The Suicide of The Democratic Party's Oligarchy

ELDER PATIOT – Yesterday’s successful power play at the Democratic National Committee meeting by the Clinton machine betrays the party hierarchy’s willingness to lose the 2016 presidential election in favor of the Clintons’ desire to be their nominee. 

Having failed so miserably in the 2008 Democrat debates, Hillary’s team made the decision that it would be in her best interests to limit debate and use the media to control the message she wants the public to hear.  What is she afraid of?

The answer is a younger and more physically attractive candidate in Martin O’Malley who threatens to make Hillary look like a tired old bag while they are on stage together, and a Socialist in Bernie Sanders that will outflank Hillary on the left. 

In an attempt to aide Mrs. Clinton’s candidacy, long-time Clinton ally and DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz unilaterally decided that there would be only four debates prior to the Iowa caucuses, and only two thereafter.  The Clinton campaign clearly has decided the less the voters see of Mrs. Clinton the better their chances of securing the nomination.  But, to what end?

Yes, a Clinton candidacy will deliver the Black vote and the union vote and the non-military government employee vote but so will the candidacies of any other Democrat.  Mrs. Clinton’s unfavorable polling numbers show her limited appeal among non-radicalized Democrats and Independents that any nominee will need to win the general election. 

Ex Maryland Governor O’Malley complained, “This sort of rigged process has never been attempted before.  We are the Democratic Party, not the undemocratic party.” 

He reasoned that with Trump and the rest of the Republican field owning the election coverage headlines “Democrats should hold more, not fewer, debates.”  He correctly asks; “Will we let the circus run unchallenged on every channel while we cower in the corner under a decree of silence in the ranks?  Or will we demand equal time to showcase our ideas.”

O’Malley makes salient points that raise other questions.  Most notably, why is leadership prepared to drive off a cliff in support of the Clintons?  After all, the last thing self-serving politicians do is fall on someone else’s sword. 

In that light, it becomes clear that party leadership has concluded that the 2016 election is probably unwinnable because the voter’s dissatisfaction with both parties is likely to drive them to decide on coming home to the safer fundamental principles the Republicans will offer rather than doubling down on more change that is the bellwether of their progressive movement.

This will conveniently provide them the benefit of allowing the Clinton reign of terror over the Democratic Party to expire without an internal war today that could leave the earth scorched and the party gutted.