I thought the Republicans were supposed to be the Party of the Authoritarians?
Well, Debbie Wasserman Schultz is doing a good representation of being an authoritarian, saying that if any Democrats choose to hold alternative debates other than her 6 sanctioned debates, well then, she would not allow them to be in HER DEBATES. (ahem, cough, cough.)
So, I was just wondering (in another diary,) what would happen IF our current candidates did decide to start meeting and sort of discussing things, aka debating, in NON DNC sanctioned debates, then what would the consequences be?
But I believe that the debate sched was cooked up with HRC's advantage in mind. She who believes that the less she reveals, the greater her chances of election.
It would be rather amusing if O'Malley and Sanders held debates, which would according to DWS prohibit them from the Democratic debates.
AND THEN WHAT WOULD HRC DO? STAND ON THE STAGE ALONE?
You know what, that would be worth watching! ha, ha, DWS gave a debate and no one except HRC came! HAH! See what good that would do HRC.
read some of the comments to my comment, they are interesting and the diary is worth a read as well.
I know that this is a brief diary, but I really like the idea of seeing HRC standing alone in a debate, and would like to see it happen.
After all, if Revolution is what we are looking for, then overturning the stranglehold that the DNC has our party seems to me to be a good place to start.
What do you think? Ready for a rumble with the DNC?