Martin O'Malley
Related: About this forumMartin O'Malley on Bernie, Hillary, the Democratic debate and what went wrong in 2016
If America wants a healthier democracy, we need better debates so says the other Democrat who ran in 2016.
'Former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley got a raw deal during the 2016 Democratic primaries. Most critics of the Democratic Party focus on how its eventual nominee, Hillary Clinton, may have had an unfair advantage over Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont. They forget that there were other people running, at least at first: O'Malley, former Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia and former Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee. Of those three, O'Malley was the one who stayed in the race by far the longest, even if he never developed much credibility as a pathway somewhere between Clinton and Sanders.
Logically speaking, O'Malley at the very least deserved attention (a point I made as far back as October 2015). That didn't happen: Clinton seemed more than willing to allow Sanders -- a candidate she was certain she could easily beat -- to be her principal opponent, the entire party seemed determined to marginalize O'Malley. He was brushed aside during the debates and even mocked on "Saturday Night Live" for having a candidacy at all.
Given that O'Malley had previously developed a reputation as one of America's more accomplished governors, this seemed not only unfair, but downright counterintuitive, at least to those who were genuinely interested in having the Democrats field their strongest possible presidential candidate. So I was interested in hearing O'Malley's thoughts about the future of the Democratic Party. during his recent visit to Salon Talks. This conversation has been edited for length and clarity. (You can watch a fuller version embedded below.
Before the camera started rolling, you and I were talking about the primary process. You were specifically discussing with me the way that ratings trump substantive discourse, and how that damages democracy. Would you be willing to elaborate?
I think right now in our country theres a tremendous amount of anxiety about where were headed as a nation. The whole world is moving into what many call a third industrial revolution. Yet we seem, as a nation, to be stumbling backwards into this one instead of facing it square on. At the same time what weve seen is a bit of a degeneration in our presidential politics, to put it mildly, where in the absence of any fairness doctrine, or strong parties that push back, ratings seem to have become king, rather than public discourse, in our parties' primary debates.
Before the camera started rolling, I brought this up as a compliment to you because youre one of the very few journalists thats written about that aspect. I mean, many people have talked about the corporations. People publicly finance elections. We have to somehow figure out how we conduct our presidential primaries in ways that give life to the public discourse instead of just lifting up the most agitational for the sake of ratings. The gentleman whos the head of CBS was quoted during Donald Trumps rise, while the Democratic Party was not debating and the Republicans were debating every other week in prime time.
We saw more and more how every question was being routed through Donald Trump and the wall-to-wall coverage of his rallies pulling up to the airport hangar. The head of CBS said, In the old days, we wouldnt have been allowed to do this because of fairness doctrine. I know its not good for the country but its great for ratings. CBS is going to have a really good year. I say, go Donald, go.
Just because it was good for CBS didnt mean that it was good for the country. I think he sensed that even as he said it. Its a piece of what we need to recover as a nation if were going to come out of this rather aberrational presidency. . .
Had he joined us, we would have had more debates. Ill leave it to you to imagine what might have happened differently if the Democratic Party were on the air answering Donald Trump during his rise in the Republican debates, rather than remaining silent. I think the common thread [in both parties] is that it really did become so much more driven by ratings than weve ever had before.
If we continue down this road, theres a real concern that our presidential debates, our primary debates I distinguish them from the general election debates where theres a commission and theres rules and theres equal time are in danger of going down the road where they look more like the Jerry Springer show crossed with "Hollywood Squares" than a traditional presidential debate. I think among the issues that we have to tackle to restore the integrity and trust in our democracy, those presidential primary debates are certainly one of them.'
https://www.salon.com/2018/08/06/martin-omalley-on-bernie-hillary-the-democratic-debate-and-what-went-wrong-in-2016/
irisblue
(34,252 posts)elleng
(136,043 posts)I hoped he'd have mentioned the 'agreement' the Dem party had with the networks to keep O'Malley's particiption in the 'debates' short, HRC and Sanders got XXX minutes each, and MO'M got XXX minus 3 or somesuch, astonishing and hugely unfair.
Wwcd
(6,288 posts)Evidence we know now, proves this.
Ask TAD & PAUL why O'Malley was silenced in the early primary. As was HRC silenced throughout, except for MSM & bot-pushed negs.
O'Malley was a fair player.
That wasn't who they needed to run oppo on the Dem Party.
It still stands true today.
I would have liked to have heard more fom O'Malley.
He would have never let Trump go unchallenged.
He also would have backed up his criticisms with fact & a healthy record behind him.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)MOM was a weak public speaker who was blown away by a far more charismatic speaker, Bernie Sanders. Yes, MOM is an incredibly better man, and public speaking is Sanders' only gift among a package of huge flaws, but voters who wanted an alternative to Hillary went for Sanders.
If MOM wants to be president he can damned well learn to own a stage. He should have before he arrived for the first debate. Hillary did; she has no special talent, but she worked at it until she succeeded.
Btw, this tired old whining and blaming other Democrats for MOM's failure here again 3 MONTHS BEFORE THE MIDTERMS? Thousands of children are still being held in detention camps in the desert, and the Trump organization is victimizing more every single day as people who were here legally are deported.
And then there's the little matter that authoritarians, even fascist leaners, are within reach of getting the control of SCOTUS they've worked toward for decades.
I do not admire your priorities. To put it mildly.
JHan
(10,173 posts)both Sanders and Clinton outclassed O'Malley, 'better debates' would have had the same result.
O'Malley is also insinuating Clinton viewed him as a threat - is this a joke? And I don't say this as a Malley hater, I liked him a lot, and wanted him to be more competitive. I'd have rathered HRC vs Malley than HRC vs Sanders. But it was clear early on that wasn't going to happen, and a huge reason for that was Malley's own performance.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)try use to O'Malley, from what I've heard so far. From what the Mueller investigation has revealed, Sanders was and is the Kremlin's chosen weapon whose commitment to dissension justifies investment.
SharonClark
(10,323 posts)Despite your tireless promotion of O'Malley on DU before the primary, he simply didn't catch fire with the public.
elleng
(136,043 posts)sorry to say.
DavidDvorkin
(19,889 posts)They created that narrative from the start.
elleng
(136,043 posts)Wwcd
(6,288 posts)O'Malley would never have done for them what they were after.
He is far too fair a man.
Tad was already on his mission in 2014.
Plans to run oppo were already being laid out.
O'Malley wasn't their choice.
That's what happened
See?
elleng
(136,043 posts)+ others likely.
Wwcd
(6,288 posts)Last edited Tue Aug 7, 2018, 11:30 AM - Edit history (1)
long before the candidates announced in 2015.
There is a big glaring reason beyond "the Dem Party", for O'Malley being in the position he ended up in.
And one half of that reason is on trial right now.
Agree that it should have been O'Malley in the primary against HRC.
Two worthy contenders with the best intentions for the D Party & America.
Who slipped in the middle of that elleng?
This is a pic of Rand Paul's visit with Russia.
The panel discussed Paul's desire to make RU our friends & Partners.
Make of it what you will, but the Dem Party was the least of O'Malley's reasons for being shut out.
Ask TAD.
Not much to see here, it's just a pic of Paul on Russian State TV.
I really don't know what to make of it, but perhaps your beef isn't with the Dem Party. Perhaps its much deeper than that.
I don't want to explain this pic.
It is what it is.
Link to tweet
Top Row: Dennis Kucinich, Dana Rohrbacher, Ron Paul
Bottom Row: Bernie Sanders, Gen Flynn & Rand Paul.
Me.
(35,454 posts)that pic says it all
Response to Wwcd (Reply #11)
heaven05 This message was self-deleted by its author.
That's not gonna be in any "opposition research" in 2020...
Response to elleng (Reply #10)
heaven05 This message was self-deleted by its author.
elleng
(136,043 posts)and it was clear to me what was going on.
Anyone remember deb wasserman---?
Why Eric Swalwell Endorsed Martin O'Malley
https://www.democraticunderground.com/12816198
Wwcd
(6,288 posts)Ask TAD.
Ask ASSANGE what they were covering up by dropping a drama bomb about Wasserman?
What neg press had just hit the News as to Voter Data Theft?
Assange was ready to knock that bad press outta sight.
There was a whole lot more going on at that moment.
MONEY & MEDIA & Paul & Tad.
Did you know Tad sued Wikipedia to remove negative stories from BS's past history as to his penchant for dictators?
It was hardly as innocent as, "the Dem Party didn't like O'Malley".
We were dealing with the Russian Mob & the two global electioneers of their choice.
Right & Left. Paul & Tad.
That is what happened.
elleng
(136,043 posts)Response to heaven05 (Reply #15)
ehrnst This message was self-deleted by its author.
Response to ehrnst (Reply #34)
heaven05 This message was self-deleted by its author.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Nice evasion. Maybe that works on other people.
BTW "go find it yourself on Google" is the same thing I hear when I ask a Trump supporter to substantiate their claims of knowing "the truth."
"I state that unequivocally and without a doubt." But you can't back up your claims with any sources. Got it...
Response to ehrnst (Reply #36)
heaven05 This message was self-deleted by its author.
Response to heaven05 (Reply #37)
ehrnst This message was self-deleted by its author.
Response to ehrnst (Reply #38)
heaven05 This message was self-deleted by its author.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)This is something that I think should be apparent, but I probably missed some things.
Response to ehrnst (Reply #41)
heaven05 This message was self-deleted by its author.
Va Lefty
(6,252 posts)Me.
(35,454 posts)But could we please stop bashing and blaming the Dems for what others did?
DoctorJoJo
(1,134 posts)lapucelle
(19,532 posts)There's no antecedent for the pronoun "he". Who is O'Malley talking about there?
Here's the preceding paragraph. It seems to have been inadvertently omitted from the OP:
Had he joined us, we would have had more debates. Ill leave it to you to imagine what might have happened differently if the Democratic Party were on the air answering Donald Trump during his rise in the Republican debates, rather than remaining silent.
https://www.salon.com/2018/08/06/martin-omalley-on-bernie-hillary-the-democratic-debate-and-what-went-wrong-in-2016/
JHan
(10,173 posts)sorry to say."
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1281&pid=6311
+ others likely."
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1281&pid=6316
elleng
(136,043 posts)would have been the case. It seemed like Hillary Clinton because of her extensive career and name recognition and Bernie Sanders, because he was offering a message from outside the Democratic Party paradigm, sucked up all the attention in the room.
The scheduling was always such that viewership was going to be lower. It does tie into the complaint that a lot of Sanders supporters have, that on everything from how the debates were scheduled to various other arcane rules, it seemed to all be -- lets use the word "rigged" -- for Hillary Clinton. Did you feel that way?
They didnt have that complaint when the debates were delayed, because it actually worked for both Sen. Sanders and Hillary Clinton to be the only two. They kinda liked it that way. We heard those complaints from Sen. Sanders only after the primary schedule started to roll out. Initially, I was unable -- though we asked [Sanders] and asked his campaign, to get him to join me in calling for an earlier debate schedule and more debates. Im sure they made a tactical decision that it wasnt in their best interest to do that.
Had he joined us, we would have had more debates. Ill leave it to you to imagine what might have happened differently if the Democratic Party were on the air answering Donald Trump during his rise in the Republican debates, rather than remaining silent. I think the common thread [in both parties] is that it really did become so much more driven by ratings than weve ever had before.
You think? That was my perception as well.
I think there are some parallels. Ive become friendly with Gov. Jeb Bush -- only Donald Trump can do that to me! As we talked, unpacked our very different experiences in the last presidential race, we werent shy at the time at kicking over the soup and saying it was very irresponsible of the Democratic Party not to be debating, not to telling the alternative story to the story that Donald Trump was spinning. Shame on us as we watched this Trump candidacy rise, becoming more and more overt in its scapegoating and other characteristics of strongman politics like weve seen before, and we were silent. We didnt have our first debate until, I think, October. Im not sure we ever really had a prime-time debate.
If we continue down this road, theres a real concern that our presidential debates, our primary debates I distinguish them from the general election debates where theres a commission and theres rules and theres equal time are in danger of going down the road where they look more like the Jerry Springer show crossed with "Hollywood Squares" than a traditional presidential debate. I think among the issues that we have to tackle to restore the integrity and trust in our democracy, those presidential primary debates are certainly one of them.'
lapucelle
(19,532 posts)MOM was making an important point in response to allegations by one side that the debate schedule was "rigged".
elleng
(136,043 posts)'they made a tactical decision that it wasnt in their best interest to do that."'
George II
(67,782 posts)....still blaming the Democratic Party?
As my now second favorite President used to say (surpassed only by Obama!), "that dog don't hunt."
elleng
(136,043 posts)Martin O'Malley on Bernie, Hillary, the Democratic debate and what went wrong in 2016.
newblewtoo
(667 posts)I begin to question if MOM can walk and chew gum, let along be elected governor of Maryland and chairman of the Democratic Governor's Association.
Did he get a short shrift? I believe he did. Would he have presented a greater challenge to Hillary [than BS] had he been treated the same? I believe he would have. Can't we ever get beyond Step 5? I sure hope so or we may be doomed to the dust bin of history.
And now a word for walking and knocking Some of us can no longer physically do it. If you can, sign up and at least give it a try. You may find it an enjoyable way to spend some time and do some good.
Thanks for your conscientious posting for MOM elleng.
elleng
(136,043 posts)And welcome.