Good for Martin O'Malley, calling out the gross partisanship displayed by the DNC's restricted debate schedule and rules keeping candidates from participating in other, non-DNC debates:
Democratic presidential candidate and former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley criticized his party’s debate schedule on Monday, calling the format of six debates a “sad state of affairs.”
“I think that having more debates would certainly have all of the candidates take positions on issues,” O’Malley said in an interview with Boston Herald Radio...
“I’ve been very clear where I stand on Wall Street reform,” he added. “I’ve been clear about my plan to make sure that a debt-free college degree is something that’s within the means of every family in the United States, and I’ve been very clear about wanting to move, and putting out a plan to move our country to a 100% clean electric grid by 2050.”
The schedule of only six debates, fewer than in previous presidential years, and a rule disqualifying candidates from participating in the DNC debates if they participate in any others, blatantly favors those who are going in to the contest with high name recognition (i.e., Hillary Clinton) and disadvantages others who are currently less well known nationally.
O'Malley went on:
“And as the Democratic Party, I think it’s a sad state of affairs when the DNC — it tries to insert itself to cut off a Democratic debate,” he said. “We should not be a party that’s afraid to talk about the ideas that will get wages going up again instead of down. We shouldn’t be a party that’s afraid to talk about America’s role in the world and the lessons we’ve learned from these last very hard 14 to 15 years of conflict.”
“We have better solutions for the future than the other party has, and I think we’re making a huge mistake,” he continued. “If we cut off debate, if we tell the people of New Hampshire that we’ve become such an impoverished party that we can only afford one debate before the New Hampshire primary, what the hell kind of Democratic Party is this?”
Bernie Sanders, also disadvantaged by the DNC partisan rigging of the debate schedule,
has also criticized the schedule:
"At a time when so many people in our country are giving up on the political process and the turnout is so low, when public consciousness about government is not high, I would like to see us be debating all over this country," he said. "I'd like to see the DNC have more debates. I would like to see labor union groups. I would like to see environmental groups, women's groups, gay groups...different constituencies, host events and have us debate. So I believe the more debates, the better."
The Republican debates are drawing record viewership. There's obviously great interest in the candidates for this presidential contest. Why is the DNC not capitalizing on it? Are they afraid of exposing the country to Democratic ideas instead of just leaving Republican ones out there without a contrast?
Or is it all about protecting Hillary, at the expense of making gains in spreading the message for the Democratic Party?
DNC, are you listening? We want more debates - lots of them, in all kinds of venues.
If you won't hold them, at least stop keeping the candidates hostage if others are willing to pick up the ball when you can't, or won't.