MSNBC’s Chuck Todd just announced that he and Rachel Maddow will moderate a Democratic debate sponsored by the Manchester Union Leader after the February 1 Iowa Caucus on February 4 in advance of the February 9 New Hampshire primary. New Hampshire has always had a debate before their primary going back to 1984. This debate has not been sanctioned by the Democratic Party. Rachel Maddow just announced that Hillary Clinton and Martin O’Malley have said they would debate but Bernie Sanders said he would only debate if the Democratic Party sanctioned the debate because the DNC said that anyone participating in a non-sanctioned debate would be prohibited from future sanctioned debates. WHEW !
I call on the Democratic Party NOW to sanction this and MORE PRIME TIME Democratic debates during the primary season for the good of our country and democracy.
Fred Rich LaRiccia
Allegedly, it was Mrs. Clinton and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz who set the number of debates and the schedule. Not sure they were thinking of our country or the health of our democracy at that time. Since the race is more competitive than expected and Clinton does well in the debates, now she wants more debates?
…that the DNC is in Clinton’s pocket and doing her bidding? I know that’s the popular conspiracy theory, but Clinton’s done just fine in the debates and should (and apparently does) welcome more.
the DNC set the debate schedule and I have criticized it from day one for two reasons. First, six debates were not enough and we missed an opportunity to get the Democratic message out to a wide audience. Second, the debates should have been held in PRIME TIME to capture maximum interest and exposure.
I am calling on the DNC, both Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton’s campaign to sit down NOW and find a mutually agreeable solution to this problem for the good of democracy and the country. I am convinced a reasonable solution can be reached that will satisfy all interests involved.
Fred Rich LaRiccia
There are only three candidates, probably two pretty soon frankly. They should agree with the networks on their own terms. The DNC says that any candidate who participates in an unsanctioned debate won’t be invited to the sanctioned debates. If I were a candidate I would say fine, we’ll just arrange more unsanctioned debates on our own time, thank you. If the candidates worked in concert and found a willing network they could easily show DWS which lake she can jump in.
That might have been a good idea in the past. The danger in a two person race is that each candidate has the incentive to challenge the other when it fits their political objectives, and calls the other one chicken for not agreeing. The DNC and DWS screwed the pooch when they decided early on to stifle Democratic debates. I am inclined to believe it was done to benefit HRC but it no longer matters.
Fred is right. Sanction this one and then consult with both candidates to set a robust schedule. Make the discussion about future debates transparent so neither candidate can game the system.
It was not that long ago that the League of Women Voters was the major host of Presidential debates. I long for the days when candidates could not game nor claim the other side(s) were gaming the debate system. Both political parties wanted out from under the relatively neutral control of the LWV.
Here is part of a press release from the LWV in October 1988 about a debate:
LEAGUE REFUSES TO “HELP PERPETRATE A FRAUD”
WITHDRAWS SUPPORT FROM FINAL PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE
WASHINGTON, DC —”The League of Women Voters is withdrawing its sponsorship of the presidential debate scheduled for mid-October because the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter,” League President Nancy M. Neuman said today.
“It has become clear to us that the candidates’ organizations aim to add debates to their list of campaign-trail charades devoid of substance, spontaneity and honest answers to tough questions,” Neuman said. “The League has no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public.”
Neuman said that the campaigns presented the League with their debate agreement on September 28, two weeks before the scheduled debate. The campaigns’ agreement was negotiated “behind closed doors” and was presented to the League as “a done deal,” she said, its 16 pages of conditions not subject to negotiation.
Most objectionable to the League, Neuman said, were conditions in the agreement that gave the campaigns unprecedented control over the proceedings. Neuman called “outrageous” the campaigns’ demands that they control the selection of questioners, the composition of the audience, hall access for the press and other issues.
I just learned that Clinton’s campaign advisor, John Podesta, has called for one of the next debates to be held in Flint, Michigan to highlight the water poisoning caused by the Republican Governor.
I think it’s a good idea.
Fred Rich LaRiccia
as she was the one who brought this issue to national attention months age.
Fred Rich LaRiccia
to debate according to spokesmen for both campaigns today.
They have tentatively agreed with Hillary’s proposal to debate in New Hampshire after the Iowa Caucus AND Bernie’s proposal for 3 more monthly debates starting in March leading up to the Convention.
This is how rational adults negotiate to reach fair agreements.
Feed Rich LaRiccia
MSNBC just announced that Rachel Maddow and Chuck Todd will host a DNC sanctioned debate after the Iowa Caucus at the University of New Hampshire in Durham at 9pm on Thursday, February 4. All three Democrats will attend.
Well, what do you know. Sometimes, just sometimes, the voices of the little people are heard.
Score one for democracy and America !
Fred Rich LaRiccia