DNC Vice Chairwoman, Tulsi Gabbard, deserves some credit for standing up to members of her own committee in demanding to know why Democratic debates have been limited to six. In response, Chairwoman Wasserman Schultz disinvited her to the first Democratic debate. The issue of limiting the debates to six is threatening to become more than just a little embarrassing to the Democratic National Committee. In 2008, The DNC sponsored 25 debates.
It seems the DNC has a hidden agenda. It has displayed a remarkable amount of loyalty to Ms, Clinton, and she seems to be Chairwoman Wasserman Schultz’s choice for the 2016 Presidential nominee. The only problem with this behavior is it doesn’t support the democratic process. It would seem the DNC is using manipulation tactics to support Ms. Clinton. They are attempting to thwart the will of the people so Chairwoman Wasserman Schultz’s candidate can win.
The manipulation tactic of limiting debates minimizes candidate exposure and blocks the general public from getting more information about who the candidates are. This tactic also prevents free advertising for presidential hopeful, Mr. Sanders, minimizes the possibility of Ms. Clinton making a public gaff, and keeps conversations about real issues from taking place. Per an interview with a committee person/woman wanting to remain anonymous (anonymous quotes are always a little questionable, but the reader should have “all” facts available),
“The party’s female leaders really want to make a woman the next president. I haven’t heard anyone say we should make Hillary undergo a trial by fire. To the contrary, the women in charge seem eager, more and more, to have her skate into the general election.”
A second DNC Co-Chair, R.T. Rybak, has stated Debbie Wasserman Schultz is lying. When asked, he said there was no consultation or input from other DNC members on the number of debates. When pressured, the DNC Chief of Staff admitted Wasserman-Schultz was lying about consulting others in making the decision to limit the debates.
On the issue of delegates and superdelegates, Ms. Clinton has been gathering commitments from people who will actually vote for the Democratic nominee. Clinton was addressing the DNC in Minneapolis, when senior campaign officials announced she had already taken pledges of support from at least 440 of the party’s estimated 713 super delegates. At this stage, with the election still a year away, these commitments “are not” rock solid. If Ms. Clinton shoots herself in the foot with an ill-timed gaff, or some new trust issue arises, delegates and superdelegates can still change their minds. However, the manipulation of commitments this far in advance are not a reflection of the democratic process. It is, instead, manipulation and political gamesmanship.
Put another way, Ms. Clinton’s impressive number of commitments won’t have a “direct” impact at the convention. Ms. Clinton’s very early efforts to secure superdelegates does, however, demonstrate her position as a Washington insider, and her conviction she should be the next U.S. president, regardless of what “we, the people,” want.