A lot of hooplah has been raised here, calling for Hillary Clinton to join Martin O'Malley and Bernie Sanders in their quest to have more debates.
Former Secretary of State Clinton addressed that recently and hopefully that can all be laid to rest and folks can focus their attention on the person who controls the debate schedule . . . or seek alternative means for the candidates to speak to each other. Mrs. Clinton said:
“I am open to whatever the DNC decides to set up,” Clinton told reporters while campaigning in New Hampshire. “That’s their decision. I debated a lot in 2008, and I would certainly be there with lots of enthusiasm and energy if they decide to add more debates.”
And, since inexplicably, folks blame Clinton for the DNC not having more than six (6) debates, she addressed that as well.
Acknowledging O’Malley’s and Sanders’ objections to the current debate schedule, Clinton continued: “And I think that’s the message that a lot of people are sending their [the DNC’s] way.”
It'll be interesting to see if the DNC schedules more debates,
though it is highly unlikely.
At the summer DNC event on August 30, 2015, Mrs. Wasserman-Schultz was clearly against more debates.
“My staff and I made this decision and we are not going to change it. No matter what we decided, there would be individuals who would be unhappy . . .
“I knew there were people who would be unhappy and I’m not going to change the schedule,” said Mrs. Wasserman Schultz."
Currently, there are
six (6) debates scheduled, starting in October and monthly until March, and candidates are precluded from doing other debates.
If folks want more debates, keep lobbying the DNC and Mrs. Wasserman-Schultz. Given the above stated DNC inflexibility, Democrats in states like New Hampshire are being creative and thinking of other means for the candidates to address the public.
If more debates are scheduled, Hillary Clinton "would certainly be there with lots of enthusiasm and energy."
I'm adding this addendum to the diary given that so many comments focus around the conspiracy that Hillary Clinton controls the debate schedule.
As the following shows, the DNC has historically sanctioned six (6) debates. They did so in 2004 and 2008.
That’s what most interesting about the DNC’s decision this cycle: It calls for the the same number of sanctioned debates Democrats scheduled in the 2004 and 2008 election cycles. It’s also the same number of sanctioned debates Republicans tried to schedule in the 2012 cycle. With so much media interest, and with candidates wanting to get their message out, the actual number of debates has exceeded the number of sanctioned debates in every election since at least 2004.
Sanctioned debates are exactly what they sound like. They are hosted by the parties themselves, and the parties set the rules for who is included and who isn’t. In previous years, the DNC allowed candidates to take part in unsanctioned debates, where the rules and participation requirements are set by the groups that sponsor them.
The issue is that there were other debates. This year, 2015, these non-DNC debates will not be allowed.
In previous years, there wasn’t a penalty for showing up in non-sanctioned debates. This year, the DNC is threatening to bar candidates who participate in unsanctioned debates from the sanctioned ones.
The DNC announced that it will be more strictly implementing debates this year.
"While a six sanctioned debate schedule is consistent with the precedent set by the DNC during the 2004 and 2008 cycles, this year the DNC will further manage the process by implementing an exclusivity requirement," the statement announcing the debates explained. "Any candidate or debate sponsor wishing to participate in DNC debates, must agree to participate exclusively in the DNC-sanctioned process. Any violation would result in forfeiture of the ability to participate in the remainder of the debate process."
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/...
So, the problem is not that there are six debates. The problem is the exclusivity clause.