The problem is not the number of debates, it is the late start and exclusivity

[morningfog]

Six debates is not, in itself, too few debates.

The real issue is that the debates won't start until mid-October and the last two, scheduled for after Super Tuesday may not occur if the design serves it's function-- to protect the front runner.

The exclusivity clause, combined with the late start helps only the front runner. It is the front runner who has everything to lose and little to gain by any debate, and the risks increase with each debate. Gaffs, missteps, attacks can badly hurt the leader in a debate.

[elleng]

1. Yes and no, but it's a point well made;

TIMING is a LOT in these matters, and of course the exclusivity clause tightens the grip of the dnc/tptb on the discussion, further protecting the 'front runner.'

Its ALL BAD for us.

[SonderWoman]

2. I thought I read that DNC scrapped exclusivity?

[winter is coming]

3. Not to my knowledge. When/where did you see that? n/t

[elleng]

4. Would be very pleased if that were true,

so PLEASE share!!!

[morningfog]

12. Not that I've seen.

[Juicy_Bellows]

5. Yep.

We had three DNC debates in 07 by the time we will have our first this year. That's by design to shield Hillary in my opinion.

[GitRDun]

6. I agree with you on timing

I didn't know that.

After Super Tuesday is too late

[restorefreedom]

7. both the delay and the exclusivity

are being done, as others have said, to stifle real debate and protect a candidate who is obviously dropping and will only drop further in a national forum.

a candidate who can't even stand up to scrutiny from within the party primary will be a very weak candidate in a general, if it even got that far which it won"t.

the blatant disregard for honest idea sharing and critical analysis in front of the voters, i.e., the PEOPLE THEY WILL BE WORKING FOR, in order to push the establisment candidate and shut down the real representatives of the people (sanders and om in particular), is an affront to true democracy and is an embarassment in 2015.

i don't even know how hillary wasserman schultz can even walk out in public. she should be utterly ashamed of herself. selling out the very ideals they claim to champion. tactics befitting the republicans and the worst oppressive periods in our world's history.

for shame.

[GoneFishin]

9. Yep. They are despicable. They are trying to run out the clock because they know she will get

her ass handed to her in an open dialog.

[restorefreedom]

10. sadly, it pretty much proves

that to some, getting "their" candidate the nom is more important than keeping the wh. a candidate that needs such a shield will get creamed in a general.

either that, or delusion reigns.

[GoneFishin]

11. That "say or do anything to win" lack of integrity is the type of thing that I don't like about

her.

[GoneFishin]

8. I wish the other Dem candidates had organized their own debates and invited Hillary if she

wanted to come.

They should have united to push back against the exclusivity clause blackmail and let Hillary stand alone and talk to herself on the "official" debate stage.

[Scuba]

13. But she wouldn't stand alone, they'd get a couple warm bodies for her to debate.

[GoneFishin]

14. I know you are correct.

[morningfog]

15. Late entrants Ernie Snander and Artie O'Murphy.