Debbie Wasserman Schultz Under Fire Over Debate Mandate
The house is rigged!
Democrats are unhappy with the way their party officials are handling this election cycle—and the party doesn’t mind one bit.
Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz has come under fire repeatedly for the way she’s managing her flock of potential presidential candidates. In addition to sanctioning just six official debates, DWS has limited the potential for rogue forums by creating a new rule: if a Democrat chooses to participate in a non-sanctioned debate, they’ll be banned from future sanctioned ones. During a media breakfast hosted by the Christian Science Monitor, she doubled down on the new rules:
“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.”
…
“Every day someone is going to say something about my intentions, but I have a party to run,” Wasserman Schultz said. “I have to simultaneously make sure that we’re getting ready to make sure the party is prepared to support our eventual nominee, and at the same time manage a neutral primary nominating process, which I’m going to do. I’ll make decisions that will make some people happy and some people unhappy. I can’t worry about that.”
Perhaps she should worry, considering she’s facing an internal revolt. DNC Vice Chairs Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D., Hawaii) and R.T. Rybak released a joint statement yesterday asking DWS to revoke the sanctioned debates only-rule, saying that it would be a mistake to limit discussion amongst the candidates.
The candidates themselves (or, at least two of them,) agree with Gabbard and Rybak. Former Maryland Governor and presidential candidate Martin O’Malley already has a strained relationship with DWS, and he hasn’t been shy about calling her out. He appeared on MSNBC’s Morning Joe this morning and went to the mattresses over what he believes is a concerted effort to rig the primary for Hillary Clinton:
Host Joe Scarborough asked O’Malley if he thought the party elites were purposefully rigging the primary for Hillary Clinton. O’Malley answered he believed one person in particular was responsible for favoring the frontrunner.
“I do … I’m told that this is the prerogative of the chair,” O’Malley said. “There’s always an inclination I think for old relationships to kind of circle the wagons and protect one another.”
“And tell our viewers who the chair is?” Scarborough asked wryly.
“The chair is Debbie Wasserman Schultz,” O’Malley said.
…Despite being way behind in the polls, O’Malley insisted voters are rejecting the “anointed” Clinton and will turn to him for a new alternative.
“People are actually looking for a new leader. Right now they are expressing their repudiation of the established, anointed, coronated leader,” O’Malley said. “We can’t be dissatisfied with our economy and politics and think old leaders will fix what’s wrong with our country.”
Fellow candidate Bernie Sanders has also expressed disappointment over the Chair’s decision.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
The primary process is rigged? No kidding! The entire process from drawing the districts, restricting the number of districts by limiting reps, having party loyalty above representing the voters and the media helping to slant the perception of the candidates, the system is so totally rigged.
Add the number of votes exceeding the number of registered voters in districts by sizable margins as being suspicious, showtime!
The entire “Uni-Party” (Dem/GOP) is rigged 100% at the top, national level.
The same thing happened in 2008, when a newcomer named Barack Obama wormed his way out of the woodwork. It was then the Hildabeast taking it in the keister. This same woman was the head of the DNC then too. One has to think that DWS has a ton of blackmail material on the top members of the DNC to keep the job so long.
This poor woman. Are there bulbs so dim that she is not transfixed as a deer in them???
So don’t hold an unsanctioned “debate”.
Hold an unsanctioned “joint town hall” or some such.
Call their bluff.
The candidates who would be doing it cannot possibly be hurt by the spectacle of the DNC disinviting them from the official debates. It would give them instant credibility.
Clintack, Bernie and O’Malley should have a couple non sanctioned debates. Imagine a “hitlery” debate in which she is the only participant.
I wonder if they’d put empty chairs up to represent the other two.
We all know the answer, but why doesn’t someone interviewing DWS just pointedly ask “Why are you shielding Hillary Clinton from debates, because those debates will be good preparation when (actually, “if”) she is nominee and needs practice to debate the Republican nominee?”
Here’s the real question, further down the line, who thinks Hillary (if she is the nominee at all) will forgo the Presidential debates entirely? I do. Although it will be spun as the Republican candidate refusing to accept the Clinton Campaign demands/rules during the debate negotiations. Basically, it will be spun that the Republicans are the ones that don’t want to debate.
…went to the mattresses over what he believes is a concerted effort to rig the primary for Hillary Clinton
How else are they gonna get the Clintons back in the White House?
Circling the wagons to protect and prop up Hillary? Or just to watch her campaign implode?
Just throw water on her and she will melt.
Easy peasy………just have any/all candidates show up for any/all debates. So they don’t get to be in the ‘official’ debate. If they stand together ……they win and Hillary has to explain why she’s debating herself ! If they don’t stand together DWS and Hillary win and the electorate lose !