Can someone please explain Jen Palmieri (HRC's spokeswoman) recent statement re: NH debate?

[JonLeibowitz]

“Hillary Clinton would be happy to participate in a debate in New Hampshire if the other candidates agree, which would allow the D.N.C. to sanction the debate.”

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/01/26/bernie-sanderss-campaign-says-he-would-sit-out-unsanctioned-debate/

Can someone please explain this? How this isn't implying that the DNC would sanction any debate which others agreed to? Doesn't this mean that prior to Sanders' newfound competitiveness she had no intention of an open and spirited debate on the issues?

Can someone tell me how I am interpreting this incorrectly?

[restorefreedom]

1. i have no idea what this means

dws was firm about the four or five debates..have they even scheduled the sixth?

she never said that if all the candidates agreed, there would be another one.

this is hilllary begging for a nh debate because she is down over twenty points there

[jfern]

2. There wasn't a single debate quarter 2 or 3 because that could have helped people know about Bernie

But there was always going to be suddenly more debates the moment Hillary started not doing well.

[JonLeibowitz]

3. This is what i figured but i didn't think camp weathervane would be arrogant enough to admit that.

But it seems to me that they just did.

[jfern]

4. They own the DNC

And in 2008, after 18 debates, Hillary asked for and got another 8 debates. Of course this time, we only have 4 instead of 18 debates before Iowa.

[Motown_Johnny]

5. This may be a game of chicken.

I heard Bernie say something similar. He seemed to want the other candidates to agree before committing himself.

Now Hillary's team seems to be doing the same thing.

I would not be surprised if Martin gets the stage to himself. Of course, then the DNC would need to ban him from any future debate(s) and that would leave a Bernie v Hillary 1 on 1 match up.

[Renew Deal]

6. I'm reading it the same way you are

I thought the debate topic was closed because DWS said it was closed.

[Jarqui]

7. Here's what this part means to me. Again with the quote for easy reference

“Hillary Clinton would be happy to participate in a debate in New Hampshire if the other candidates agree, which would allow the D.N.C. to sanction the debate.”

Jen Palmieri, Clinton Campaign

Sanders would not bite on an unsanctioned debate because it could cost him participation in a future sanctioned debate:
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/01/26/bernie-sanderss-campaign-says-he-would-sit-out-unsanctioned-debate/

Sanders campaign manager Weaver:

Mr. Weaver said Mr. Sanders’s campaign had not discussed the possible unsanctioned debate with Hillary Clinton’s campaign
...
“This ad hoc adding a debate when somebody wants it is not a good way to run things.”

So you add that all up and it suggests Hillary's campaign, that had stood with the DNC against more debates until recently, now seems to feel the pressure to have one before New Hampshire as it did the town hall in Iowa (because Bernie is closing in). In other words, it strikes me as more evidence that the Clinton campaign is pulling the strings at the DNC.

Not a big shock there as we've pretty much proven this before. The disgraceful, dishonest beat of the DNC, a wing of the Clinton campaign, goes on.

[JonLeibowitz]

10. I agree with you. This appears to be strong evidence that they are pulling the strings at DNC.

Makes me reconsider my party affiliation and vote for the general (I think that party affiliation at the ballot is recorded, no?). I heard something about someone rhyming with Dill Mine.

[Empowerer]

8. I'm pretty sure she means that the candidates and the DNC agreed on a certain number of debates

and the DNC cannot break the deal unless all of the candidates agree to the change. In order for it to be an "official" DNC debate, it must be agreed to by all of the parties. If all of the candidates agree, then the DNC can sanction the debate. If not - for example, if O'Malley and Clinton agree, but Sanders does not - it cannot be an official DNC-sanctioned debate.

[JonLeibowitz]

11. Sorry, but that leads to the same conclusion.

It means the DNC set up a limited number of sanctioned debates to help the frontrunner, so that the frontrunner could hide behind the cloak of "unsanctioned debate! cannot attend!".

But now the frontrunner is no longer and so the DNC can sanction debates as long as all agree? That is logically equivalent to Hillary Clinton not wanting a open and spirited debate while she was leading.

[Empowerer]

13. You asked what she meant by her comment. I told you. What your choose to read into it is up to you.

That said, the DNC could always sanction more debates if all the parties agreed - that's been the case from the beginning and has nothing to do with who the frontrunner is. They entered into an agreement to do a certain number of debates; like all contracts, that agreement can be changed if all of the parties agree to it. This is nothing new for this cycle and it's not even new for the process - this is how the Democratic debates have operated for several primary cycles, at least since 2004.

You can complain or cry conspiracy all you want. But Senator Sanders agreed to this number of debates, so unless you think he's a spineless wimp, it's kind of hard to argue that he was manipulated into agreeing to a limited number of debates to his detriment. And if that's what the DNC was trying to do, he should have stood up and called them out as loudly and forcefully as he calls out other injustices when he sees them.

[JonLeibowitz]

14. I know, and thanks for your comment. I was just saying it leads to the same conclusion.

And Bernie nor O'Malley didn't have much leverage to demand more debates at the beginning. That is why we are supposed to have a neutral party leadership -- to ensure fairness in things like this.

[Empowerer]

15. Well, Clinton has said she would agree to an additional debate, so all he has to do is say yes, and

it's good to go. It's up to Sanders at this point - it sounds like he's now got the leverage you were hoping fo.

[JonLeibowitz]

17. I think he is holding out so that the DNC officially sanctions it.

You don't want to be in a situation where you attend an unsanctioned debate and then HRC gets to skip out on the last two debates, reducing the total by 1.

Word on the street is that she originally requested fewer than 6 debates.

[Empowerer]

20. ? The DNC won't sanction it until he agrees.

All three have to agree before they will sanction it. Clinton and O'Malley already said they would do it. If Sanders says he won't (or doesn't say yes), Clinton and O'Malley can go ahead and do it, but the debate will not be sanctioned. If he says he wants to do the debate, it will be sanctioned. That's what I meant when I said that he has the leverage since it's now totally up to him. That was the point of Palmieri's comment - she was putting it out there that Clinton has agreed to do it. The only holdout now is Sanders, who has been saying he wants more debates, so there shouldn't be any question that he will say yes.

Now, maybe Clinton is testing him to see if he really wants more debates. If he does, he'll say yes to this one. If he doesn't agree to do it, it will look like Clinton called his bluff. I believe he really does want more debates, so I think the result will be the former scenario.

[JonLeibowitz]

21. Where has the DNC said that the debate will be sanctioned if all three agree?

I have not seen that reported. Note: HRC's spokeswoman is not an acceptable source on this.

What I have seen reported is:

"We have no plans to sanction any further debates before the upcoming First in the Nation caucuses and primary, but will reconvene with our campaigns after those two contests to review our schedule," DNC chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz said in a statement.

...


DNC rules stipulate that any candidate who participates in an unsanctioned debate forfeits the opportunity to attend contests sanctioned by the party. A DNC aide told The Hill that the party is not considering lifting that policy.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/dem-primaries/267120-dnc-will-not-sanction-additional-debates

[PoliticAverse]

9. It's not meant to be clear, that's the point of the statement.

It's designed to allow people to see what isn't there.

[CharlotteVale]

12. Trying to change their rules in the middle of their game

when their first set of rules bit them in the ass. That's how I read it.

[Empowerer]

16. They haven't changed the rules.

And now it's solely up to Sanders whether there will be an additional debate. I don't understand what all the complaining is about at this point.

[Oilwellian]

18. I agree with you

They're trying to coyly change the rules in mid-primary. I seem to recall when the original debate schedule became public, all of the candidates agreed there should be more debates scheduled, including Hillary. Debbie didn't want to budge then because, rules.

They're not fooling anybody. This didn't always exist if every candidate agreed more debates should be held. That excuse was pulled out of someone's ass.

[JonLeibowitz]

19. No -- Hillary said that she would be happy to attend more debates only if DWS sanctioned them

Which we all understood as a wink-wink to DWS, because it wouldn't help her to have debates whilst leading.