Blog: Dems in Senate passed a resolution in1960 against election year Supreme Court appointments

www.americanthinker.com

Read it and weep, Democrats. The shoe is on the other foot. David Bernstein at theWashington Post’s Volokh Conspiracy blog:

 Thanks to a VC commenter, I discovered that in August 1960, the Democrat-controlled Senate passed a resolution, S.RES. 334, “Expressing the sense of the Senate that the president should not make recess appointments to the Supreme Court, except to prevent or end a breakdown in the administration of the Court’s business.”  Each of President Eisenhower’s SCOTUS appointments had initially been a recess appointment who was later confirmed by the Senate, and the Democrats were apparently concerned that Ike would try to fill any last-minute vacancy that might arise with a recess appointment.

Read it and weep, Democrats. The shoe is on the other foot. David Bernstein at the Washington Post’sVolokh Conspiracy blog:

 Thanks to a VC commenter, I discovered that in August 1960, the Democrat-controlled Senate passed a resolution, S.RES. 334, “Expressing the sense of the Senate that the president should not make recess appointments to the Supreme Court, except to prevent or end a breakdown in the administration of the Court’s business.”  Each of President Eisenhower’s SCOTUS appointments had initially been a recess appointment who was later confirmed by the Senate, and the Democrats were apparently concerned that Ike would try to fill any last-minute vacancy that might arise with a recess appointment.

The GOP opposed this, of course. Hypocrisy goes two ways. But the majority won.

As it should this time.

Hat tip: Instapundit

COMMENTS

BREAKING: CLINTON CAMP MELTDOWN

Clinton weighs staff shake-up after New Hampshire

www.politico.com

The talk of shake-up echoes what happened in 2008 – when Hillary Clinton was on the verge of sacking her campaign manager and several top communications officials – before her surprise win here bailed out her beleaguered staff. | Getty

'The Clintons are not happy, and have been letting all of us know that,' one Democrat says.

By Glenn Thrush and Annie Karni

02/08/16 02:04 PM EST

Updated 02/08/16 02:18 PM EST

Hillary and Bill Clinton are so dissatisfied with their campaign’s messaging and digital operations they are considering staffing and strategy changes after what’s expected to be a loss in Tuesday’s primary here, according to a half-dozen people with direct knowledge of the situation.

The Clintons -- stung by her narrow victory in Iowa -- had been planning to reassess staffing at the campaign’s Brooklyn headquarters after the first four primaries, but the Clintons have become increasingly caustic in their criticism of aides and demanded the reassessment sooner, a source told POLITICO.

The talk of shake-up echoes what happened in 2008 – when Clinton was on the verge of sacking her campaign manager and several top communications officials – before her surprise win here bailed out her beleaguered staff. Over time, however she slowly layered over top officials, essentially hiring old hands – like Hillaryland stalwart Maggie Williams and pollster Geoff Garin – to run the campaign while the previous staff were quietly relegated to subsidiary positions.

It’s not clear if that will happen again, but several people close to the situation said Clinton would be loathe to fire anyone outright and more inclined to add new staff.

“The Clintons are not happy, and have been letting all of us know that,” said one Democratic official who speaks regularly to both. “The idea is that we need a more forward-looking message, for the primary – but also for the general election too… There’s no sense of panic, but there is an urgency to fix these problems right now.”

Ultimately, the disorganization is the candidate’s own decision-making, which lurches from hands-off delegation in times of success to hands-around-the-throat micromanagement when things go south.

At the heart of problem this time, staffers, donors and Clinton-allied operatives say, was the Clinton’s decision not to appoint a single empowered chief strategist – a role the forceful but controversial Mark Penn played in 2008 – and disperse decision-making responsibility to a sprawling team with fuzzy lines of authority.

“There’s nobody sitting in the middle of this empowered to create a message and implement it,” said one former Obama 2008 aide. “They are kind of rudderless… occasionally Hillary grabs the rudder, but until recently she was not that interested in [working on messaging]… Look, she going to be the nominee, but she’s not going to get any style points and if she isn’t careful she is going to be a wounded nominee. And they better worked this shit out fast because who ever the Republicans pick is going to be 29 times tougher than Bernie.”

The focus of their dissatisfaction in recent days is the campaign’s top pollster and strategist Joel Benenson, whom one Clinton insider described as being “on thin ice,” as the former first couple vented its frustrations about messaging following Clinton’s uncomfortably close 0.25 percent win in last week’s caucuses. Benenson, multiple staffers and operatives say, has been equally frustrated with the Clintons’ habit of tapping a rolling cast of about a dozen outside advisers – who often have the candidate’s ear outside the official channels of communication.

The result is a muddled all-the-above messaging strategy that emphasizes different messages – and mountains of arcane policy proposals – in stark contrast to Bernie Sanders’ punchy and relentless messaging on income inequality.

“He’s a good pollster, and they promised him a lot more authority… but, you know, we are talking abut the Clintons,” said one veteran operative who acts as a surrogate with the campaign.

In President Obama’s two successful campaigns, access to the candidate was carefully monitored by campaign manager David Plouffe and other top advisers to ensure that the messaging and communications teams had coherent and cohesive short- and long-term plans. So far Clinton ’16 – which is supposed to be modeled on the Obama efforts – has functioned sloppily, with the Clintons absorbing off-the-books advice – even strategy memos – from family friends and advisers like Sidney Blumenthal, branding expert Roy Spence, current Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe and even Penn, who speaks exclusively to the former president, according to multiple sources.

In recent days, Hillary Clinton has tasked her campaign manager Robbie Mook – an expert at field organizing who commands the nearly unanimous loyalty of his staff – to expand his role from primary-and-caucus-state ground game logistics to messaging, with an additional emphasis on beefing up the campaign’s underperforming digital operation, which is seen as a key to challenging Sanders’ primacy with Democrats under 30.

The pressure on Mook comes at a time of what was arguably his greatest triumph: The 35-year-old campaign manager ran, what was by all accounts, a first-rate ground operation in the caucuses that maximized Clinton’s voter turnout in rural areas and among older voters — an effort that was barely able to beat back the overwhelming support the Vermont socialist senator got on Iowa’s college campuses and among the state’s cadre of progressive voters.

Moreover, several staffers told POLITICO Mook’s data and analytics operation was so well run, he was able to tell Clinton herself that she had won — even as the networks were declaring the race too close to call. “Get over to the hotel now!” he told the former secretary of state, according one aide who was at campaign headquarters on caucus night. “We need to beat Bernie!” — a mad rush to declare victory before Sanders took the stage to declare the contest a draw. Eight years ago, Mook played the same role when he ordered then Sen. Clinton to declare victory in the Indiana primary over Barack Obama — despite network projections that she might lose the state.

As the new year began, Clinton operatives were eager to take credit for the lack of internal drama; many credited Mook and the loyalty he inspires among his staffers with creating a leak-proof and seemingly functional team -- there had been no stories chronicling the internal turmoil, split factions, public spats and overhauls that defined Clinton’s dysfunctional 2008 campaign team.

But from the beginning, there have been deeper issues simmering within the cheerfully-decorated Brooklyn headquarters -- and much of that had to do with a disconnect between the candidate and her campaign. Over the summer while her campaign was bogged down in the email controversy, Clinton was deeply frustrated with her own staff, and vice versa. The candidate blamed her team for not getting her out of the mess quickly, and her team blamed Clinton for being stubbornly unwilling to take the advice of campaign chairman John Podesta and others to apologize, turn over her server, and move on. The entire experience made her a deeply vulnerable frontrunner out of the gate, and underscored a lack of trust between Clinton and her operatives, many of whom were former Obama staffers that she didn't consider part of her inner circle of trust.

Her advisers were also frustrated by having to play roles they hadn’t been hired for and were ill-suited for. From the beginning, Benenson was frustrated that he was forced to split his time between defending his boss on emails and defining a path for her candidacy. Clinton, meanwhile, longed for a chief strategist in the Mark Penn mold who could take on a more expansive role than playing pollster.

Insiders said the problem remains her message. “The message is, she’s fighting. She’s fighting for you,” said one ally. “We have to drive that.”

Follow @politico

Glenn Thrush is POLITICO's chief political correspondent.

COMMENTS

AGAIN Donald Trump is the only Republican mentioned during Dem debate

www.dailymail.co.uk

Bernie Sanders cited his head-to-head polling lead over Trump as evidence he should win nomination, hinting at how much the Democrats fear The Donald Martin O'Malley attacked Trump's call to temporarily ban non-citizen Muslims from entering the country'If Donald Trump wants to start a registry, in our country, of people by faith,' O'Malley boomed, 'he can start with me!' Sanders claimed Trump believes 'climate change is a hoax invented by the Chinese'For more on the Democratic debate visitwww.dailymail.co.uk/DemDebate

Republican presidential front-runnerDonald Trump drew less than one-half as much interest from debating democrats Sunday night, compared with their last on-stage contest in December.

But he was still the only GOP contender who drew any fire by name as Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders and Martin O'Malley tussled in Charleston, South Carolina.

Clinton, the presumptive favorite to win the Democratic nomination, left Trump out of her rhetoric. But Sanders and O'Malley launched broadsides as his positions on Islamic terrorism and global warming.

SCROLL DOWN FOR VIDEOS 

GLOBAL WARMING WARRIOR: Vermont's Democratic socialist Bernie Sanders took a climate-change shot at Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump on Sunday during the Democrats' debate in Charleston, South Carolina

'IT'S A HOAX': Trump had claimed in late December that the climate change movement was a 'hoax' and a 'money-making industry'

SOUTHERN DISCOMFORT: The South Carolina debate brought bitter rivals Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders within spitting distance of each other, and included Martin O'Malley as a feisty third wheel

'The debate is over. Climate change is real. It is already causing major problems,' Sanders said in the second half of Sunday night's contest. 'And if we do not act boldly and decisively, a bad situation will become worse.'

'It is beyond my comprehension,' he added moments later, 'how we can elect as President of the United States somebody like Trump who believes that climate change is a hoax invented by the Chinese.'

That line brought laughter from a partisan audience gathered downtown at the Gaillard Center.

Trump indeed said during a December 30 rally in Hilton Head, South Carolina that the modern climate change movement is 'a hoax. I mean, it's a money-making industry, okay? It's a hoax, a lot of it.'

He insisted that 'we don't have to destroy our economy' in order to protect the natural environment.

Trump never said during that appearance that China invented the purported hoax, but did point a finger at Beijing for failing to abide by the same rules the United States agreed to follow in a recently inked multinational climate change deal.

'They're buying all of our coal. We can't use coal anymore, essentially. They're buying our coal, and they're using it,' he said.

In 2012 The Donald tweeted – in a moment he later called a 'joke,' that '[t]he concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make US manufacturing non-competitive.'

O'Malley, a former Maryland governor, said Sunday night that he objected to Trump's call for a temporary ban on non-citizen Muslims entering the United States until the federal government can determine 'what is going on' in the wake of a deadly Islamist attack in San Bernardino, California.

DRUNK IN LOVE WITH HILLARY: A Clinton supporter advertised her support from Beyonce during a rally outside Sunday night's debate site

He spoke of a 'political front' in the war against the ISIS terror army. 

'If Donald Trump wants to start a registry, in our country, of people by faith,' O'Malley boomed, 'he can start with me!'

'And I will sign up as one who is totally opposed to his fascist appeals that wants to vilify American Muslims. That can do more damage to our democracy than anything.'

Sanders had already drawn the billionaire's blood, saying earlier that all three Democrats on stage had 'denounced Trump's attempt to divide this country, the anti-Latino rhetoric, the racist rhetoric, the anti-Muslim rhetoric.' 

The focus on Trump to the exclusion of all the other Republicans may indicate that Democrats fear the real estate tycoon more than the establishment candidates who want to unseat him at the top of the GOP pyramid.

ROUNDING UP CATHOLICS? Martin O'Malley (left) said that if Donald Trump (right) wants to segregate Americans by religion – meaning Muslims – 'he can start with me!'

IT'S GO TIME: The lawn of Charleston's Gaillard Center became a forest of yard signs Sunday night

Sanders made a point of emphasizing his poll numbers in a hypothetical head-to-head matchup with The Donald when he made his case that the Democratic Party should nominate him instead of Clinton.

'In terms of polling, we are running ahead of Secretary Clinton in terms of taking on my good friend Donald Trump,' Sanders said.

In the December 19 Democratic debate there were no fewer than nine separate mentions of Trump's name – including a controversial claim from Clinton that her league-leading Republican counterpart 'is becoming ISIS' best recruiter. They are going to people showing videos of Donald Trump insulting Islam and Muslims in order to recruit more radical jihadists.'

That contention was never backed up, although propaganda videos introduced later featured both Trump and Clinton.

O'Malley said that night that the United States 'must never surrender our American values to racists, must never surrender them to the fascist pleas of billionaires with big mouths.' 

THE 2016 FIELD: WHO'S IN AND WHO'S OUT 

A whopping 15 people from America's two major political parties are candidates in the 2016 presidential election.

The field includes two women, an African-American and two Latinos. All but one in that group – Hillary Clinton – are Republicans.

At 12 candidates, the GOP field has already lost two current governors, two former governors and a sitting senator, but is but still deeper than ever.

A much smaller group of three Democrats includes a former secretary of state, a former governor and a current senator.

DEMOCRATS IN THE RACE

Hillary ClintonFormer sec. of state

Age on Election Day: 69

Religion: United Methodist 

Base: Liberals 

Résumé:Former secretary of state. Former U.S. senator from New York. Former U.S. first lady. Former Arkansas first lady. Former law school faculty, University of Arkansas Fayetteville.

Education: B.A. Wellesley College. J.D. Yale Law School.

Family: Married to Bill Clinton (1975), the 42nd President of the United States. Their daughter Chelsea is married to investment banker Marc Mezvinsky, whose mother was a 1990s one-term Pennsylvania congresswoman.

Claim to fame: Clinton was the first US first lady with a postgraduate degree and presaged Obamacare with a failed attempt at health care reform in the 1990s.

Achilles heel: A long series of financial and ethical scandals has dogged Clinton, including recent allegations that her husband and their family foundation benefited financially from decisions she made as secretary of state. Her performance surrounding the 2012 terror attack on a State Department facility in Benghazi, Libya, has been catnip for conservative Republicans. And her presidential campaign has been marked by an unwillingness to engage journalists, instead meeting with hand-picked groups of voters.

Bernie Sanders* Vermont senator

Age on Election Day: 75

Religion: Jewish

Base: Far-left progressives

Résumé:U.S. senator. Former U.S. congressman. Former mayor of Burlington, VT.

Education: B.A. University of Chicago.

Family: Married to Jane O’Meara Sanders (1988), a former president of Burlington College. He has one child from a previous relationship and is stepfather to three from Mrs. Sanders' previous marriage. His brother Larry is a Green Party politician in the UK and formerly served on the Oxfordshire County Council.

Claim to fame: Sanders is an unusually blunt, and unapologetic pol, happily promoting progressivism without hedging. He is also the longest-serving 'independent' member of Congress – neither Democrat nor Republican.

Achilles heel: Sanders describes himself as a 'democratic socialist.' At a time of huge GOP electoral gains, his far-left ideas don't poll well. He favors open borders, single-payer universal health insurance, and greater government control over media ownership.

* Sanders is running as a Democrat but has no party affiliation in the Senate.

Martin O'Malley   Former Maryland governor

Age on Election Day: 53

Religion: Catholic

Base: Centrists 

Résumé:Former Maryland governor. Former city councilor and mayor of Baltimore, MD. Former Assistant U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia.

Education: B.A. Catholic University of America. J.D. University of Maryland.

Family: Married to Katie Curran (1990) and they have four children. Curran is a district court judge in Baltimore. Her father is Maryland's attorney general. O'Malley's mother is a receptionists in the Capitol Hill office of Democratic Sen. Barbara Mikulski.

Claim to fame: O'Malley pushed for laws in Maryland legalizing same-sex marriage and giving illegal immigrants the right to pay reduced tuition rates at public universities. But he's best known for playing guitar and sung in a celtic band cammed 'O’Malley’s March.'

Achilles heel: O’Malley may struggle in the Democratic primary since he endorsed Hillary Clinton eight years ago. If he prevails, he will have to run far enough to her left to be an easy target for the GOP. He showed political weakness when his hand-picked successor lost the 2014 governor's race to a Republican. But most troubling is his link with Baltimore, whose 2016 race riots have made it a nuclear subject for politicians of all stripes.

DEMOCRATIC DROPOUTS

Jim Webb, former Virginia senator

     (withdrew Oct. 20, 2015)

Lincoln Chafee, former Rhode Island governor

     (withdrew Oct. 23, 2015)

COMMENTS

One person shows up to O'Malley event in Iowa, remains uncommitted

www.politico.com

"The very last event of the night, we actually had a whopping total of one person show up, but by God, he was glad to see me. So we spent the time with him" former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley said. | Getty

Amid a vicious winter storm on Monday that forced some presidential campaigns to cancel their scheduled stops in Iowa, only Martin O'Malley decided to press on.

And one man at his last event, the only person to show up, in fact, "was glad to see me," the former Maryland governor said. But he still would not commit to caucus for O'Malley.

"The very last event of the night, we actually had a whopping total of one person show up, but by God, he was glad to see me. So we spent the time with him," the Democratic presidential candidate told MSNBC's "Morning Joe" on Tuesday, speaking from Des Moines.

A tweet shared by an ABC News reporter showed a bearded man, identified only as Kenneth, sitting at a table with O'Malley, who told MSNBC that he was "working on him," but also said people in Iowa "want to see the whole campaign play out" before deciding on a candidate.

Kenneth braved the snow storm to meet with @MartinOMalley in Tama. #iawx#iacaucus pic.twitter.com/xvB9S8hDwh

— Sarah Beckman (@SarahBeckman3)December 29, 2015

"So I wasn't surprised that he was uncommitted," O'Malley said. "But I was glad he took the time to come out in the snow to see me. We almost canceled that last event but we were out there anyway, so we plowed through."

Two Republican candidates, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio had planned to visit the state but were forced to cancel those plans until a later date.

Follow @politico

Clinton wins but O'Malley hits Hillary where it hurts at Democratic debate

DEMOCRATS

Clinton wins but O'Malley hits Hillary where it hurts at Democratic debate

By Douglas E. Schoen

Published December 20, 2015

FoxNews.com

Facebook Twitter livefyre Email

Hillary Clinton speaks during a Democratic presidential primary debate Saturday, Dec. 19, 2015, at Saint Anselm College in Manchester, N.H. (AP Photo/Jim Cole)

It was Hillary’s night

“Should corporate American love Hillary Clinton?” David Muir asked.

ADVERTISEMENT

“Everybody should,” Clinton responded without missing a beat.

This will undoubtedly be one of the most memorable moments of Saturday night’s Democratic debate at Saint Anselm College in New Hampshire, which showcased just three candidates but managed to cover a lot of ground.

Though buried on a Saturday night right before Christmas and up against NFL football no less, Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley combined substance with showmanship that made the debate worth watching. It’s a shame that, without even seeing the ratings, I know that many Americans will have missed it.

Hillary Clinton executed a masterful strategy Saturday night. She managed to handily beat the two men on either side of her who represent the progressive left of the Democratic party and at the same time position herself as a leader for the entire country, including a significant portion of Republicans who fear a Donald Trump presidency as much as any Democrat. In fact, her one- liner about Donald Trump turning into perhaps the biggest recruiting tool for ISIS gave everyone pause – as it should.

Clinton showed herself to be the most experienced candidate the Democrats are offering. While Bernie Sanders related almost every issue back to income inequality and the billionaire class in America – his cornerstone issue – Clinton was able to focus on each topic with precision and specifics. Her strategy to combat ISIS, which is an extension of Obama’s plan with a no-fly zone, is the right approach to combating this threat. On the issue of technology companies working with government to help combat terror, Clinton showed that she is a candidate of balance: there is a way to avoid compromising our civil liberties while still giving law enforcement the tools they need to fight terror.

She was the most balanced candidate on how she’d manage the economy. Instead of promising everything for free through increased taxes on Wall Street, Clinton’s plan to offer debt free college instead of freecollege is right on the money. She understands that we can’t raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour without hurting the economy and costing jobs, but that we can bring it up to twelve dollars an hour. And her notion of incentivizing profit sharing is a worthwhile one.

Sanders supporters got a great performance from the Vermont senator. He was completely sincere and passionate, showcasing his major selling points.

Sanders began the night by apologizing to Clinton for his campaign’s mishandling of a donor breach, which set the tone for an evening in which he did criticize her at times – notably on her handling of Middle East foreign policy – but also praised her work and went so far as to thank her for transforming the role of first lady. We saw no surprises from him: he wants to raise taxes and fundamentally redistribute wealth in the country. And he wants to fight ISIS through coalitions, but is opposed to any American boots on the ground, even special forces.

As for O’Malley, he did his best, but flopped on a number of issues. He took swipes at both Clinton and Sanders that won’t resonate with viewers and voters.

He surely has the experience and has notably implemented gun safety reform and raised the minimum wage in Maryland, but he just doesn’t appeal to voters. And in an election where Americans want outsider politicians, they’re never going to choose O’Malley over Clinton as the establishment candidate.

That said, O’Malley did bring up an issue that may haunt Clinton the most: Benghazi. In a veiled swipe at her, he noted how Ambassador Christ Stevens was not provided the proper support and tools to help Libya transition into a thriving democracy – a clear reminder of his untimely death. No doubt this foreshadows what will be in all likelihood a major line of attack from the Republicans and stands to really hurt her going forward.

Even with Hillary Clinton’s strong attempt at bipartisan appeal on Saturday evening, the question remains whether she’ll be able to pull it out if the Republicans nominate a strong, establishment candidate who doesn’t have her baggage.

In recent polling she’s been competitive with each GOP contender – and ahead of some – but we know that Obama’s low approval, American anxiety over ISIS and concerns about the economy could hurt her.

As for the Democratic battle, Hillary Clinton came into Saturday night with a big lead and she leaves with a big lead. Neither Sanders nor O’Malley hurt themselves, but her dominance was clear and it explains why she has her eyes focused on the prize: beating the Republicans come next November.

Douglas E. Schoen has served as a pollster for President Bill Clinton. He has more than 30 years experience as a pollster and political consultant. He is also a Fox News contributor and co-host of "Fox News Insiders" Sundays on Fox News Channel and Mondays at 10:30 am ET on FoxNews.com Live. He is the author of 11 books. His latest, co-authored with Malik Kaylan is "The Russia-China Axis: The New Cold War and America's Crisis of Leadership (Encounter Books, September 2014). Follow Doug on Twitter@DouglasESchoen.

+ FollowFoxNewsOpinion on 

NOTHING TO SEE HERE FOLKS

Hillary Clinton's dream debate is one nobody watches

nypost.com

Busy Saturday night? Probably, what with the NCAA bowl games, the Jets’ must-win battle in Dallas and opening weekend for “Star Wars: The Force Awakens.” So you’ll skip the Democratic presidential debate — just as Hillary Clinton hoped.

Long, long ago, Clinton set out to ensure she wouldn’t be robbed of the nomination by some interloper, the way she lost to Barack Obama in 2008.

The party’s power-brokers played along, handing the Democratic National Committee to Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a co-chair of Clinton’s ’08 campaign. Fix, in.

And so the DNC did its best to see nobody would watch the debates, lest voters dare think for themselves. Tomorrow’s is the second in a row on a Saturday night — easily the worst evening for TV viewership.

Over on the Republican side, they’ve delivered the three largest audiences ever for prez-primary debates. And seven more Republican debates are ahead; the Democrats have just three after Saturday.

The saddest thing about this “shield Hillary” approach is that it robs Democrats of a fair primary fight. Yes, it’s hard to see how socialist dinosaur Bernie Sanders or lightweight prettyboy Martin O’Malley is going to beat her — but they could at least push her to stand up for the party’s principles.

(Assuming it still has some.)

Worst of all is the message this sends about the frontrunner: Namely, that the last thing her supporters want is for the American public to hear what she has to say.

Debate memo to reporters: Bundle up

www.politico.com

---

the Saturday before Christmas, or that the localABC affiliate was pushed out over a labor dispute.

The media will be literally, on ice. A memo sent to reporters by host network ABC News warned that the media filing center is in an ice rink, and as such, reporters should bundle up.

"Please note in order to accommodate everyone, the media filing center is on St. Anselm’s hockey rink in the Sullivan Arena. Please remember to dress warmly," the memo reads.

Don't forget your skates!

Hadas Gold is a reporter at Politico.

STILL IN THE CLOSET

Lack of Democratic debates intentional

www.charlotteobserver.com

The Republican presidential candidates have demonstrated such an appetite for debates that if I set up nine lecterns in my living room on a weeknight around 8 p.m. and chanted “carpet bomb” and “anchor baby,” they’d probably materialize en masse, even before I had time to vacuum and put out the artichoke dip.

But I could send save-the-date cards, promise canapés by Mario Batali and recruit Adele to belt out “Hello” whenever the doorbell rang: Still the Democrats wouldn’t show up.

For all their flaws and fakery, the Republican candidates have squared off frequently, at convenient hours and despite the menacing nimbus of Donald Trump’s hair; the Democratic candidates have, in contrast, hidden in a closet.

Tuesday night’s meeting of Republicans was the fifth. The meeting of Democratic presidential candidates in a few days will be only the third.

And who’s going to watch it? It’s on a Saturday night, when a political debate ranks somewhere between dialysis and a Milli Vanilli tribute concert as a desirable way to unwind.

The previous meeting of the Democratic candidates was also on a Saturday night, and fewer than 9 million viewers tuned in, down from 15.3 million for the sole Democratic debate so far on a weeknight. All of the Republican debates have been on weeknights; the first two attracted more than 23 million viewers each.

In fact none of the first four Republican debates had an audience of less than 13.5 million. The fifth debate averaged 18 million viewers.

The Republican events certainly have seductions that the Democratic ones don’t. But the disparity in viewership is also a function of scheduling, and was thus predictable and obviously intended. When the Democratic debates were set up, party leaders assumed that Hillary Clinton would be their best candidate, put their chips on her and sought to make sure that some upstart didn’t upset their plans or complicate things.

Bernie Sanders complained. Martin O'Malley cried foul. So did a vice chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, Tulsi Gabbard. It was an ugly sideshow for a few days, then it blew over.

But we shouldn’t be so quick to forgive and forget how the Democratic Party behaved. It prides itself on being the true champion of democracy. Shouldn’t it want its candidates on vivid, continuous display? Shouldn’t it connect them with the largest audience that it can?

I’m surprised that I haven’t heard more griping about this. What I’ve heard instead is the concern that if Clinton indeed gets the nomination, she'll enter the general election less battle-tested than she’d be if she were facing stiffer primary competition and enduring a greater number of higher-stakes debates.

A politician who’s been through Whitewater, Travelgate, impeachment, an emotional 2008 campaign against Barack Obama and several Benghazi inquisitions doesn’t strike me as someone who needs more battle experience.

The real danger for her is that she’s become all armor.

And a real vulnerability is that she’s seen by voters as entrenched political royalty and thus too distant from everyday Americans.

That’s one of the problems with the Democratic debate schedule: It smacks of special treatment, and Clinton can’t afford to keep giving voters the impression that normal rules don’t apply to her.

And the Democratic Party can’t pretend that it’s done the right thing here. While these debates aren’t as high-minded as we’d wish or as illuminating as we sometimes pretend, they’re an important piece of the puzzle of figuring out candidates. They deserve priority and prominence. Artichoke dip optional.