Scheduled Dem debates AND fora:

[elleng]

2.2 November 6, 2015 – Rock Hill, South Carolina (forum)
2.3 Mid-November 2015 – MoveOn.org (forum)

2.4 November 14, 2015 – Des Moines, Iowa (debate)
2.5 December 19, 2015 – Manchester, New Hampshire (debate)
2.6 January 17, 2016 – Charleston, South Carolina (debate)
2.7 February 11, 2016 – Milwaukee, Wisconsin (debate)
2.8 March 9, 2016 – Miami, Florida (debate)

Rachel Maddow announced that she has been selected to moderate the First in the South Candidates Forum with Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, and Martin O'Malley, to be held in South Carolina on November 6th, co-sponsored by the Democratic Parties of 13 southern states.
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/rachel-maddow-to-moderate-candidates-forum-540702787678

Anyone think DUers can learn enough about Martin O'Malley (and other candidates) with publicly available info AND debates and fora to make intelligent decisions?

Info about Martin O'Malley is available here:


http://www.democraticunderground.com/12813600

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12813608

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12813

https://martinomalley.com/category/policy/

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1281

[JDPriestly]

1. Anything on the West Coast?

Do we just get the Las Vegas debate?

55 electoral college votes in California alone, and we are sort of left out. California that is. We don't seem to count for much considering that we are a very Democratic state.

[elleng]

3. Take it up with DNC.

(Good luck with that.)

[JDPriestly]

4. The DNC -- in the bag for Hillary and ignoring the West Coast.

At least Bernie came out and made speeches here to ordinary people.

[highprincipleswork]

2. Perhaps

Perhaps a motivated citizen can use this and other news sources to make an informed choice.

But what about less motivated citizens?

Why should it be hard to hear what candidates have to say?

Are we more in favor of letting money and wherewithal dictate getting to know a candidate, or would it be nice to have the candidate appear on the largest mass media platform we have, preferably free of charge, for maximum distribution.

Why would the DNC so obviously move to restrict information, by limiting debates, by insisting on an exclusivity clause, and by scheduling them at such inopportune times?

I personally cannot imagine a truly good answer, and the people of all kinds who have seen through this to more devious answers are legion.

There should be more debates, in an effort to have all candidates be properly understood. Anything else is a sham. Unfortunately, that reminds many of us about what seems true more universally of the Democratic Party today. Anything that looks like it is standing up for my rights ultimately contributes to some small to large diminishment to me and my life, personal fortune, ultimate future, etc.