off.

[senz]

79. And the Democrats themselves, not so much...

Yes, they can just piss off.

[sabrina 1]

120. I wonder if she knows how that sounds? 'I will do as I am told, I have no

will of my own'. It sure doesn't sound like a leader talking.

Leaders don't follow, they take the lead. And anyone who cares about democracy would fight these restrictions on debates.

Very revealing statement imo.

[bigwillq]

4. Don't know why she should or would

There's already six. That's plenty, imo.

Now, it would be an issue if DNC did order more debates and HRC declined to show up.

[jwirr]

20. The exclusivity rule needs to go. I don't care how

many debates DWS and HRC want the DNC to have - that is fine with me but I want the exclusivity rule to go. It is undemocratic.

That is a rule the Rs created and we adopted for the first time ever this year. And from what I have read it was not even the DNC that set the schedule or the exclusivity rule - it was done by DWS. So now our party has a dictator?

If some other organization wants to host a debate - why should they be limited? Environmental organizations? Immigration groups? Social justice groups? Economic justice groups? The DNC should not have the power to limit these groups from inviting all the candidates to debate.

[bigwillq]

25. I agree.

But this is not HRCs fault.

Right now, HRC is going along with what the current arrangements are. I can't really blame her for that.

Now (again) if they add more debates and HRC says NO, then there is a problem. Until then, I don't see anything wrong with what HRC is doing as far as the debate schedule is concerned.

[jwirr]

28. Thank you.

[Unknown Beatle]

40. Don't you think there's a conflict of interest?

During the 2008 Democratic presidential primaries, Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz was a strong supporter of Hillary Clinton’s, serving as a co-chair to her campaign.

DWS and HC are still buddy buddies. They still communicate with each other. If that's not a red flag, than nothing is.

[bigwillq]

46. As I said, I do think it's an orchestrated effort

on the part of DNC/DWS/HRC, but Hillary appears to be playing by the rules established by the folks that make the rules. I can't really fault her for this.


And, as I said, if they do order more debates and HRC declines, then it's an issue.

[Unknown Beatle]

57. I do think it's an orchestrated effort.

HC and DWS are good friends, I really think that they talked about it and decided to limit debates because it helps HRC. What better way to help HRC but to limit debates since Hillary is horrible at debating and the other debaters will make her look unprepared.

[yeoman6987]

101. I actually thought she did great debating for New York Senator

She completely handed the Repug his ass! It was hilarious. Not sure where this sudden Hillary is a horrible debater came from.

[YoungDemCA]

55. The DNC chair is elected by votes from the rest of the DNC

If you're not happy with the current party leadership, you can always get involved in one way or another, even if you're not gonna be a DNC member yourself. The people who participate in the process, are pragmatic, and are willing to compromise with others are the ones who get rewarded in the party.

No one gets everything they want, especially not in a party as incredibly diverse as the Democratic Party. Why is this so hard to understand?

[Unknown Beatle]

62. You're kidding, right?

Obama picked DWS for the position.

Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida was named Tuesday as the new chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, with President Obama selecting her to lead the party’s fund-raising and organizational efforts heading into the 2012 election cycle.

Ms. Wasserman Schultz, 44, accepted the position during an afternoon call with the president. She succeeds Tim Kaine, who served as the party’s national chairman for the last two years but announced earlier Tuesday that he is running for a Senate seat in Virginia.

Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. disclosed the decision to members of the Democratic National Committee, asking them to “welcome her as President Obama’s choice.” The president, who is locked in a budget showdown with Republicans, did not publicly announce the news.

“In selecting Debbie to lead our party, President Obama noted her tenacity, her strength, her fighting spirit and her ability to overcome adversity,” Mr. Biden said. “President Obama expressed great admiration for her as a leader, and he was honored that she accepted this important challenge on behalf of the Democratic Party.”

More: NYTimes

[YoungDemCA]

67. The President may have named her, but the DNC confirmed her

They could have said no thanks to President Obama, but apparently they thought she was a good choice. Either that, or they didn't want to buck the popular and beloved Democratic President. Smart move not to, IMHO.

[Ino]

50. DWS was co-chair of Hillary's 2008 campaign...

It's naive to think she hasn't arranged these debates following Hillary's wishes. Yes, it is HRC's fault, and she is letting DWS take the heat for it.

There are only four debates before the primary voting starts.

[bigwillq]

60. Four is enough, imo.

Folks are free to disagree.

[roguevalley]

27. bs. the debates are designed to lock up the vote without her showing her wooden self

and fucking things up.

The schedule:

2015
Tuesday, October 13, 2015
CNN Democratic Primary Debate
Location: Wynn Las Vegas
Sponsors: CNN, Nevada Democratic Party
Moderator: Anderson Cooper
Candidates: TBD

Saturday, November 14, 2015
CBS News Democratic Debate
Aired On: CBS
Location: Des Moines, Iowa
Sponsors: CBS News, KCCI, the Des Moines Register
Moderator: John Dickerson
Candidates: To be determined

Saturday, December 19, 2015
ABC News Democratic Primary Debate
Location: Manchester, New Hampshire
Sponsors: ABC News, WMUR
Candidates: TBD
2016

Sunday, January 17, 2016
NBC News Democratic Primary Debate
Location: Charleston, South Carolina
Sponsors: NBC, Congressional Black Caucus Institute
Candidates: TBD

February or March, 2016
Univision Democratic Primary Debate
Location: Miami, Florida
Sponsors: Univision, The Washington Post
Candidates: TBD

February or March, 2016
PBS Democratic Primary Debate
Location: Wisconsin
Sponsors: PBS
Candidates: TBD

Super Tuesday is around them and she wants to hammer the door shut before she can screw it up. DWS is her lead on this effort. If she wasn't afraid, she would do the right thing. This will blow up in her face just like Brock and the rest of it because she is so transparent it will piss everyone off. Go, O'Malley. Keep after her. You are doing a service on this issue. I will never vote for her. Ever.

[bigwillq]

30. I will never vote for her either.

But that schedule seems fine to me, although I will agree that it is an orchestrated effort by the DNC/DWS/HRC.

[frylock]

39. Really? A Sunday night? The Saturday before Christmas, going up against the NFL?

It was like it was deliberately scheduled to ensure that viewership was low.

[bigwillq]

44. If the people don't watch

it's no one's fault but the people.

People will make time for what's important to them.

[frylock]

47. Sorry I can't make the Christmas party. Gonna stay home and watch the debate.

deliberately scheduled to ensure that viewership was low.

[bigwillq]

49. Priorities, man. Priorities.

If someone really wanted to watch the debate, they would.

There's ways to watch a debate a day or two later, Tivo, VCR, You Tube, for example.

[frylock]

51. We can go round and round on this..

to me and others, it's patently obvious that Debbie Waterboy is in the tank for Clinton.

[jeff47]

88. Yes, I always abandon my out-of-town guests to go watch a debate.

Who wants to catch up with those family and fiends who traveled many hours. There's a debate to watch!!

[MoveIt]

32. As if HRC is not calling the shots with DWS at the DNC

[Laser102]

36. I agree. After two debates peoples eyes glaze over and their interest turns to other things.

Three hours for the repugs and two debates later, it's still Trump on top. Not accomplishing very much. Saying the same thing over and over and having it regurgitated on CNN twenty four seven. Who the hell needs that? Life is too short and the American interest span rarely exceeds eight seconds.

[NonMetro]

61. I'm with you on that

If fact, I'm not sure why 6 are needed. Only political junkies will watch them all. I think Republicans and Democrats should be limited to perhaps 3 or 4. The GOP debate schedule is a circus, reality TV at its worst!

[Logical]

97. I doubt she want to lose more than 6 debates. Good point. nt

[HooptieWagon]

5. If she's afraid to debate Sanders and OMalley...

...she's not the right person to negotiate with Putin.

[restorefreedom]

17. exactly.

a candidate who is so weak as to need protection from debating people in their own party is not fit to be president.

[demosincebirth]

22. She didn't say she was afraid to debate them. Quit making thing up.

[HooptieWagon]

35. Then she's going to do more debates?

DNC Debbie is her puppet, if HRH wanted more debates DWS would be on it. The reason for so few debates, and their late schedule, is b/c Hillary is afraid to debate.

[frylock]

42. She doesn't have to say it. Actions speak louder than words.

[Logical]

98. Oh, she is scared. Bernie will tear her up. nt

[elleng]

114. She doesn't have to say it,

the actions of her puppets speak for themselves.

[demosincebirth]

122. Now -- you all are mind readers...interesting. Also, why all the anger towards her?

[elleng]

123. I said ACTIONS speak for themselves.

[PoliticAverse]

6. When she was behind in 2008, 21 debates weren't enough even...

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/26/obama.debate/index.html?iref=hpmostpop

[Warren DeMontague]

7. Translation: "Debbie Wasserman Schultz is doing just fine in her bad cop role"

Oh, yes, if ONLY the DNC would schedule more debates! Oh well.

[Cali_Democrat]

9. The entire country is feeling The Bern right now

Debates? Pffft!

Bernie is surging and Hillary is collapsing.

By the time the first debates begin, Bernie should be well ahead.

If anything, the debate schedule is actually helping Bernie.

He should be thanking DWS.

[daleanime]

10. Bernie just contrary like that...

he would rather talk about the issues, even if it hurts him.

[JackInGreen]

13. ^^THIS^^

[dogknob]

8. They have enough on their plate rigging the rules for 6 so she doesn't get crushed on TV. n/t

[jwirr]

24. +1

[magical thyme]

63. well we'll just have to crush her on youtube. make sure everybody, their mother and their brother

watches the debates on youtube. Since most people will be shopping on the weekend before Christmas debate, make sure they watch it on youtube when they have plenty of time to review it over and over and over.

[liberal_at_heart]

11. okay. That does it. I'm donating another $10 to Bernie. Boy, if we donate to Bernie

every time Hillary pisses us off, Bernie will be just fine.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

12. What's she afraid of?

[sadoldgirl]

16. Talking about the issues.

[hifiguy]

21. This.

And walking into the twin buzz saw that is Bernie and Martin.

[yeoman6987]

103. How do you know more then one will debate?

What if DWS says only top candidate can attend main stage. The others at the kiddy table. It's been done before. Lol.

[reddread]

14. one thing the Republicans are now demonstrating

they arent scared to debate.
A LOT of hay can be made about this very foolish situation.

[dorkzilla]

31. +1! nt

[restorefreedom]

18. meanwhile, we are losing valuable time

as the republicans freely lay out their twisted agenda with no obstruction. sure, thinking people will see through their crap, but the mindless drones who vote based on name rec or because someone hangs out with kim kardashian are lapping up this drivel like chocolate pudding.

we are going to lose ge voters that we will not get back.

but dws and the anointed one do not care. their blinding ambition could cost this country big time, and they do not care.

[hifiguy]

19. O'Malley is SO right on this.

DWS is doing her job like a good little poodle.

[Gman]

26. Good. Don't need any more debates.

It's just free publicity and exposure for candidates that have no money.

Besides. The issues are clear. Nothing will change.

[frylock]

43. And fuck candidates that have no money, amirite?

If they can't afford to buy their way into the WH, they don't deserve to be heard.

[Gman]

52. That's the way it goes

[frylock]

56. That way is changing.

[Lancero]

76. At least this person is honest about wanting the richest in the White House...

Unfortunately for America, the richest candidate in this season is Trump.

We're fucked if that happens.

If that happens well... "That's the way it goes"

[frylock]

78. Yeah, I guess the candor is kind of refreshing, even if the attitude stinks.

[Logical]

99. LOL, ok. nt

[jalan48]

29. She reminds me of Mondale. Boring and predictable.

[NCTraveler]

33. She isn't a leader. She is scared and a coward.

She is the shot caller of one of the most powerful political groups in the world.

These completely opposing statements are being throw about by a group supporting a different candidate. All in replies to this op.

By the way, she is fine with more debates.

[SwampG8r]

90. I don't see a discrepancy

She is both
Sad she has the power but she won't use any of it to do the right thing for the country because she's scared shitless of the inevitable outcome of an open display of her paucity of values

[Thinkingabout]

34. The parties interested in more or less needs to negotiate for more or less,

Why would this be something Hillary should do. IF she would call and negotiate for a different number the same ones accusing the debates would be saying "See, just like we thought, it is all for Hillary". It should not be Hillary's job to get more debates any more than any other candidate.

[HooptieWagon]

38. Debbie is her lapdog.

She was HRC's Florida Campaign Chair in '08 ( where she bumped up the primary, causing us to lose our votes/delegates). If Hillary wanted more debates, Debbie would schedule them yesterday...ergo, Hillary is afraid of more debates.

[Thinkingabout]

41. Are you saying only Hillary is capable of negotiating for a different number of debates?

If this is true then those unable to negotiate the debate number is going to need more help should they get elected to president. I would show my skills at negotiating and get the number and then say "look what I have accomplished".

[HooptieWagon]

45. I'm saying Hillary told Debbie how many debates to schedule and when.

DWS has always carried HRH's water.

[Thinkingabout]

82. I dont understand why a person wants to run for presidency who can not negotiate with the party

Chair for more debates, doesn't give a lot of confidence to the candidates. The president is going to be faced with big issues, much larger than getting more debates, those wanting more needs to step up and handle the problem, it will show their skills.

[HooptieWagon]

84. DWS scheduled the debates HRC ordered her to do.

DWS will not schedule more debates unless HRH orders her to do so. It doesn't matter what the other candidates want, it doesn't matter what the voters want. It's all about rigging the nomination to benefit Hillary.

[Thinkingabout]

89. You have not provided any facts.

[HooptieWagon]

92. I saw her do it in Fl in '08.

DWS was Hillarys campaign co-chair...orchestrated rigging the primary for Hillary, which blew up in their face and cost us our delegates.
Those of us paying attention were screaming bloody murder. DWS is every bit as slimey a weasel as Hillary.

[Thinkingabout]

93. You mean the 21 debates?

[HooptieWagon]

95. Moving the Fl primary forward against DNC rules.

DWS and Bill Nelson orchestrated it to help Hillary. Then lied their asses off to the media. MadFloridian covered it extensively and thoroughly.

[Thinkingabout]

100. She may have successful in moving the primary dates, different story, Nelson may have helped her in

Getting this accomplished. BTW, she was not the DNC chair person in 2008.

[HooptieWagon]

102. She was Clinton campaign co-chair.

She and Nelson are the 800 lb gorillas in Fl Dem Party, they call all the shots. Obviously you don't live there.

[Thinkingabout]

107. Does not mean she twisted anything. I could say you are a supporter of O'Malley or Sanders and have

This claim against DWS and HRC. Provide the facts.

[HooptieWagon]

108. If you choose to be willfully ignorant, I can't help you.

I live in Fl, I paid attention, I saw it going down. Obviously you turned a blind eye. If you want to support people running a dirty slimey campaign, then proceed. Says a lot about your ethics.

[Thinkingabout]

113. Don't go the ignorant path, if you saw it going on then provide the proof,

That is all I need to see.

[Thinkingabout]

91. You do not provide any proof, I can say O'Malley or Sanders ordered just 6 debates.

[yeoman6987]

104. If Hillary was as bad as you say? Why not just 3 debates?

[HooptieWagon]

106. She'd have zero if she thought she could get away with it.

I guess they picked the minimum they thought they could slide by without public uproar. As usual, their clumsy efforts blow up in their faces.

[99Forever]

37. I won't vote for dirty, manipulating politicians.

Especially those that think they are slick about.

[Android3.14]

53. Coward

Utter despicable coward.
Either your ideas will inspire the voters, or you are a friggin' puppet.

Friggin' puppet.

[YoungDemCA]

64. Which voters?

You mean among Democratic voters, right? Hillary does pretty well among significant sections of the Democratic voter base. And that's in spite of the negativity and hate spewed toward her.

Of course, it's still too far out to say anything about this election with certainty.

[frylock]

66. She doesn't do so well with independents or unaffiliated voters..

and they make up the largest bloc.

[YoungDemCA]

68. There are very few of those by the general election

nt

[frylock]

72. Independants and unaffiliated voters have increased exponentially over the last several years..

people feel that neither party represents their interests anymore.

[YoungDemCA]

73. That's sad

Because that attitude of "screw it, both parties are the same" will absolutely guwarantee more Republican victories and fewer Democrats (or anyone progressive, for that matter) in office.

Disengagement will doom us all.

[frylock]

74. I've never been a member of any party, and never miss a vote..

and I'm sure there are many more like me. But the Democrats do need to do a better job of attracting these people. Sanders appears to be doing just that.

[Android3.14]

69. Are you responding to the correct comment?

I pointed to Hillary and called her the coward. If her ideas are good ones, then she should be eager to debate.

Your question appears nonsensical.

[YoungDemCA]

70. You said her ideas wouldn't be embraced by the voters

I was wondering which voters you had in mind.

Sorry for the confusion.

[Android3.14]

94. I'd say the majority of voters

Not any specific demographic.
If her ideas are good, then she can, and should be willing to, promote and defend them in a public forum. That she seeks to avoid any questioning is indicative of someone who recognizes that the fundamental observation of who she truly represents is difficult to defend.

[LiberalArkie]

59. Look they have already measured HRC for the crown, it would be a waste of money to have more debates

that would perhaps mean they would have to measure someone else.

[Bonhomme Richard]

65. I am so tired of the bullshit.

They really do think we are all that stupid.

[99Forever]

71. Yes they do. They think we are idiots.

Kind of pisses you off, huh?

[MoveIt]

115. Its clear they really do think that

Why tell the truth when its your turn?

[Ashdric]

77. Linkbait

She would gladly participate in more debates, if the DNC called for them (as the article explains)
MSNBC, which hates Clinton, tires to spin everything against her.

[senz]

81. MSNBC is not exactly crazy about Bernie.

Hillary and DWS are good friends. If Hillary wanted more debates, we'd have them.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

86. It's not up to her.....

If it were she'd debate a stool with a pinwheel hat on it.

[senz]

96. lol, she'd get in touch with her inner Clint Eastwood...

[snappyturtle]

87. Frankly, I'm surprised Hillary wants any debating. nt

[CanadaexPat]

105. Like all the others, this campaign tactic will backfire on Clinton:

the less debates, the more her performance in each one will be scrutinized, the more headlines there will be about her poor debating skills, the longer those headlines will persist between debates. The stakes will be raised on each successive debate and she'll never be able to meet the higher and higher thresholds that are raised. So I'm all for just 6.

[truebluegreen]

110. Because of course she did.

Kinda makes it obvious whose bread is being buttered by the DNC, imo.

[GoneFishin]

111. Anyone that believes Hillary is not calling the shots is delusional. DWS is getting her

marching orders from Hillary.

[oasis]

112. Earth to Blitzer: Hillary is not the boss of Wasserman-Shultz.

[toshiba783]

116. Why is everyone ignoring this?

Bernie Sanders, who has pulled ahead of Clinton in recent polls in New Hampshire, has also called for more debates, but he has declined to push hard for the issue. Sanders’ campaign is willing to participate in debates that include all the candidates, but would be far less interested in a debate without Clinton.

It looks like we have several candidates who are approaching debates with a strategic perspective?

[TheFarS1de]

118. That makes perfect sense .

Why would he not want to debate the Chosen one ? Not much point having a debate without the main candidates there . Think it through .

[toshiba783]

121. Yes I understand...

The reality is neither Clinton nor Sanders have a serious interest in debating anyone below them in the polls, everyone knows it's not politically advantageous - politics outweigh the issues for both of them when it comes to this, yet only one candidate receives the entirety of the hyperbolic criticism.

[frylock]

126. Sanders called for debates with ALL candidates from BOTH parties..

months ago. Sanders has no concerns about debating people who trailing behind him in the polls. He is up to the challenge, and has made that abundantly clear.

[toshiba783]

127. all talk no action

Calling for debates is one thing - when it actually came time to make an attempt at materializing a sponsored televised debate, the Sanders campaign was uncooperative. Both Hillary and Bernie are hiding behind the cover of the DNC when it comes to their reasoning for debating those who poll less than themselves.

[elleng]

119. Yes indeed, keep Martin O'Malley as hidden as possible,

NO CHANGES from the 6 debate strategy INCLUDING 'exclusivity' rule.

[portlander23]

117. Disturbing

I have to say this whole debacle surrounding debates is very disturbing. On one hand, it does seem like the Democratic Party with the number and timing of debates is blatantly tipping the scales in favor of Mrs. Clinton. I'm following this election closely and I have to confess that I often forget O'Malley, Chaffe, and Webb are running.

On the other hand, it seems like truly terrible strategy. I can't imagine why the party does not want its message to get out. It's completely baffling.

[GoneFishin]

124. The logical conclusion is that they would rather a Republican win than Martin or Bernie.

Considering that there is little difference between the parties' policies toward their owner, Wall Street, they all would prefer a Republican to win rather than an outsider who is not a prostitute to the banks.

[AtomicKitten]

125. She's the Queen of Obfuscation ... couldn't answer a direct question with a gun to her head.