Democratic Party Head Fires Back at Martin O’Malley

[Omaha Steve]

Source: Time

Sam Frizell

Democratic National Committee chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz shot back Thursday at former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, after weeks of the Democratic presidential candidate accusing the party of rigging the debate schedule in favor of Hillary Clinton.

Standing feet away from Wasserman Schultz, O’Malley harshly criticized the Democratic Party’s debate schedule during a partywide meeting in Minneapolis last month, accusing the DNC of restricting discourse during the primary.

“This sort of rigged process has never been attempted before,” he said on August 28, referring to the rule that prohibits Democratic candidates from participating in extra debates outside the DNC-sanctioned six debates.

Snip: Wasserman Schultz on Thursday also said she would not change the six-debate schedule.

FULL story at link.



Adam Bettcher—Getty Images
Democratic Presidential candidate former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley speaks at the Democratic National Committee summer meeting on August 28, 2015 in Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Read more: http://time.com/4029413/martin-omalley-debates-wasserman-schultz/

[Bluzmann57]

1. Sounds like he struck a nerve.

Good. I agree with O'Malley, there need to be more debates.

[laserhaas]

25. Correct... DWS has to be reigned in and reminded who she is representing

Instead of seeking a boost to her life as a HRC top cab. person

[elleng]

32. Unfortunately she KNOWS who she is representing,

and it is NOT members of the Democratic party, it is one big name. WE know the party should not be run that way, but she and others don't yet.

[laserhaas]

88. Sucks the whammy that we can't get more organized against these schemers

Feeling the Bern - Big Time!

[mrdmk]

2. Debbie Wasserman Schultz is the definition of a politician (in the most cynical terms)

<snip from OP's link>

“Every candidate does what they believe they need to to attract attention to their campaign,”Wasserman Schultz told reporters after a breakfast hosted by the Christian Science Monitor. “He has chosen to focus on debates, rather than substance. That is certainly his prerogative.”

<end of snip>

Talk about lack of substance, Ms. Schultz had to say more on the subject. Or did she?

[Kenjie]

3. That wasn't a decent retort by DWS at all.

O'Malley can simply say that the purpose of debates is to focus on the substance and voters deserve more than six exclusive debates toward that end.

[99th_Monkey]

4. Hey hey! Ho ho!

DWS has got to go!

[blackspade]

5. Debbie has a sad

Big bad O'Malley criticized her, oh noes!
She is the worst.

[jwirr]

6. Fine debbie - just get rid of the undemocratic exclusivity

rule so others can host debates. That is and has been the R way of doing things and has NO place in the Democratic Party.

Apparently DWS does not want the rest of us who support other candidates in her party. We do not count. The big tent party is now the party of exclusivity. That is progress.

[GoneFishin]

7. It's cheating plain and simple. And I could never vote for anyone who is ok with this crap.

[yellowcanine]

8. O'Malley is correct about this. Why should the DNC control the process?

Need to put the democratic back into the Democratic Party, Ms. Wasserman-Shulz.

[Andy823]

62. They shouldn't

It should be up to the candidates to decide on how many debates they want to have, not the DNC. DWS is flat our wrong on this, and by standing by this insane set or rules on the debates, she is only making it look like she really is helping one candidate. All the candidates should demand that the rule about anyone who participates in a debate not sanctioned by the DNC will be banned from all DNC debates. Those candidates that don't agree that that rule should be removed, should have to address the public on why they don't agree.

[Gamecock Lefty]

9. Poor O'Malley!

Trying to do and say whatever it takes to get some traction in the polls.

If six debates are not enough, then how many???

[snooper2]

12. 10.5

[George II]

10. Considering the venue at which he made his comments, I thought they were way out of line....

....he had plenty of other opportunities to make his opinion known.

To do it at that time was inappropriate.

[mhatrw]

71. Yep. Who does he think he is?

He needed to stay in his place in line with the rest of the unchosen.

How dare he want to debate the issues!

[George II]

72. It was neither the time nor place - just wanted to get a few minutes of fame.

[Orrex]

11. What's the proper number of debates?

The candidate with the stronger position generally tends to resist the call for more debates. Obama did this with Clinton in 2008, for instance, and why not? If a contender is in the lead, then what does he or she stand to gain from addition debates?

[mhatrw]

70. Free advertising for Democratic ideas before the general election.

You do want to win that one.

Right?

[George II]

73. So a debate a year and a half before the election is "free advertising"?

[mhatrw]

76. It seems to be working very well for Trump.

[George II]

77. Not really, he had about 10 or 12 minutes in that debate. And they're dealing with....

.....17 candidates, not four or five.

People here were calling for Democratic debates to start in April. Smart move - in April there was only one declared candidate.

[Orrex]

74. Sure, but we're not there yet, are we?

After the primaries, the limiting factor is the number of debates that the electorate cares to endure. At this point, how can an abundance of debates benefit the lead contender for the primary?

Tell me: what is the correct number of debates to inflict upon the public?

[mhatrw]

78. We aren't where yet? The Repukes are getting all the press.

Every Dem other than Clinton has been shut out by corporate media, and corporate media has done her no favors.

Wouldn't all Democrats and the party itself benefit from venues that allow Democratic candidates to present their (far saner) ideas directly to millions of voters?

But we wouldn't want to have too much democracy. Now, would we? More people might just notice that the top 0.1% have completely rigged the game.

[Orrex]

79. Here's what you wrote:

Free advertising for Democratic ideas before the general election.

The debates are "free advertising" 15 months before the general election? That's nonsense.

The front-runner stands to gain nothing and stands to lose quite a bit, so what you claim "free advertising" is potentially very expensive.

But we wouldn't want to have too much democracy. Now, would we? More people might just notice that the top 0.1% have completely rigged the game.

Instead of spouting platitudes, why not answer the question I've asked several times without response: what is the proper number of debates to inflict upon the electorate?

I submit that, whatever the number, if they don't swing Sanders into a commanding lead, then his supporters will insist that we need just one more debate, this time for sure!

[mhatrw]

80. Well, it is a moot point since Hillary is not the front runner anymore.

I guess you are right that Clinton has a lot to lose from debating, since every time Democrats and Independents hear Sanders' stances on the issues, they become his supporters.

The right amount of debates is 10. But, as you suggest, Bernie goes to up to 11.

[Orrex]

83. We'll see.

I will happily vote for Sanders if he miraculously wins the primary.

What will you do if he loses?


Funny how so few Sanders supporters are willing to answer this question, no matter how many times it's asked.

[mhatrw]

86. Why is it funny? We are sick of corporate candidates.

I will voter the lesser of two evils, as always.

And things will continue to get worse for the bottom 99%, as always.

[restorefreedom]

13. oh no she didn't!

i could use a certain perjorative that starts with a b, but instead i will just say she is a manipulative, scheming, controlling RIDC (republican in dem clothing) who is willing to SELL this country to the other republicans TO GET HER CANDIDATE ThE NOM. notice i did not say elected, since there is not an ice rink's chance in hell hillary is winning a ge, even if she did manage to cheat her way to the nom.

seriously, kids, if bs or om is not the next president, this country is done like dinner. we will never have another opportunity like now to get our power back from the oligarchs. it is almost too late now. but if we lose in 2016, all us non billionaires are in big ass trouble.

[arcane1]

14. Sounds like someone struck a nerve!

[KamaAina]

15. STFU, DWS

[benny05]

16. Sign the Petition #AllowDebate

This is a MoveOn petition to allow more debates.

#AllowDebate or http://www.allowdebate.com/

We need to put democracy back into the DNC. The petition may persuade party leaders such as Howard Dean push for this.

Benny

[azmom]

31. Done

[elleng]

42. Done

[MurrayDelph]

49. Already signed

and I left a message on the DNC site telling them that I would be ignoring their "questionnaires" that are badly-disguised donation requests until they either replace DWS or get her to wait until after the PARTY has chosen the candidate.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

55. Done with pleasure!

This whole thing stinks to high heavens. >

[840high]

81. Done

[Deadbeat Republicans]

84. Done

[Gore1FL]

17. She had a lot of time to come up with sometyhing other than an inept answer

Yet she went with inept. It feels like 2014.

[left-of-center2012]

18. League of Women Voters?

Didn't the League of Women Voters used to run the debates?
And then the party took it over?

What could possibly go wrong.

[left-of-center2012]

19. Imagine an email surfacing .....

Imagine an email surfacing,
conspiring to limit the debates,
to aid a particular candidate?

[Samantha]

20. The Third Way crowd definitely does not want to give Sanders and O'Malley free public air time

They want to silence their microphones - not give them a broadcast to promote their messages. To do so would be against the Institutional Dems interests. So why do that?

Their positions being promoted to the citizens watching and listening are positions many in the audience would prefer over those of the Third Way. Therefore, if Wasserman-Schultz did not keep a lid on so to speak the positions of particularly those two candidates, she is looking at not only hurting Hillary's best interests, but all of the interests of the Third-Way membership, of which she is one.

So in short, there is nothing in it for her or Hillary, and everything in it for other candidates suffering from a lack of public exposure. Most notably it seems like O'Malley is getting scorched the most because Sanders while also being very adversely impacted has found ways to put his name, his face and his positions "out there." That is not the same as free advertising time the debates give politicians, but it is better than nothing.

Personally I would like to see the other four have the debates, risking being excluding from the officials ones. If all four agreed to do this (I don't think Biden would, but who knows?), that would leave Hillary standing on the stage all alone on official debate night. So they would either back down on limiting the number of debates or cancel.

Sam

[Dustlawyer]

21. The other Democrats should agree to do their own debates and leave the DNC out of it!

Hillary can debate herself, or beg the others to let her in THEIR debates!

[Demeter]

22. That's a very creative answer

Going outside the Party to party. I like it!

[laserhaas]

26. Agree - KUDOs

[salib]

56. It would feel good for a minute.

However, it would go against the spirit of what Bernie promised, I believe, not to be a spoiler.

He has signed onto the Dem Party because we have an organization that could carry him to the White House. Even better we have an organization that could be the conduit through which a true political revolution could occur.

Let's improve it, not shun it.

[Dustlawyer]

65. I guess I wasn't specific enough.

I meant for the debates only. If they participate in another (unsanctioned) debate they cannot take part in any of the scheduled debates. I just suggest they all agree to their own debates, but not abandon the Democratic ticket.

[salib]

87. I agree that they could do that.

It would probably "work" in that the Dem Party would not hold debates with just Hillary. Hell, Hillary would probably just join them and say it was a good idea all along.

However, I do believe that it would violate the spirit of "not being a spoiler" in Bernie's mind. He seems like a fairly straight-shooter after making a commitment like that, so I doubt he would even go that far.

[potone]

63. I agree.

If the DNC doesn't want to host more debates, fine. But to penalize candidates who want to have more of them is deeply undemocratic and insults the voters by trying to limit our chances to compare the candidates. The other candidates should simply refuse to participate under those rules.

[Geronimoe]

23. Bernie and O'Malley should opt out

They with others who might join them could have debates on College Campuses, C-Span networks could cover the. Heck just stream them. Moderators can be debate club. Questions could be from faultily, students, and the public.

All of this free to the public and free to the candidates.

[Sunlei]

44. They could do that today if they wanted to.

[trueblue2007]

24. i think debbie should retire as head of our party.

[zentrum]

27. DWS is sacrificing

……the Democratic Party for her ambition to be a cabinet member in HRC's Presidency. It's a real travesty.

[randys1]

30. And the day will come when we will ALL have to say enough is enough.

My problem is as a white/hetero/male/atheist (3 out of 4 aint bad), I am subject to none of the immediate, violent targeting the GOP has planned for people.

so it is hard for me to do protest votes as bad as i want to

[zentrum]

66. But you can….

……You're an empath. They hate that. Educated. They hate that. An economic progressive (I presume). They really hate that.

And if you have LGBT, or non-white, or female friends or family members——your vote is a protest vote!

[randys1]

67. No I mean for me to vote against Hillary in the general election

for instance, because I am no fan of the status quo, thus risking a GOP terrorist taking the WH, that would be a protest vote by me but I cant risk that.

I wont put my Gay or Black or Muslim or Women friends in jeopardy just so I can protest.

[zentrum]

68. Just to clarify...

…..you think a vote for Bernie will risk putting a Rightwinger in the WH?

Okay, at least it's not the usual pro-Hillary reasoning.

[randys1]

85. No, not at all

[randys1]

28. If she sticks to this, I would encourage ALL Dems to vote for Bernie or Martin, send a message

in the primaries I am for doing anything and everything we can to stop people like DWS doing this stuff.

in the primaries....is the key phrase here

[polichick]

36. Yep - it always comes down to what the people will tolerate.

[SoapBox]

29. I watched him on MSNBC/Chris Hayes yesterday...

And he really stuck it to DWS!

It was great!

[lark]

33. Yep, the hit dog yelped.

Debbie Wasserman-Schultz is horrible as head of the Democratic party, supports war with Iran over peace. If I were in her district, I'd definitely support strongly her primary opponets. She's definitely a net negative and I'm concerned about this.

[polichick]

34. At this rate, the party will soon be as corrupt as the Republicans.

[fredamae]

35. Isn't the question now

Does the Dem Party exist exclusively for Corporate America and Wall Street or the core Dem Base?

[elleng]

45. Yes.

[Fuddnik]

37. Debbie Weaselman-Schlitz......

Leading the Democratic Party on their last march to irrelevancy.

[appal_jack]

60. Debbie Watered-down Shartz

Polluting the whole pool of Democratic efforts.

-app

[ChiciB1]

64. And Yet Another Name For Her...

Debbie Wasserman-Sh--ts, she who has done so to The DNC and Democratic Party!

Does she NOT understand that she's doing more harm to Hillary than help? Ding Bat!!!!

[closeupready]

38. Debbie needs to go, period.

K&R

[sadoldgirl]

39. Her words are really degrading to O'Malley

Forgetting the amounts of debates for a moment,
O'Malley has come out with much clearer answers
to the issues than DWS's candidate.

This is clearly a put-down, which should not be
tolerated.

[elleng]

47. Exactly, quite shocking actually,

as Governor O'Malley has presented more substantive plans than ANY candidate.

[Sunlei]

40. I don't see anything wrong with the debate schedule. Omally can meet up today with the other two

[elleng]

58. No he can't,

not according to the 'rules,' without being cut out of the 'official' debates.

As to what's 'wrong' with the schedule, we're still waiting for the first one while repugs are on their second, and We the People haven't seen our candidates discussing matters together. There are MANY issues that should be discussed EARLY and OFTEN.

[Sunlei]

61. Republicans are to early,IMO they thought advantage. They never expected to be so Trumped.

I think Ds should stand back and let Trump continue to dominate republican media for a good while longer. Help Trump win their primary will doom the republican party.

This is valuable time for both Sanders and O'Malley to get as many media interviews as they can to each build their own base.

Mrs. Clinton will not use much mass media at this time (she doesn't need it) but both Sanders & O'Malley should take all the top interviews they are offered. Every time Sanders is on a major interview his popularity rises.

[Maedhros]

41. I'll stand with Martin on this one.

Wasserman-Schultz has overstayed her welcome as DNC chair.

[still_one]

43. I am not sure if I would classify the response from DWS as "firing back". However, it was a

response

[closeupready]

46. Y'know what else? Bernie's TROUNCING it, even WITHOUT debates.

Maybe this cloak-and-dagger game is working to HIS benefit...?

Haha. If the joke's on Debbie, it would make me LOL.

[elleng]

54. It MIGHT work for Bernie, but NOT for O'Malley

(about whom I suspect this is, actually.)

[dorkzilla]

48. Is there any reason I’m not aware of why the other candidates can’t set up their own non-DNC debates

Do they lose their DNC membership card? Will the hounds be set on them? Is there anything we, as Democrats, do to help facilitate an independent debate schedule?

I’m serious - can’t we make this happen? Can we form a committee or some such?

[Omaha Steve]

53. IF they debate outside the DNC they can't debate in the DNC debates DWS rule

[dorkzilla]

57. Sooo...if they went “rogue” and did their own debates

Hillary would just be standing on a podium arguing with herself? I would watch that.

[salib]

50. She needs to go.

The Dem Party has been a loser while she has been in charge.

We need a revolution. It can start with dumping DWS.

[HooptieWagon]

52. She was handed Senate and House majorities...

...and the WH. She's already lost two out of three, and her incompetence and bias is going to lose the third. She can't go soon enough for me...just say NO to corporatist Dems.

[appalachiablue]

51. Bravo O'Malley! This is undemocratic & outrageous. *I thought the President was head of the

Democratic Party, not the DNC Chair?!
~ If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace. ~ Thomas Paine.

[MisterP]

59. "and there's nothing you can do about it"

[olddots]

69. she is not the head

she is the ass .

[Puppyjive]

75. Give to food banks, not campaigns.

I have already picked my candidate. This is why party politics suck. The DNC should back off on trying to control the candidates. I don't need a big debate to sway my vote. I have been following the candidates for a long time. I am tired of them asking for money, it is a complete turnoff. There is one candidate who wants campaign reform and he is the one who is getting my vote. I think it is shameful that we have to spend billions on campaigns when so many in this country to are going hungry.

[ibegurpard]

82. what can we do

To get her out of that position before she fucks up yet ANOTHER election?