Debbie Wasserman Schultz has failed miserably as the head of the DNC, and one of her biggest gaffes was trying to protect Hillary Clinton from the severe scrutiny of presidential debates. Hillary proved she was a worthy debater during the 2008 campaign and at times soundly defeated Barack Obama, so why did the DNC decide on this course of action?
And Bernie, even if he's not part of the Democratic party, has had many solid moments so far in the limited debate schedule of 2015, including his populist vision and passionate defense of Hillary against the Benghazi committee and his refusal to attack her with Republican tropes.
And scheduling a presidential debate on Saturday's is just flat-out ridiculous.
Democrats are holding a primary debate tomorrow, much to the annoyance of political journalists everywhere whose Saturday nights are being ruined. Most galling off all, this appears to be a deliberate tactic to minimize viewership taken by the Democratic National Committee as a favor to Hillary Clinton, who wanted to minimize the number of debates. If that's right, though, the party has done its frontrunner no favors. It makes sense for Clinton to want to have fewer debates rather than more, but as long as Democrats are going to debate, she should want said debates to be seen by as many people as possible.
Yes, why was the DNC afraid?
Clinton's depth of knowledge and breadth of experience is a huge advantage in the rambling, unpredictable context of a debate.
But this really only comes across if you actually sit down and watch the debate. Everyone who watched the first Democratic primary debate agreed that her performance was impressive. But it lacked a signature moment like the showdown where Marco Rubio humiliated Jeb Bush. Clinton didn't deliver a knockout punch to Bernie Sanders. She simply looked a little more comfortable and a little more conversant across a range of topics over an extended period of time. It's something you genuinely had to see for yourself to appreciate.