At 5:30 p.m. Pacific time (I’m here in California), I’ll start to live-blog the Democratic Party presidential debate that’s taking place in Las Vegas, Nevada.
In the meantime, you might want to read Bill Curry’s interesting take on Salon.com that having only six Democratic Party presidential debates actually will harm, not help, Billary Clinton, even though the intended effect of limiting the number of the primary-season debates was to help Billary.
Curry writes that Democratic National Committee head Debbie Wasserman Schultz — who steadfastly stood by Billary all throughout Billary’s primary-season fight with Barack Obama in 2008 — very apparently unilaterally, individually decided upon the six-debate schedule.
(Curry writes: “The Democratic National Committee [that is, Wasserman Schultz] delayed the debates as long as it [she] could and limited their total number to six. By way of comparison, there were 26 debates in 2008. The first was held in April 2007; by this point in the cycle there had already been 13. To enforce its new limit, the party threatens a drastic sanction: anyone caught participating in a rogue debate will be locked out of all party debates.”)
Curry argues that “By limiting debate Schultz is enabling Clinton [to continue to avoid public exposure and thus public scrutiny], not helping her.”
Perhaps that’s a factor, but to me the bigger issue appears to be that Billary, Wasserman Schultz & Co. probably never thought that the seriously pared down number of debates ever would become a hot topic in and of itself; I surmise that they thought they’d get away with it scot-free.
And it’s the scandalousness of it — a Billary operative anti-democratically, unilaterally doing her best to rig the rules of the game in Billary’s favor — that, I believe, that is helping Bernie Sanders, a victim of the scandalousness, and harming Billary, for whom the scandalousness has been committed.