Here's the scenario that would make yet another debate worthy: "egad, I learned something I didn't know about the candidates, so now I'll vote differently". For more than insignificant numbers, how likely is this? right.
Smart woman.
I agree with Frizzelle, goodness me.
Who benefits from another debate?

Bernie does. His campaign is nearly out of cash and he's let go huge chunks of his staff. Another debate is the best free advertising he can get. He's done relatively well in debates so far, and might persuade a few more voters. There's almost no downside for Bernie.

Faux News does. Debates are bringing in more viewers than their normal news, hence more advertising dollars.

Hillary? Why? She's got the primary sewn up. Her goal is to coast to the finish line and unify the party, as much as possible. Another debate would only sew discord. Another debate would have no bering on the outcome of the primary. They've had bunch of debates already. No new ground will be covered; they'll both just repeat the same talking points they've been using for months. A debate on Faux News is the worst possible venue, to be avoided at all cost, especially now that Drumpf and Megyn Kelly have had make-up sex. Faux News will be shilling for Drumpf nonstop from now till November. There is zero benefit for Hillary to do this.

Of course she said no.
@4: Now she should go on Fox News Sunday, as Obama did, and try to broaden her shrinking appeal. (Faux News pissy fits are sooo yesteryear dude.)
The democratic debates were boring? I thought they were relatively substantive (RELATIVELY). Are you comparing them to Game of Thrones? Do you find all debates boring? That would make you stupid, which I don't think is true. Is it because they were not as circus-like as the republican debates? That would mean that the new standard for "interesting debates" now going to be based on insults, sexual innuendo, and shouting. The option I'm hoping for is that you found them boring because you just didn't like hearing Bernie saying anything bad about Hillary. That would at least make sense.

(I'm still for Bernie, by the way, but I agree that Hillary's right in declining more debates)
@5, I will continue to have pissy fits about Faux News as long as they continue to be a media arm of the Republican party disguised as an unbiased news channel.
Yeah, I agree that this is a strong move for her. But it furthers my disappointments. It's like buying a pair of grocery store flip flops: "You should be willing to campaign for every vote. You should be willing to debate anytime, anywhere." ~HRC
@7: Fox is not the arm of a party, MSNBC is not the arm of a party. Roger Ailes is no more an arm a party than George Soros is an arm of a party. They all have social and business relationships however; and so they undoubtably influence each other. Nevertheless, any generalization anyone can draw on the matter is superfluous. Find a pattern, then dig. Don't assume there are patterns without digging.

Your preconceptions based on vogue myths cloud your thinking.
Clinton wanted to debate back in February, and the deal she struck with Sanders was that she'd debate several more times, including once in May.

Backing out of this debate just means she's happy overtly lying to get her way. You shouldn't be happy about this...
Trump beat Clinton on the national average poll for the first time on Monday. Clinton ignoring progressives continues to be a very bad idea.
I'm in the tank for Donariy Clintrump.
Bernie is hoping to affect her platform but I think it's fairly clear his supporters were never going to vote for her so, yeah, why bother (even tho you said you should debate anywhere and anytime and you promised Sanders more debates but why start holding her accountable now?)

This is good news, unless you want Trump elected.
@14- This is good news if you want Trump elected. Hillary's shift to running on a "Hey, I am not Trump." platform means that the Democratic Party will be motivating the least number of voters possible. It is the losing path.
@13- Most Bernie voters will vote for a progressive candidate, that could be Hillary, but only if she choses to be.
@16 why the hell would they believe anything she says? She has consistently stood for nothing other than war and eroding safety nets of the working class.
Supporting Hillary as a Democratic progressive is like supporting Trump as a conservative Republican; Democrats have failed progressive principles time and again, just as Republicans have failed so-called conservative principles time and again. There is a reason why Trump is leading the Republican party nomination, and why Hillary is all but failing to advocate (in a credible way) why she should be the Democratic party nominee. They both have the same problem, and both of them have the same argument: "Vote for me, or your next President will be the OTHER one."

I'm STILL with Sanders.
"Hey, I'm not Trump"

That's a great campaign. All you should need.
What little respect I had remaining for Sen. Sanders completely evaporated with his coopting Faux News for political gain. To then attack Sen. Clinton for refusing to participate on a network that has never once given her a fair representation is beyond the pale. Shame on Sen. Sanders and any of his supporters that use Faux News in this manner.
@21 I'll admit to not having any respect for Clinton going into this whole election, but doesn't reneging on her promise from February sort of illustrate the criticisms that she's a flip flopping political opportunist who will drop every single one of her statements the moment it becomes politically advantageous to do so? I'm just saying: she's a strategist and I wouldn't believe a single word coming out of her mouth.
LoL. We Bernie supporters are attacked all the time for supporting him even when he says some dumb things. Well, at least he has consistent policy positions. Hillary supporters don't care how much she lies as long as she does everything to marginalize Bernie. She promised a May debate. I get it that some of you are happy with the way the political process happens in this country, but those of us newer to this system would actually like to see our potential leaders vigorously debating policy for tens of hours before we decide who is going to run the government and the military.
@24: oh, you poor put-upon Sanders supporters. just innocent, defenseless victims of the Clinton Pogroms.

I haven't been paying attention recently; are there new Clinton "lies" I should care about, or just old ones being excavated, misinterpreted, and amplified? that old VRWC has got a million of them, I'm sure they're happy to help.
Can we stop with the extremist, assumptive rhetoric between H and B supporters, PLEASE? It's just so tired when people keep saying H supporters this and B supporters that as if all of us are run from some central hive mind.

She's not afraid of a debate (look at her performance in all of the other ones...she did just fine), she's just smart enough to know that all it will do at this point is allow Bernie to burn more bridges. It's time to start cinching up support for the democrat, not continue in a divisive direction.

And anyone who claims that democrats don't support progressive agenda items needs to do a bit of history learnin'. Who pushed healthcare for all? How did gay marriage happen? Why did the Obama administration vocally support Trans rights? Dems are center left, yes. But there would be no progressive movement over the last 50 years in this country if not for democrats. Too slow, yes. Nonexistent support, absolutely not.
Depends what you call lying. To me, flip flopping constantly on issues to appease the crowd you're talking to is lying.

Also, maybe you missed this, though I doubt it.

"You should be willing to campaign for every vote. You should be willing to debate anytime, anywhere." ~HRC

She said that in a debate earlier this year. She lied during a debate to seem more reasonable for purposes of getting votes. She did this knowing that she would be very willing to go back on it as soon as it would be politically advantageous.

Some people want shitty opportunistic rogues running for office because they're so cynical about the system that they think you just HAVE to operate that way. The rest of us would prefer candidates who have solid, unwavering beliefs and who are willing to stand against the shitty system by taking the moral high ground.
@26 Private health insurance for all sucks and even if Republican governors allowed medicaid expansion in their states, the ACA still would not provide healthcare to everyone. Also, for tens of millions of Americans, that private healthcare system is unaffordable and the high deductibles are still pushing people into bankruptcy. A progressive agenda would mean single-payer healthcare. As for your other examples, they're nice, and I appreciate the push for trans rights as a transwoman, but social reform is only the tiniest bit of progressivism. It's great having trans and gay rights, but it means shit if you have no wealth, insufficient income, huge debt, etc.

We need real progressive, not corporate democrats.
@28, First, we need a majority of citizens who actually want progressive reform beyond social policy. I'm optimistic for the future but we're just not there yet.
Thanks for linking those. Maybe you should link ones for Hillary too.

She lies more and they're usually political maneuvers to make her look more progressive than she actually is.

"I'm the only candidate in the Democratic primary, or actually on either side, who Wall Street financiers and hedge fund managers are actually running ads against."

"The Clean Power Plan is something that Sen. Sanders has said he would delay implementing."

"I actually started criticizing the war in Iraq before (Obama) did."

"So that 2005 energy bill was a big step backwards on the path to clean, renewable energy. That's why I voted against it."……

Bernie's lies tend to be about quoting numbers wrong and over representing how evil corporations are or how much cheaper healthcare is in other countries. They are still in the realm of truth, but the magnitude is sometimes overstated.

The Koch Brothers are "spending more money than either the Democratic or Republican parties" in the 2016 elections.

"We spend almost twice as much per capita on health care as do the people of any other country."

"We now work the longest hours of any people around the world."

There's lying with the intent to be deceitful for personal gain and there's lying with the intent to rile people up to demand change.
Thank you, Secretary Clinton, for sparing us from the embarrassing spectacle of an increasingly unhinged and punch-drunk Senator Sanders howling about the outrage and injustice of voters actually preferring your approach to the nonsensical Peter Pan gibberish he proposed. You knocked him out, and agreeing to another round makes about as much sense as it would in a title fight. What Senator Sanders really needs at this point is some very strong smelling salts and a one way ticket back to Palookaville. Thank you, Secretary Clinton, for providing the bus fare.
Oh Jesus Christ, of course St. Bernie's lies are just minor, innocent mistakes. OF COURSE. I knew that was coming.

Just like his campaign's allegations of fraud at the Nevada Convention was just a teensy tiny innocent mistake that has had absolutely no impact on his followers' views of the corruption of the DNC at all:…

You're totally right. Politifact lays it out pretty clearly that there was no fraud and the Sanders campaign was wrong.

However, the entire primary system is still totally fucked up and needs to be fixed. The issue is that the corporate democrats who benefit from this system don't want it to change, as is clear from the fact that they're not calling for change and that every corporate democrat who became the nominee didn't call for a change to the process.…

If Hillary would admit the system is fucked, we Bernie supports wouldn't be so pissed off. We're not saying Bernie would have won had the rules been different, but at least it would approximate fairness and democracy.
@34 Yes, let's reform the nomination process and get rid of caucuses.
@34, I totally agree with you that the system is fucked (and with 35). It's not Hillary's fault. She faced the same rules when running against Obama. But do you honestly think Bernie and his supporters would be making any issue out of this at all if he were winning? Has he spoken out against the unfairness of the caucuses?
@20- It should be all you need to win the presidency. Hopefully it will be. It is definitely a failure as an a way to bring people to the polls and poor turnout means Democrat losses for House and Senate seats.

The Democrats should be very worried about their presumptive nominee.
@37 Some Democrats are worried about the prospective nominee because half the country is Republican but so many Progressives refuse to acknowledge that fact and believe that they deserve to run the country even though they are a minority within their own pray because, you know, they are smarter and better and Right and Pure. Oh, and voting in midterms is hard. Which is why Republicans control the country.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

Add a comment

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.