O'Malley and Dean lied. Simple as that.

[cali]

Sanders refused to debate O'Malley outside the DNC debates. The exclusivity clause precluded such debates. He advocated for more DNC debates.

I could not care less why they lied. They both misrepresented Bernie's position.

[Scuba]

1. That's just "Third Way" O'Malley doing what he's paid to do.

[NuclearDem]

5. I don't think you know what Third Way means.

Especially if you think it includes Governor O'Malley.

[Dem2]

9. "Third Way"

Is just a generic swear that means "not cool like me and my candidate".

[NurseJackie]

13. They scatter such things about like birdseed. A little here, a little there.

Oligarchy! Coronation! Corporatist! Wall Street! Turd-way! Monica! Benghazi! Foster! Email server! IWR! One-percent! (I could go on, but you get the idea.)

Frustrating, but amusing too.

[Cali_Democrat]

23. LOL...my favorite was the post railing against the "fascist oligarchy"

for allegedly taking down the you tube video of the second debate.

[NurseJackie]

26. That was a good one!

"I don't know how to search for links. They took it down! It's a conspiracy!"

[Dem2]

35. I just randomly clicked on that after reading this. The thread was completely debunked

I would think people would be more careful with this as it tends to make them look desperate. Bernie doesn't need that.

[George II]

67. This one?

[1StrongBlackMan]

55. And don't forget ...

DATAGATE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[NurseJackie]

58. :-D

Thanks!

[Snotcicles]

31. Wrong. nt

[Snotcicles]

32. Centrism. Just like DLC. Due to that article he co-authored with Harold Ford. Titled

"Our Chance to Capture the Center"
That will haunt him for a long time.

[senz]

41. Wake up. It has its own website.

Here, check it out: http://www.thirdway.org/

You can also look it up on Wikipedia.

Then you need to pause and think about it.

[1StrongBlackMan]

61. I went to the website ...

did a Crtl+F ... must have missed O'Malley's name. Please help.

[senz]

76. Duh, perhaps the commenter was suggesting

that O'Malley's sudden change could indicate a sell out? Don't want to shock you, 1StrongBlackMan, but it happens.

[1StrongBlackMan]

78. Oh ... Okay. The world is so much simplier when viewed through a binary victim frame. n/t

[senz]

80. Whew. Didn't mean to arouse defensiveness.

Relax, it was a hypothetical.

[1StrongBlackMan]

81. Project much? ...

How is me calling B.S. on a clear declarative; but, now, hypothetical, statement ... me being aroused to defensiveness.

[senz]

89. LOL, come on.

A sentence beginning with the word "perhaps" is quite likely to be a hypothetical. As mine was.

Shall we dance another mile with this?

[1StrongBlackMan]

96. There was no "perhaps" in the statement that started the sub-thread ...

that you now wish to defend as a hypothetic.

That's just "Third Way" O'Malley doing what he's paid to do.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=955503

But your right ... no need to continue the dance ... you keep stepping on your own feet, and blaming it on everyone else.

[senz]

98. Now you're getting very ad hominem.

So unnecessary.

Have a nice day, 1SBM.

[1StrongBlackMan]

104. LOL ... ad hominem ...

Victim claim ... right on cue!

[senz]

106. Heh, wrong

I don't feel the least bit "victimized" by you. But I do get the sense that I may have stepped on your toes without meaning to.

It happens.

[Sheepshank]

121. Your post #98 belies you brave words in post #106

It's all a fucking joke, or lies?...take your pick

[Bonobo]

139. Is that your expert opinion? Nt

[1StrongBlackMan]

141. I'm not an expert; but, I have plenty opportunity to observe, record ...

and draw a conclude on the phenomena, of late.

Funny, YOU should wander by ... you will add another data point.

[Dem2]

68. Yeah and I have my own website too

It's a completely irrelevant organization and anybody who uses them as a cudgel I immediately think they are not a serious person.

[senz]

75. Okay, last attempt to enlighten you...

Try this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Way

If you can't learn anything from that, I shall consider you a waste of my time.

[Dem2]

82. That's right, go the old ad hominem route

A surefire way to convince people that what you're saying is convincing.

[senz]

87. Okay, maybe they can read the Wikipedia article. It's interesting.

I do believe I'm done with you, however. Adios.

[Dem2]

90. How many times do I have to read about that essentially defunct organization?

Your implication that I wasn't familiar with said organization shows how little you respect you have for your fellow Democrats.

The fact that you have to run away from the debate tells me a lot too.

[kenfrequed]

91. Uhm

He has given you two links, one to the organizations website and the other to a wiki page detailing it.

I don't know what your complaint is at this time.

[Dem2]

93. The organization is irrelevant and essentially defunct

I am exceedingly familiar with the group as I've researched it many times in a vain attempt to figure out what is remotely relevant about said group. Using "Third Way" as a cudgel in an argument is lazy and not to be taken seriously, sorry.

[kenfrequed]

97. It isn't defunct

You are mixing up the Third Way with the DLC. They are technically seperate organizations.

Granted they had very similar policy outlooks but the DLC had gained too much of a bad name and so it shuttered it's doors.

A lot of the same donors and some of the same people are now supporters of the Third Way.

There are even a number of posters here that fly their banner.

[Dem2]

99. Never had a discussion with a 3rd way supporter

Granted, most all of us here support at least one position of theirs as they have so many positions, and they are Democrats, that it's unlikely that I would disagree with them on everything. However, it's such a tiny little spec of dust in Democratic politics that I just can't take a poster seriously who can't make their point without dropping "Third Way" as a lazy broad-brush smear against essentially any Democrat who has somewhat different views or supports a different candidate than they do.

[kenfrequed]

101. Uhm...

It is used against those that sign onto their policies or agree with them. It really is as simple as that.

Is it used in argumentation sometimes a bit loosley, sure but your denial of it's existence or relevence was either spin or just plain embarassing.

[Dem2]

103. OK,

Hey I can't stop people from posting lazy broad brush 'third way' smears, but it doesn't do an argument any favors. I mean haven't you essentially admitted that if somebody posts a position that you consider a 3rd way argument, that permission is then given to call them a 3rd way 'shill'? Many people say things that sometimes Republicans agree with, why don't you just call them Republicans? Seriously isn't it more grown up to just make arguments without the smears that are little more than an ad hominem?

[kenfrequed]

105. It isn't an ad hominem

It is a categorization of policy based arguments.

Yes it is misused, but the third way is very real and holds disproportionate clout within the party.

[Dem2]

110. "third way is very real and holds disproportionate clout within the party"

Source?

[NuclearDem]

116. So does Space Jam.

[lovemydog]

130. lol!

Holy crap you're right. It does!



http://www.warnerbros.com/archive/spacejam/movie/jam.htm

[Sancho]

34. There's Bernie's way..and everything else is the third way...simple!

[senz]

44. You cannot make it go away by laughing at it.

Deal with it: http://www.thirdway.org/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Way

It's real. Educate yourself.

[Sancho]

51. Thanks for making my point...

[senz]

59. Education is your friend, Sancho.

Welcome it.

[daybranch]

64. I do not know if you mean to jest

but if you understand third way and its relationship to the corporatist oligarchy, you may see you have reached a valid conclusion, except for possibly O Malley and since i do not know I will not comment.

[Hekate]

115. This is an unusually pleasurable subthread with my morning coffee

With gratitude

[quickesst]

2. If you were Bernie Sanders...

... would you let these "lies" pass without comment? I would suspect not, and it will be interesting to see how Bernie responds to these statements.

[FSogol]

22. Crickets!

[quickesst]

29. On a positive note

... one can't be disappointed when there are no expectations. I wonder how long it will take for for Bernie to call Dean & O'Malley out as liars.

[bvar22]

120. He will do it, right after...

..he calls Hillary a LIAR.
Bernie don't roll that way.

[quickesst]

122. It's something I think he would want to address

.... and whether he calls it lying, falsehoods, or untruths, it still amounts to the same thing. One would expect him in his position to respond.

[Hekate]

118. Perhaps they're busy driving a Mattel car

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7480430

[FSogol]

119. LOL. Cricket cars could explain the driving I see each day...

[Renew Deal]

126. Does he even know this is going on?

Did Weaver tell him?

[quickesst]

128. What?

If I were running for office or running a campaign I would have people monitoring every single thing that has to do with the election. Wouldn't you? No offense, but you kind of make it sound like he's a little on the senile side. As sharp as Bernie obviously is, I'm sure he's been informed.

[Renew Deal]

129. Bernie was not told about the data breach at first

The campaign concealed it from him at first. I'll find a link.

[quickesst]

140. You are talking about something completely different

This was an event that anyone with a TV or a computer could have seen. How many people had access or knew about the data breach at the time it was happening?

[FSogol]

3. Not true. We discussed that on DU when it happened. When DWS announced the rules,

O'Malley and Sanders took exception. O'Malley tried to schedule more debates and invite all the Democratic candidates, but the Sanders campaign demurred, wanting to follow the party rules. Those are the facts and you can look up us discussing that in the DU archives.

[cali]

6. Sorry, it is true.

[NuclearDem]

8. This was entirely expected.

The second Governer O'Malley stopped being a good little anti-Clinton attack dog, he was going to get thrown under the bus.

[NCTraveler]

4. I will take the side of Dean and O'Malley...

Over that of Sanders who has recently fired his National Data Director, suspended other, with more firings or suspensions possible. I believe Dean and O'Malley to be good honest men.

[cali]

7. Lol. The facts are clear and as stated in the op. No wriggle room on this one.

[FSogol]

10. Your angry rhetoric is not "facts."

[cali]

14. What angry rhetoric? This is fact:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251955306#post43

[FSogol]

21. It is hilarious that the Sanders folks are getting upset today about a fact that came out in

August/Sept. Both Sanders and O'Malley objected to the debate schedule, but only O'Malley wanted to violate the rules. Sanders choose to suck up to DWS. You can't have it both ways. Profiles in Courage? Fearless? Not.

[A Simple Game]

30. Why yes you can have it both ways. It appears that Bernie is tearing the party apart

by following the party's own rules. It's quite simple really if you read the Hillary supporters posts. Bernie is trying to tear the party apart by running as a Democrat and suing the DNC. Bernie is also bad according to O'Malley supporters for refusing to violate the DNC rules by participating in unsanctioned debates as suggested by that good Democrat Mr. O'Malley.

Does no one besides me care how that other good Democrat Hillary may feel about this subject?

[Laser102]

70. love the Peanuts Christmas scene.

[FSogol]

73. Thanks. I put it in my sig every Christmas season. n/t

[NCTraveler]

11. I take O'Malley at his word on this one.

The wriggle is in the deflection and attempted re-write, not with Dean and O'Malley.

[senz]

47. You like O'Malley when you can use him against Bernie.

That is ALL you care about.

[NCTraveler]

60. I have always liked and respected O'Malley.

What a strange comment you have left here.

[tecelote]

20. Ha! That's a good one.

Sanders tries to go by the rules and now he is the bad one.

[NorthCarolina]

33. Who are you kidding,

you would take the side of anyone in disagreement with the evil socialist commie who wants to take your hard earned dollars so he can send Trumps kids to Community College for FREE!

I predict it's going to be a sorry political future for you my friend because, like it or not (and I know you do not), the country is awakening to the fact that it is actually well left of where Democrats such as yourself like to place the political pulse of the country. It's become quite obvious that Bernie will be the next POTUS.

[senz]

49. Precisely.

[Nitram]

53. "the evil socialist commie who wants to take your hard earned dollars so he can send Trumps kids to

Community College for FREE!"

Ah, the sweet smell of victimhood in the morning! Smells like defeat.

[Renew Deal]

127. The country is to the left of where most people will acknowledge, but Sanders will not take us

To where we need to be. That will be for Sanders 2.0 sometime in the next 12 years (younger, more accomplished, more electable).

[yardwork]

12. And under the bus they go!

[cali]

15. It is a matter of established fact. Here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251955306#post43

[demmiblue]

16. Under the bus needs to be under the bus. n/t

[senz]

50. Yes, it's getting old, fast.

They'll use it on anything. Lack of imagination.

[kenfrequed]

62. Too true

It is a stupid way of dismissing any critique of any action taken by anyone.

[in_cog_ni_to]

17. And it was a planned and deliberate LIE.

Shame on them both.

https://m.

PEACE
LOVE
BERNIE

[CharlotteVale]

18. I used to like O'Malley. Now he's shown his true colors AFAIC.

[KingCharlemagne]

25. Mr 4% in the polls is gunning for the VP slot and has

handicapped the race at the expense of the truth.

Maryland also gave us Agnew.

Ugh!

[CharlotteVale]

28. I know, it looks like he's auditioning. Pathetic.

[Hiraeth]

36. If he is gunning for HRC's veep then he has chosen the wrong one because Bernie will be the one

looking for a veep. But, doesn't matter they all need to look outside the northeast for a running mate in order to balance the ticket.

After last debate, I sorta liked a Sanders/O'Malley ticket. Now ... with this ... I am leaning No.

Going to get interesting in 2016

[FSogol]

43. No one running would pick a Marylander to be VP. The reason?

Maryland will vote Democratic regardless. It is not a swing state.
Since HRC and Sanders are old, they need a younger VP.
Both would benefit from a minority VP.
Sanders wouldn't pick a Marylander since they are both from the NE.

Castro will be the VP.

[Hiraeth]

94. Castro, interesting. very possible.

[questionseverything]

88. omalleys only function in this race is to split the anti hc vote

[FSogol]

111. Then, why is he the 2nd choice of both HRC and Sanders supporters?

Your theory needs some work.

[dreamnightwind]

124. Correct

[JI7]

19. The fact is it only benefits O'malley to debate only sanders

O'malley world not have agreed to only debate chafee.

And sanders has no reason to debate O'malley. For samereason O'malley would not have debated only chafee.

[FSogol]

24. He wasn't going to only debate Sanders, the plan was to invite all the Democratic candidates.

DWS's DNC didn't allow it and the Sanders campaign sided with DWS.

[Hiraeth]

37. Do you think HRC would have attended these hypothetical debates?

[FSogol]

38. Possibly. There were five candidates at the time. Would HRC really skip an unsanctioned debate if

the other 4 candidates and The League of Woman Voters, Univision, or MSNBC was sponsoring it?

I felt it was important to call DWS's bluff over the exclusivity rule.

[Hiraeth]

39. "I felt it was important to call DWS's bluff over the exclusivity rule." agree with that!!

[dreamnightwind]

125. So you should be calling out HRC for not doing so

Bernie is in a vulnerable position w/ DWS being a Clinton supporter and with HRC being the front-runner, not to mention his unique relationship with the Democratic Party. He has to play by the rules or they will use the opportunity to crush him.

[FSogol]

142. He has to play by the rules while he creates a revolution to change everything?

How does that work? He needs to take risks or he'll never rise above his 30%. Playing DWS's game won't help him.

As for "So you should be calling out HRC for not doing so" ??? The unsanctioned debates O'Malley called for never happened because Sanders never agreed. It never got to the stage of inviting (or blaming) HRC.

PS. They are crushing him anyways.

[dreamnightwind]

143. Ridiculous and disingenuous, IMO

[kenfrequed]

66. Uh...

Chaffee and Webb had already stated they were going to abide by the rules which would have made it a lot easier for the DNC to exclude Sanders and O'Malley for participating in non-sanctioned debates.

Do you really think DWS would have hesitated at knocking Sanders out of the sanctioned debates if she had half of a chance?

[FSogol]

69. "Chaffee and Webb had already stated they were going to abide by the rules" Link? n/t

[Broward]

27. Agreed. There are plenty of liars in Washington.

On this website too.

[hobbit709]

40. Once again one of the easily offended chose to alert rather than discuss.

On Tue Dec 29, 2015, 10:38 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

Agreed. There are plenty of liars in Washington.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=955768

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Blanket attack on DUers. Please dissuade this sort of negativity.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Dec 29, 2015, 10:42 AM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The post says more about the person who wrote it than anything else. I'm in favor of leaving anything that shows a member as being hostile to DU.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Oh FFS! What a silly alert!
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Does not rise to the level of a HIDE, in my opinion.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Truth hurts.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Sorry, but this comment--while not helpful and a bit adolescent--doesn't call out any particular DUer. I don't see this crossing any lines...

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[Broward]

42. Thanks for the heads up.

[FSogol]

46. Lame alert.

[Nitram]

56. How do you discuss anything with people shouting about liars? nt

[onehandle]

77. I wouldn't have alerted either, but I am curious as to who the liars are at DU.

Where is the list?

[asjr]

45. This sort of post only leads to the rest

of us here debating one another.

[MohRokTah]

48. Of course, only Sanders is truthful and honest.

Either that, or we could go with Occam's Razor and determine that Sanders is not the honest man his supporters claim him to be.

[Nitram]

57. Yes, it's Saint Bernie vs the Evil "Third Way" Empire. nt

[cali]

84. Facts are facts. Don't like them? Too bad.

[MohRokTah]

86. Thanks for agreeing with.

Logic dictates, Sanders is a dishonest man.

[1StrongBlackMan]

52. Interesting, that someone mounting a justice based movement ...

would stand for the injustice, the exclusivity clause, he feels.

But that said, would you sign an agreement limiting yourself to anything without knowing/being comfortable with what you are being given?

[FSogol]

54. LOL, the amazing revolution that transforms everything, but doesn't break any rules....

[1StrongBlackMan]

72. I guess all those years in the"establishment" has made him soft. n/t

[FSogol]

74. Careful, some people will start grinding their teeth...

[1StrongBlackMan]

79. Or, unholstering their alert fingers! LOL. n/t

[stupidicus]

63. So does this get added to the list of dishonest/baseless character assasinations by Hillarians

sexist, racist, thief, etc, etc, etc, that says a great deal negative about them, but will leave Bernie pretty much untouched?

Just like their rightwinger cousins, they'll no doubt pretend that being abysmally wrong about so much is really just a feather in their cap under the "end justify the means" rules they strictly adhere to.

[George II]

65. And we know they "lied" how? That's a pretty strong accusation to throw out...

....and leave it just like that.

[Bluenorthwest]

71. Dean, I know you are also from Vermont but I have no respect for him, he's lied many tines and

once it was about LGBT issues and I called him on it and he was an asshole about it. He's got a very casual relationship with the truth.

[ljm2002]

83. If the conversation between Dean and O'Malley...

...was as reported, and neither of them bothered to mention the DNC's exclusivity clause, then there really is no other way to say it: they both lied.

It is beyond misleading to say "Sanders didn't want to have more than six debates". In fact we have all heard Sanders publicly call for more than six debates. I don't know why they are trying to sell this garbage.

[cali]

92. Look at all the eager Clinton and O'Malley supporters guzzling it up

And trying to spread it.

[ljm2002]

100. It's pathetic...

...especially given the Sanders campaign's public statements early on, asking for more debates.

Of course had Sanders agreed to debates outside of Teh Rulz, there would have been another hue and cry from the same quarters.

That's how you know a position is purely partisan, with no regard for the facts -- doesn't matter what Sanders does or does not do in this situation, he is wrong, according to the Clinton and O'Malley supporters. Or so it would seem this morning.

[INdemo]

85. Then when the MSM gets on to something like this

they run with it because its (what they think is a negative for Bernie)
What is interesting about Howard Dean is not that he ran in the 2004 Democratic Primary or that
served as the DNC Chair in 2008 and organized the 50 state strategy,its his "Scream speech" after the Iowa Caucus that people remember him for.

[Buzz Clik]

95. It is nice to see those outside the "Bernie can do no wrong" bubble

pushing back on this thread.

The "Bernie is an honest man" tactic is losing its impact.

[cali]

102. Lol. It's funny to see those in the Hilly bubble denying clear facts.

[Buzz Clik]

107. Your thread is about O'Malley. Did you forget?

[seabeyond]

108. 2 more well respected dems under the us without a word from sanders

[cali]

109. Facts are facts. They lied.

[seabeyond]

112. Bullshit. You call them liars without hearing an iota of comment from Sanders. Bullshit.

There are reasons Sanders could have turned Omalley down. There are ways to work around DNC qualifier for debates. You lack information adn call the Dems liars to protect Sanders. Bullshit and lacking facts.

[cali]

113. Dog shit. They omitted any mention of the exclusivity rule- and Martin and bernie

both agreed to it. They had to in order to participate in the DNC debates.

Fact: They lied.

[seabeyond]

114. And Sanders has omitted all this conversation. As I have said, I can see how all of them could

have statements that are perfectly reasonable. I personally want clarification and questions answered. I want a word or two from Sanders. The donkey shit of just calling two well respected dems liars, without information and FACTS, is pigeon shit.

[AlbertCat]

144. without hearing an iota of comment from Sanders.

But we already know what he thinks of the debate schedule.... from comments he made a while ago. We KNOW he's not pleased with it. We KNOW he doesn't like it. We've KNOWN this for a while.

[seabeyond]

145. Not really, which is the isasue. Is he saying one thing public, one thing for supporters,

and another behind closed doors?

[AlbertCat]

146. Not really,

Yes, really.

[seabeyond]

147. Well, how about that AlbertCat. We see it differently.

[Renew Deal]

132. Facts are that you're wrong.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251958812

[ismnotwasm]

117. Under the bus goes O'Malley??

Holy shit.

[tritsofme]

123. DWS and the DNC wouldn't have dared exclude Sanders from the sanctioned debates

And leave Clinton with the dais to herself. It never would have happened, if a candidate like Sanders, pulling 20%+ of the vote nationally, was at risk of exclusion, all hell would break loose. It's not even clear the television networks would have played along with the DNC's exclusion wishes. If Sanders and the other candidates participated in non-sanctioned debates, they likely would have ended up dragging Clinton along for the ride as well.

But the risk that Clinton would not participate, resulting in the elevation of the undercard candidates, likely discouraged Sanders from playing hardball. A rational decision, this is politics 101.

If Sanders wanted more debates, he could have had them. The rule stayed in place because the two most prominent candidates decided it worked for their respective campaign strategies.

[Live and Learn]

134. Right and swampland in Florida right now would be a great buy. nt

[Renew Deal]

131. O'Malley told the truth. It's time to admit you're wrong.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251958812

[Live and Learn]

133. Nope, the Time's article doesn't negate the fact that MOM lied. nt

[Renew Deal]

135. Lied about what? It's matches what he said exactly.

[Live and Learn]

136. Not at all. MOM left out that he WANTS TO BREAK THE RULES of the party. Bernie doesn't.

That has nothing to do with not wanting more SANCTIONED debates. Get it????

Some here would love Bernie to be stupid enough to fall for unsanctioned debates but Bernie is not stupid.

[Renew Deal]

137. He doesn't want more debates

The reason doesn't matter. And according to the NY Times, Mr. Briggs isn't being truthful about the reason.

[Live and Learn]

138. LOL Really? The reason doesn't matter? If you want a cookie, shooting someone to get one is fine?

The Times knows if Briggs is being truthful? I didn't read that at all there. Are you sure you are being truthful?