I wondered who would be the first to go negative, guess I have my answer.

Once you sink down, you never rise up.

He knows he has go get up, so is doing so where it matters, early primary and caucus states, and is gaining points.

I think he is a nice guy who means well, but he's getting bad advice. I don't think his campaign staff are doing him any favors with this approach, and I wouldn't be surprised if he is uncomfortable with it.

There are better ways to "break out" and get attention. He'd do better making the rounds of the talk shows with his guitar, seriously.

he's gone out of his way to stay substantive and positive notwithstanding prodding by the media 'hosts' who prod him otherwise.

He 'broke out' by announcing his plan for social security http://martinomalley.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/OMalley-Retirement-Security.pdf but I guess msm can't report/analyze/chew gum for more than one day.

he is going negative. He's also aligning himself with those hateful wingnuts and that is not a good look for him.

I hope he rethinks the strategy because I don't think it will work well for him. He'd do better if he challenged those hosts, got in their faces, and demanded that they stick to issues rather than try to create faux controversies--of course, he's 'gone there' before (as long as six months ago) so it's kind of hard for him to play the "offended" card with vigor. But it would be worth a shot--all those talking heads want is something lively that puts eyes on the screen--they don't care what, really.

tells foolish 'hosts' to take the issue elsewhere and discuss substantive matters with me.

He's too polite to get in their faces (and difficult as long distance; he's in iowa and steph etc elswhere,) AND he DOES tell them to stick to substance, EVERY TIME, HAS been doing it.

He has a very sunny and personable nature when he wants to turn it on--I think he'd do better taking advantage of that.

He could lead with music and follow with policy, and a talk show format is a great intro. Play a tune with the house band, do a little banter, talk a little policy. More people would see him on Fallon or Kimmel or even Conan than would ever see him on one of the Sunday morning wonk shows.

His people should work on it. IMO, anyway. What they're running right now isn't working. Again, IMO--and that's no slam on him, it's tactics.

This one of the longest DU threads? Too damn bad msm not interested in policy, and seems fairly true for DU too.

Playing guitar and banjo only gets one so far.

Doing nicely where he's heard, in Iowa for example, with or without banjo. For example: http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/elections/presidential/caucus/2015/08/22/omalley-talks-experience-and-progressivism-event-fairfield/32209869/

First let me say I admire your posts very much MADem, but I have to disagree here. What he is saying is let Hillary take care of those questions, and lets talk about the real issues. While I think that this whole email things is a right wing smear, the facts do need to come out and I think when the facts to come out it will be on her side, not the republicans.

I think we need to start the debates right after labor day. Democrats are missing an opportunity to take on the GOP and their insane platform. Right now Trump is pushing the idiots running for the GOP nomination into having to take him on, and try and be crazier then he is to get the nutty tea party voters. It's a wast to let this get away from us. Let them play games with Trump, and as O'Malley is saying, let the democrats start debating the real issues that face this country.

I think O'Malley is tired of the BS from the media, and like Bernie tired of being asked about the email crap. If we were having debates pointing out the problems with the republicans, it would help get message out that democrats are about fixing things with real ideas, not about playing in the clown car with the Donald.

She's damned if she does, damned if she doesn't. O'Malley piling on, for those who take notice (and most just aren't locked on to this--save ardent opponents who are unlikely to ever vote for her) just isn't a winner for him.

Jenifer Granholm was joking when she said that he was screwing himself out of a cabinet position the first time he brought this up, but if he keeps it up he may find himself in the wilderness. I don't say that to be unkind, I just think he is getting HORRIBLE campaign advice. He doesn't really want to debate "policy" with her--she could clean his clock. He just wants to play that time-honored "avoiding a fight" card in order to get publicity. Contenders in boxing do it to the World Champion all the time.

Maybe he should get some new campaign advisors, and try a new tack. He's spending his "likability" at a rapid clip, dispensing it at a faster rate than it is replenished. There are WAY easier ways to get publicity.

He'd do WAY better to play his "likability" card (though he has work to do w/the black community as well) in non-confrontational venues, and create a reputation as an accessible, friendly guy than continue down this path. The place to play that card, too, isn't getting pounded on the debate stage, it's on the talk show stage. He needs to introduce himself, and shitting on Clinton or Sanders (or trying to--and failing) isn't the way to introduce yourself.

He's younger and far more energetic and youthful appearing than Sanders, when he pulls out the guitar and starts strumming, he's "have-a-beer-with" friendlier-seeming than Clinton (and he is helped by the fact that women have to work twice as hard to get half the credit), and to the inattentive voter, there's barely daylight between any of them.

I know people on this board like to pretend otherwise, but people who gather around the midpoint-to-left end of things aren't all that attentive. Any Dem will do, so long as they are cheerful, smart, say the right things, pound the GOP candidates for their backwards views on women, LGBT, and social issues, and GOTV. If people that THEY like and respect support them, better still--the people who whistle past the graveyard saying "Endorsements don't matter" are being unrealistic. People who loved Ted Kennedy, for example, if he told them to vote for Filbert McGillicuddy for alderman, they'd flock to the polls in droves, no question, even if they had no idea what Filbert looked like or what he stood for. Referrals count in this gig, particularly with the party liners.

I think the debates aren't going to start any sooner than they're scheduled. The "GOP platform" isn't going anywhere, and why shoot at seventeen pissant targets when in time, the GOP will pare it down to a manageable five to seven on their own.

If O'Malley keeps crabbing, he's going to be painted as desperate for attention. You don't see anyone in the DNC machine saying "Yeah, the guy's RIGHT...we should have debates in the heat of summer when everyone's at the damn beach!" It's just not a winning gambit. It's throwing money at a venue that is nothing more than a potential source of "gotcha" quotes for the GOP down the line--and that's no matter who prevails.

It's only people who are trailing and need exposure who want debates. Continuing to cry for them just won't catch on. People who are leading don't need them or want them.

There's just no impetus for the institutional Democratic machine to hurry the process. Let the GOP beat each other up first, and then our crew takes on the leftovers.

Also, there's no sense "debating" a madman like Trump, even in a proxy fashion. Give Trump enough rope, and he'll hang himself. Right now he's amusing, he's out-RAGE-eous, but after a while, that act will wear very thin indeed.

Even people who insist that they "like" him won't vote for him. They "like" him the same way that some people "like" shit-stirrers on message boards....they keep things lively. And the pollsters? They just haven't quite figured out how to sniff out bullshit when they ask people if they intend to vote for a nitwit like Trump.

They call it "silly season" for a reason.

Your statement on the debates. We NEED debates, we don't need to sit around on our ass and ignore all the crap the republicans are spewing out. I think you are going way over board on what you say about O'Malley. I would love to see all of them debate so the people can really get an idea of where they all stand on the issues. Yes O'Malley has gotten a rough start, but that doesn't mean we should ignore him. He is not after a position with Hillary, he actually wants to be the president, and I for one think he would do a job of it.

Like I said before I have admired your posts in the past, but I totally disagree with you on this issue.

People who don't need publicity don't. People who want to distinguish themselves from a pack need debates, people who don't need to do this don't.

You can probably get a better view of what every politician thinks by sitting in front of a computer for a half hour and spending two or three minutes at their web pages, rather than wait, passively, for some talking head to ask a gotcha question and wait for a reply.

Candidates who are trailing will do stupid shit like Rick Lazio did, or play a little dustup like Rand Paul v. Chris Christie did at the last GOP shindig. I don't think anyone is any clearer on where the GOP field stands on given issues after their double digit clown car debate concluded.

In any event, I would be entirely comfortable placing a hefty bet that the debate schedule will not be altered, and I am not a gambler, ordinarily. Tuesday, October 13, is just around the corner--it's slightly more than a month and a half away. By then, the summer will be over, the kiddies will be settled into school, and there will be that brief moment of focus between transitioning into a school year routine and getting ready for the fall and winter holidays. It's not that long a wait.

He is saying that all the BS about the email thing is not what we need to be talking about, just like Bernie has been saying. Talking cheap shots like this is not really helping matters, why not just talk about Bernie and his ideas, that would work a lot better. For the record I think Bernie has some great ideas, I just wish all of his supporters would discus them instead of going after the "other" candidates.

will bring the whole party down and put one of the 17 'clown car' passengers in the WH. Right now the Repugs are sucking all the oxygen out of the room. It's 'all Repugs all the time' now in the media. This is even bringing the President's numbers down because of all the dumping on the Dems, Obama & Hillary. The Dems need to start talking the real issues and defending their positions or by the time they start - The American People - will have formed their opinions.

about more than hillary (and trump, and other sideshows.)

He IS right. The Dems need to start talking the real issues and defending their positions.

aren't "real issues."

'Innuendos' about lawyers? Questioning Sanders' sincerity?

And:

Martin O'Malley: Biden run would mean 'one more lifelong Democrat' in race.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12812598

Don't get me wrong, I like O'Malley, I just don't care for this strategy.

He has a lot more to offer.

more like facts. Re: lawyers polite way to say 'I'm not getting into that stuff, would like to discuss substance.'

Re: Biden, truth, ANOTHER one of us is GOOD.

But the not being a democrat is going to be something he will have to face if he wins the nomination, and a problem when trying to get some democrats to support him. I don't think it was a cheap shot. Bernie has a lot of offer also, but he will have this problem to deal with sooner or later.

No one focuses on debates this early. The only reason the GOP held their little shindig(s) was to cull their absurdly bloated field, not because they wanted to "talk real issues" or "defend their positions." That was a beauty contest, nothing more, held in the main dining room and the children's nursery.

"In ten seconds Miss WhateverSTATE, tell us how you'd solve the problem of world hunger!" Meaningless--it was a cattle auction, nothing more.

Now they'll cut out the bottom rankers and go on to the swimsuit and talent portions of the competition.

We don't have a big field. It's easy to get positions on 'real issues' and position defenses just by going to the websites of the candidates. They've all got decent ones. When people start focusing, the D Team will get more eyes and interest in their debates. Right now, though, people are distracted.

are under the spotlight. To me that is a good thing.

The media's spotlight on the GOP's extremist platform dooms any chance for the GOP gaining the white house. In fact, all the GOP nominees know they won't win in the general election. That's one reason why there are so many GOP candidates -- they're in it solely for the money. Do you really think that, by the time the craziest of the crazies gets the GOP nomination that everyone will just "forget" what their platform is in the general election? That may have worked 20 or 30 years ago (run right in the primary, steer center in the general,) but we're now in the age of the Internet, Youtube, cameras everywhere recording everything. Nothing is ever forgotten.

It's a matter of "we the people" need debates to make an informed decision.

More information about the candidates and their views is always better than less.

More debates means more disclosure. That is essential for decision-making.

This is not a personality contest. It is an election -- a very important election.