Clinton Proposes Debate Without Moderator

[BPSCG]

Democratic rivals Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton turned up the rhetoric Saturday in their increasingly heated primary battle as she issued a new debate challenge and he complained of a race that's largely been reduced to trivia while working families feel economic pain.

Clinton took the debate dispute to a new level, challenging Obama to face off with her in a debate without a moderator, Lincoln-Douglas style.
"Just the two of us, going for 90 minutes, asking and answering questions, we'll set whatever rules seem fair," Clinton said while campaigning in South Bend.

Her campaign made the offer formal with a letter to the Obama campaign.
Obama aides said he had already debated Clinton 21 times, "the most in primary history."Link (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hLPqTxd4Fe7e5EymHU-kTUgweRDQD909S9I00)

If the race has "largely been reduced to trivia," wouldn't an unmoderated debate where the two candidates could speak at length on the issues go a long way towards correcting that? I've long hated the current debate format, where each candidate gets a minute or two to answer a question, regardless of how complex or how trivial it may be, and is more interested in finding that sound bite that will make the news broadcasts.

What Clinton is proposing is a debate similar to the series of debates Lincoln and Stephen A. Douglas had in 1858 when they were running for the U.S. Senate from Illinois (transcripts of those debates are easily available on amazon, for anyone who cares...), except that those debates lasted far longer; each candidate typically spoke for half an hour at a time without interruption.

I haven't watched a single debate, on either side. But I'd watch this.

[Rob Lister]

I haven't watched a single debate, on either side. But I'd watch this.

I've watched a few of the debates but I would certainly watch this one. No way Obama will submit to this. This is the equivalent to Hillary going all in with a 2-7 off-suit, and she has far fewer chips to lose.


Oh, and there would be much resulting fodder -- and who doesn't like that?

[kallsop]

Obama has no reason to debate further with Hillary. He is the front runner and why risk another horrible performance like the last debate in PA?

[BPSCG]

I've watched a few of the debates but I would certainly watch this one. No way Obama will submit to this. This is the equivalent to Hillary going all in with a 2-7 off-suit, and she has far fewer chips to lose.True enough. But I think if she's smart, she'll make much of this:

"A hundred fifty years ago, just like today, another candidate from Illinois challenged his opponent - also from Illinois - to a series of unmoderated debates, just as I am today challenging Senator Obama. A hundred fifty years ago, Senator Stephen A. Douglas was reluctant to accept the challenge, just as Senator Obama is reluctant to accept it today. But eventually, Senator Douglas was forced by popular opinion to accept his opponent's challenge, and their historic debates made Abraham Lincoln a household name, and eventually helped send him to the presidency."

Or: "The United States Senate is often called, 'The World's Greatest Debating Society,' and 'The World's Greatest Deliberative Body.' Why should a member of that debating society and deliberative body shy away from a debate that would be far more informative than the sound-bite infomercials we have been engaged in up to now? Senator Obama says the voters have already heard 21 debates. I say to you that quality is far more important than quantity. Senator Obama says the voters are tired of them. I answer that the voters decide whether they are tired of the debates or not, and the fact that our most recent one was the most widely-watched is proof that the voters are never tired of finding out where we stand on the issues."

Oh, and there would be much resulting fodder -- and who doesn't like that?:popcorn1

[Jaggy Bunnet]

True enough. But I think if she's smart, she'll make much of this:

"A hundred fifty years ago, just like today, another candidate from Illinois challenged his opponent - also from Illinois - to a series of unmoderated debates, just as I am today challenging Senator Obama. A hundred fifty years ago, Senator Stephen A. Douglas was reluctant to accept the challenge, just as Senator Obama is reluctant to accept it today. But eventually, Senator Douglas was forced by popular opinion to accept his opponent's challenge, and their historic debates made Abraham Lincoln a household name, and eventually helped send him to the presidency."

Countered with:

"Clinton came into this contest as the most high profile, most recognised, biggest household name and biggest favourite to participate in a nomination race in years. She has had 21 debates already, far more than Lincoln had and in fact a record number for any nomination campaign. To suggest she is being denied an opportunity to present her views is, frankly, astonishing."

Or: "The United States Senate is often called, 'The World's Greatest Debating Society,' and 'The World's Greatest Deliberative Body.' Why should a member of that debating society and deliberative body shy away from a debate that would be far more informative than the sound-bite infomercials we have been engaged in up to now? Senator Obama says the voters have already heard 21 debates. I say to you that quality is far more important than quantity. Senator Obama says the voters are tired of them. I answer that the voters decide whether they are tired of the debates or not, and the fact that our most recent one was the most widely-watched is proof that the voters are never tired of finding out where we stand on the issues."

"I agreed to a debate in North Carolina. Hillary Clinton turned it down. I have organised my campaign accordingly - should I let down the people I have made commitments to and rearrange my schedule just because Hillary has changed her mind and decided she does want a debate after all? That is not the way my campaign works."

And in the "off the record" briefings I would be using the words "desperation move" and "nothing left to lose". I might also slip in some comments about her cash shortage meaning she can't buy airtime so she has to try and get it some other way.

[T.A.M.]

Hillary simply wants the freedom to let loose on Obama without the constraints of only having "5 minutes" per topic.

It would be a "Ayers/Wright" hour long BS session.

Not gonna happen.

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

Countered with:

"Clinton came into this contest as the most high profile, most recognised, biggest household name and biggest favourite to participate in a nomination race in years. She has had 21 debates already, far more than Lincoln had and in fact a record number for any nomination campaign. To suggest she is being denied an opportunity to present her views is, frankly, astonishing."



"I agreed to a debate in North Carolina. Hillary Clinton turned it down. I have organised my campaign accordingly - should I let down the people I have made commitments to and rearrange my schedule just because Hillary has changed her mind and decided she does want a debate after all? That is not the way my campaign works."

Exactly.

TAM:)

[ConspiRaider]

Hillary simply wants the freedom to let loose on Obama without the constraints of only having "5 minutes" per topic.

It would be a "Ayers/Wright" hour long BS session.

Not gonna happen.

TAM:)
Wrong again, on how you read Hillary's mind concerning what she "wants".

It sounds like you are afraid of Hillary's power - "freedom to let loose on Obama", and I think that is the REAL reason you are against such a debate. Because in fact - Obama has equal "freedom to let loose on Clinton". Right? So you are acknowledging that Clinton will best Obama in this scenario.

My opinion - and I could be wrong - on why Hillary wants this is because she knows that she can "go deep" on virtually any subject, any policy, any issue - and he cannot. This type of an event will showcase her vast advantages in those areas. So naturally she's pushing for this. It's a shrewd political move, and Hillary, like Obama, works for a living as a politician.

Remember that you, most likely, heard it here first, and from me first. The Republicans are SALIVATING at the chance to run against Obama for the presidency. They've always wanted him because they know he's beatable. Hillary? No. The last thing they want is to run against her. It's why they want her out of the race - NOW. And they've even got Democrats screeching for her capitulation - ironically, following her Pennsylvania victory. But we're U.S. Democrats, and in presidential elections, nothing we do is ironic. It's SOP - for probable losing.

[T.A.M.]

Wrong again, on how you read Hillary's mind concerning what she "wants".

It sounds like you are afraid of Hillary's power - "freedom to let loose on Obama", and I think that is the REAL reason you are against such a debate. Because in fact - Obama has equal "freedom to let loose on Clinton". Right? So you are acknowledging that Clinton will best Obama in this scenario.

My opinion - and I could be wrong - on why Hillary wants this is because she knows that she can "go deep" on virtually any subject, any policy, any issue - and he cannot. This type of an event will showcase her vast advantages in those areas. So naturally she's pushing for this. It's a shrewd political move, and Hillary, like Obama, works for a living as a politician.

Remember that you, most likely, heard it here first, and from me first. The Republicans are SALIVATING at the chance to run against Obama for the presidency. They've always wanted him because they know he's beatable. Hillary? No. The last thing they want is to run against her. It's why they want her out of the race - NOW. And they've even got Democrats screeching for her capitulation - ironically, following her Pennsylvania victory. But we're U.S. Democrats, and in presidential elections, nothing we do is ironic. It's SOP - for probable losing.

1. Only one poll, the most recent, in the last 2 months, has shown Hillary beating McCain more significantly then Obama, so I don't buy that ALL ALONG they have wanted to run against Obama, but nice try.

2. SInce you must be her psychic or Hillary herself to TELL ME that I read her mind wrong, please tell me oh wise one ;), what her mind is thinking on this matter?

3. I am not afraid of Hillary's power...lol...I love powerful women, I just dislike her in particular, and her tactics.

4. I think she wants the unmoderated debate because she wants to control the content and the pace, etc...she does love her "control" of things.

5. It isn't shrewd if she doesn't get it, and I can all but guarantee she will not get it...so much for shrewdness.

6. If REPs want her out of the race now, then why the call from all the Right Wing Pundits to keep the race going???

Regardless, I have now come around to her, if I have to, as opposed to McCain. I like McCain more as person, from a character/personality pov, but Hillary is pro Iraq Withdrawal, and for me, that is the clincher. So ultimately, I am probably like you, but with out the power to effect it. I will likely be routing for a DEM now, regardless of who it is, come November.

That is if dudalb lets me have any opinion or comment on the matter.;)


TAM:)

[ConspiRaider]

4. I think she wants the unmoderated debate because she wants to control the content and the pace, etc...she does love her "control" of things.

Exactly how would Hillary be allowed to "control" the debate, but Obama could not? Are you actually acknowledging that her natural leadership, her experience, her knowledge, her deftness at politicking would allow her to "preside" at this debate? Hmm... Also, I don't want a president - ever - who doesn't have "control" of things. Not total control, obviously, and that's what our checks and balances are designed to curtail. But I want a smart president who is confident, decisive, and feels "in control".

5. It isn't shrewd if she doesn't get it, and I can all but guarantee she will not get it...so much for shrewdness.
Oh but it is shrewd. Obama will most likely NOT agree to something that elevates her status and downgrades his. The refusal itself, by Obama, scores a point or two for her. And that is shrewd.

6. If REPs want her out of the race now, then why the call from all the Right Wing Pundits to keep the race going???
Republicans wanted her out of the race yesterday, they want her out today and they desperately hope she'll withdraw or be beaten in the future. She's the one they are in fear of - concerning their chances of occupying the Oval. The putrid pundits, especially of the right wing variety? Chaos and discontent and hate in the Democratic party is their aim. These 2 candidates and their campaigns have delivered on those aims. The longer they are locked in battle, the greater the weakening of the entire party, in their vision. It's actually the rabid Obama-DEMs who sense that the longer Hillary stays in, the worse it looks for Barack, their rock-star hero. Therefore, the shrieks for her to disappear immediately.

Regardless, I have now come around to her, if I have to, as opposed to McCain. I like McCain more as person, from a character/personality pov, but Hillary is pro Iraq Withdrawal, and for me, that is the clincher. So ultimately, I am probably like you, but with out the power to effect it. I will likely be routing for a DEM now, regardless of who it is, come November.
Cool!

[T.A.M.]

Exactly how would Hillary be allowed to "control" the debate, but Obama could not? Are you actually acknowledging that her natural leadership, her experience, her knowledge, her deftness at politicking would allow her to "preside" at this debate? Hmm... Also, I don't want a president - ever - who doesn't have "control" of things. Not total control, obviously, and that's what our checks and balances are designed to curtail. But I want a smart president who is confident, decisive, and feels "in control".


Oh but it is shrewd. Obama will most likely NOT agree to something that elevates her status and downgrades his. The refusal itself, by Obama, scores a point or two for her. And that is shrewd.


Republicans wanted her out of the race yesterday, they want her out today and they desperately hope she'll withdraw or be beaten in the future. She's the one they are in fear of - concerning their chances of occupying the Oval. The putrid pundits, especially of the right wing variety? Chaos and discontent and hate in the Democratic party is their aim. These 2 candidates and their campaigns have delivered on those aims. The longer they are locked in battle, the greater the weakening of the entire party, in their vision. It's actually the rabid Obama-DEMs who sense that the longer Hillary stays in, the worse it looks for Barack, their rock-star hero. Therefore, the shrieks for her to disappear immediately.


Cool!

1. I meant control, in the sense that she can avoid Moderators pressing her on issues, control in the sense that she can keep nagging Obama about Wright and Ayers for minute, after minute, response after response, for as long as she wants, without moderators to reign her in. Yes Obama has the same chance to do so, but I do not think he would.

Kind of like not having a broom to beat away that little poodle that repeatedly nips at your ankles.

2. Do you honestly, honestly feel that Obama would be an "out of control" or "Not In control" president? Where has he ever exhibited behavior to make you think so? Obama is confident, and intelligent, to the extreme. As for decisive, I think he will prove to be so when given the opportunity.

3. I agree, that it was politically CALCULATED for her to make such an offer. I also think that Obama has SHREWDLY calculated that the loss of such a point or two is the lesser of two evils.

4. You are right, it is worse for the party as a whole, the longer the contest goes on. Much of what they can beat Hillary with, has been untouched so far. If by some extreme chance she is to win the nod, you know it is all coming back...Monica, Whitewater, etc...

TAM:)

[Brainster]

Remember that you, most likely, heard it here first, and from me first. The Republicans are SALIVATING at the chance to run against Obama for the presidency. They've always wanted him because they know he's beatable. Hillary? No. The last thing they want is to run against her. It's why they want her out of the race - NOW. And they've even got Democrats screeching for her capitulation - ironically, following her Pennsylvania victory. But we're U.S. Democrats, and in presidential elections, nothing we do is ironic. It's SOP - for probable losing.

I don't think they wanted to run against Obama a couple months ago, when he was looking like a world-beater. But now? Yeah, the definite impression I get is that they feel there's enough out there with Ayers and Wright (who continues to stir the pot (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/28/AR2008042800446.html?hpid=topnews)).

Interesting column today by Bill Kristol on Hillary (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/28/opinion/28kristol.html?_r=1&ex=1367121600&en=8b55727c4ca474f0&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&oref=slogin):

We have had four one-on-one debates so far — and each has been revealing. A debate without a moderator, as Clinton has suggested, could be particularly interesting. But debates would give Clinton equal time in the spotlight, and would make Obama’s advantage in paid media in Indiana and North Carolina far less significant.

On Friday in Indiana, Obama talked tough in response to a question: “I get pretty fed up with people questioning my patriotism.” And, he continued, “I am happy to have that debate with them any place, anytime.” He’s happy to have fantasy debates with unnamed people who are allegedly challenging his patriotism. But he’s not willing to have a real debate with the real person he’s competing against for the nomination.

[fishbob]

Clinton Proposes Debate Without Moderator


Well hell, let's just have a cage match. Get some bob-wire and some folding chairs and have at it.

[fishbob]

Interesting column today by Bill Kristol

Nothing by Bill Kristol can only be characterized as 'interesting' except in the watching a train wreck sort of way.

[corplinx]

Obama and Hillary have debated 21 times? Is this including all the 10 man catch phrase sessions called "debates" at the start of the election cycle?

Why the spin, and why does Obama seem to be falling into this trap of looking like he's scared of Hillary? He's smarter than this.

[Shadowdweller]

Why the spin, and why does Obama seem to be falling into this trap of looking like he's scared of Hillary? He's smarter than this.
I'd be curious to know how you think it's possible to avoid the spin other than by letting himself be prodded into the debate? One has to admit from a purely political standpoint, that it makes little sense to agree to another debate given that he is significantly ahead in terms of both campaign funds and delegates.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

My opinion - and I could be wrong - on why Hillary wants this is because she knows that she can "go deep" on virtually any subject, any policy, any issue - and he cannot.

I think you are wrong. IMO, Hillary wants this for two reasons:

Firstly, she is losing. She knows that she needs something very big to happen to try and change things. A debate might do that. It is SOP for the underdog / losing candidate to want more debates in the hope something will happen.

Secondly, she does not have the cash to compete in paid media. So she is trying to get free airtime to minimise her disadvantage.

Both perfectly legitimate reasons. But equally, Obama's reasons to reject are also legitimate.

[BPSCG]

I think you are wrong. IMO, Hillary wants this for two reasons:

Firstly, she is losing. She knows that she needs something very big to happen to try and change things. A debate might do that. It is SOP for the underdog / losing candidate to want more debates in the hope something will happen.

Secondly, she does not have the cash to compete in paid media. So she is trying to get free airtime to minimise her disadvantage.

Both perfectly legitimate reasons. But equally, Obama's reasons to reject are also legitimate.I don't have any statistics to back this up, but it seems to me that whenever there's a challenge to a debate, it comes from the person who's behind in the polls. And the front-runner routinely objects. And, ultimately, the front-runner wins despite being painted as being "afraid to debate."

Don't ask me to prove it, but I think it's generally true.

[BPSCG]

Nothing by Bill Kristol can only be characterized as 'interesting' to me except in the watching a train wreck sort of way.Fixed.

Whether or not you thinhk it's "interesting," do you think that Kristol makes a fair point? So you don't have to look it up again, here it is:

“I get pretty fed up with people questioning my patriotism.” And, he continued, “I am happy to have that debate with them any place, anytime.” He’s happy to have fantasy debates with unnamed people who are allegedly challenging his patriotism. But he’s not willing to have a real debate with the real person he’s competing against for the nomination. If you don't think it's a fair point, why not?

ETA: Speaking of Obama's patriotism, as well as the fact that all these Canadians are posting here about the U.S. election, here's today's Get Fuzzy (http://www.unitedmedia.com/comics/getfuzzy/archive/getfuzzy-20080429.html). :biggrin:

[T.A.M.]

you know what you can do with your lapel pin, right???

TAM:D

[fishbob]

If you don't think it's a fair point, why not?

He’s happy to have fantasy debates with unnamed people who are allegedly challenging his patriotism. But he’s not willing to have a real debate with the real person he’s competing against for the nomination.


Why not?

Look at the first sentence: "fantasy debate", "allegedly challenging his patriotism". New and improved with more spin.

Second sentence is a non sequitur, and he left out the bit about there already has been more debates than most of us can stomach, and that almost nothing of substance was discussed in the last couple of debates, and that there is no strategic benefit to Obama in holding yet another circus debate with Clinton.

Historically, Kristol can't seem to write or speak more than about 4 consecutive words without resorting to this type of spurious hackery.

[BPSCG]

Why not?

Look at the first sentence: "fantasy debate", Well, what would you call a debate with a person unnamed, that you have no intention of actually having?

"allegedly challenging his patriotism". New and improved with more spin.Obama's words: “I get pretty fed up with people questioning my patriotism.” Where's Kristol's "spin?"

Second sentence is a non sequitur, and he left out the bit about there already has been more debates than most of us can stomach, Really? Then how come the Pennsylvania debate drew more viewers than all the other debates? Were they showing test patterns on all the other channels? Was America being subjected to the same aversion therapy treatment that Alex got in A Clockwork Orange, strapped to our collective chairs, eyes clamped open, head facing the TV? America's millions were forced to watch the Barack and Hillary Show?

and that almost nothing of substance was discussed in the last couple of debates, But that was all the moderators' fault, wasn't it? Wasn't it the Obamaniacs who were wailing about how mean the moderators were to Obama, with all their irrelevant questions about things that had nothing to do with the serious issues? Clinton's proposing to do away with the moderators. Who could have a problem with that?

and that there is no strategic benefit to Obama in holding yet another circus debate with Clinton.Ah, there's the truth.

Historically, Kristol can't seem to write or speak more than about 4 consecutive words without resorting to this type of spurious hackery.Cut close to the bone, did he? :biggrin:

[quixotecoyote]

Well, what would you call a debate with a person unnamed, that you have no intention of actually having?

Obama's words: “I get pretty fed up with people questioning my patriotism.” Where's Kristol's "spin?"

I've got no opinion on Kristol in general, but you're on the wrong side of this one.


NASH MCCABE (Latrobe, Pennsylvania): (From videotape.) Senator Obama, I have a question, and I want to know if you believe in the American flag. I am not questioning your patriotism, but all our servicemen, policemen and EMS wear the flag. I want to know why you don't.

MR. GIBSON: Just to add to that, I noticed you put one on yesterday. But -- you've talked about this before, but it comes up again and again when we talk to voters.

Remember, in Obama's quote, he wasn't referring to Hillary as far as I can tell, he was taking issue with this lame argument-by-proxy "some people say you're unpatriotic" bullpockey that he has to contend with occasionally. Obama's point was: If 'some people' think poorly of me, let them come out and say so.

Kristol was the one making the connection to Hillary and the debate with her, which is not only a different issue, but an entirely different class of issue. Kristol moves from a discussion of illegitimate arguments to a discussion of holding formal debates and hopes no one notices.



But that was all the moderators' fault, wasn't it? Wasn't it the Obamaniacs who were wailing about how mean the moderators were to Obama, with all their irrelevant questions about things that had nothing to do with the serious issues? Clinton's proposing to do away with the moderators. Who could have a problem with that?All this debate style means is that they get to talk interrupted. Obama can do that now by having a press conference. If I was him I wouldn't trust Hillary to actually discuss issues instead of banging on about lapel pins and the rest of the assorted garbage that gets thrown at him, notably because she's tried to smear him with Ayers, etc in the last debate.. Of course, I'd feel the same way if the positions were reversed.

.

[BPSCG]

Kristol was the one making the connection to Hillary and the debate with her, which is not only a different issue, but an entirely different class of issue. Kristol moves from a discussion of illegitimate arguments to a discussion of holding formal debates and hopes no one notices.Sorry, but Obama is the one who said he'd be "happy to have that debate [about his patriotism] with them any place, anytime,” knowing no such debate is actually going to happen. But when Clinton wants to debate substantive issues (and I agree, his patriotism is not a substantive issue), he runs for cover.

All this debate style means is that they get to talk interrupted. Obama can do that now by having a press conference. If I was him I wouldn't trust Hillary to actually discuss issues instead of banging on about lapel pins and the rest of the assorted garbage that gets thrown at him, notably because she's tried to smear him with Ayers, etc in the last debate.. Of course, I'd feel the same way if the positions were reversed.Please. They could easily agree to a debate format and issues to discuss at each one (assuming they wanted to do more than one). A debate about health care. Another about foreign policy other than Iraq, since their positions are very similar. Another about the economy. Two other Illinoisans, Lincoln and Douglas, did it in 1858, and the nation was the better for hearing them. And isn't there a thread around here that asks if Obama is another Lincoln?

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Obama's words: “I get pretty fed up with people questioning my patriotism.” Where's Kristol's "spin?"

"unnamed people who are allegedly challenging his patriotism"

I've highlighted it for you. He is clearly trying to imply that there have been no such challenges. He knows that is not true. Why use the word "allegedly" unless you want to convey the message that this is an ubsubstantiated claim?

[arthwollipot]

I think someone's been watching The West Wing, myself. Particularly season 7, episode 7.

[T.A.M.]

Sorry, but Obama is the one who said he'd be "happy to have that debate [about his patriotism] with them any place, anytime,” knowing no such debate is actually going to happen. But when Clinton wants to debate substantive issues (and I agree, his patriotism is not a substantive issue), he runs for cover.

Please. They could easily agree to a debate format and issues to discuss at each one (assuming they wanted to do more than one). A debate about health care. Another about foreign policy other than Iraq, since their positions are very similar. Another about the economy. Two other Illinoisans, Lincoln and Douglas, did it in 1858, and the nation was the better for hearing them. And isn't there a thread around here that asks if Obama is another Lincoln?

I know you, someone as smart as you, did not just say that. 21 debates, all except the last one thanks to Clinton and her cronies, were on substantive issues, and you say when she wants to debate he runs for cover.

nice...well done.

TAM:)

Edit: Face it, most RWers and Hillary fans want this debate SIMPLY to have another "Gotcha" debate on crapola. The RWers want to see Obama torn down, and could care less about anything else.

[BPSCG]

"unnamed people who are allegedly challenging his patriotism"

I've highlighted it for you. He is clearly trying to imply that there have been no such challenges. He knows that is not true. Why use the word "allegedly" unless you want to convey the message that this is an ubsubstantiated claim?Okay, fine, I'll give you that, "allegedly" is gratuitous.

But the point still stands. Obama says he'll debate someone when he knows there isn't a chance in hell of such a debate actually happening. But when Clinton challenges him, he informs us that we're tired of listening to him and Clinton debate.

I submit that the voters, not the candidates, are the world's leading authority on whether or not they're tired of the debates. And the Pennsylvania debate's Nielson ratings are strong evidence that they are not.

[ConspiRaider]

I think you are wrong. IMO, Hillary wants this for two reasons:

Firstly, she is losing. She knows that she needs something very big to happen to try and change things. A debate might do that. It is SOP for the underdog / losing candidate to want more debates in the hope something will happen.

Secondly, she does not have the cash to compete in paid media. So she is trying to get free airtime to minimise her disadvantage.

Both perfectly legitimate reasons. But equally, Obama's reasons to reject are also legitimate.
Hillary is NOT losing - she's winning. Don't you remember one week ago? Where she WON Pennsylvania? And never forget: When people have a real vote, a secret ballot, just themselves alone in the voting booth for these primaries? She does better, overall, than Obama. In caucuses, where participants don't have a traditional-style vote, where peer pressure can rule? Obama does better.

An AP poll from a couple days ago (and this is NOT a worthless Internet poll) puts her ahead of McCain by 9 points. Obama and McCain now match up about even.

Cash? Hillary raised $10 million last Wednesday, the day after taking Pennsylvania. The cash is still coming in.

Hillary consistently beats Obama at debates - because she can go deep, and she can do it on the fly. He's better at canned speeches, not as adept when it's catch as catch can in a debate style.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

But the point still stands. Obama says he'll debate someone when he knows there isn't a chance in hell of such a debate actually happening. But when Clinton challenges him, he informs us that we're tired of listening to him and Clinton debate.

And Hillary pulls out of a debate and demands a different one.

I don't remember your condemnation of Hillary for turning down a debate being the same - why not?

[TriskettheKid]

Hillary is NOT losing - she's winning. Don't you remember one week ago? Where she WON Pennsylvania? And never forget: When people have a real vote, a secret ballot, just themselves alone in the voting booth for these primaries? She does better, overall, than Obama. In caucuses, where participants don't have a traditional-style vote, where peer pressure can rule? Obama does better.

When did Hillary change her name to Barrack?

I mean, I'm looking at numbers here, and I see that Barrack is ahead in pretty much every category, save Superdelegates, and even there he's gaining ground at quite a clip.

An AP poll from a couple days ago (and this is NOT a worthless Internet poll) puts her ahead of McCain by 9 points. Obama and McCain now match up about even.

Is AP the only poll out there?

Cash? Hillary raised $10 million last Wednesday, the day after taking Pennsylvania. The cash is still coming in.

Well, for starters, that claim has not been confirmed, unless you've got a source that shows that she actually was able to raise that kind of money.

If the numbers hold up, and it's true, then that's great. It's just about enough to cover her debt.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Hillary is NOT losing - she's winning.

Total Delegates to date - Obama 1489, Hillary 1333.

Delegates are what you need to win the nomination. Despite what you would like to believe, Hillary is losing. That doesn't necessarily mean she will lose, but as things stand she is currently losing. To try and argue otherwise is bizarre.

Don't you remember one week ago? Where she WON Pennsylvania?

Yes, she pulled back 10 delegates on Obama. But she is still losing.

And never forget: When people have a real vote, a secret ballot, just themselves alone in the voting booth for these primaries? She does better, overall, than Obama. In caucuses, where participants don't have a traditional-style vote, where peer pressure can rule? Obama does better.

And yet she trails in the popular vote by over 500,000 votes in the popular vote count on Real Clear Politics.

Even if you include Florida, which she agreed would not count, she is STILL behind. If you engage in magic counting and also include her votes in Michigan (which she again agreed would not count) and give Obama zero because he was not on the ballot she squeezes ahead. Anyone who thinks she can sway the superdelegates on that basis is allowing their desire for her to win obscure their judgement.


An AP poll from a couple days ago (and this is NOT a worthless Internet poll) puts her ahead of McCain by 9 points. Obama and McCain now match up about even.

And other polls show Obama doing better than her against McCain. Of course none of those polls are directly relevant to who will win the nomination.

Cash? Hillary raised $10 million last Wednesday, the day after taking Pennsylvania. The cash is still coming in.

So what? I didn't say she had no cash, I said she cannot compete with the Obama campaign in paid media. Please tell me you are not arguing that her campaign has as much to spend as his?

Hillary consistently beats Obama at debates - because she can go deep, and she can do it on the fly. He's better at canned speeches, not as adept when it's catch as catch can in a debate style.

I am not surprised that you consider Hillary does better in debates. Others may disagree. Remember the reaction to her "change you can Xerox" comment during a previous debate?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23273769/page/2/

"The debate audience booed."

[Pookster]

... An AP poll from a couple days ago (and this is NOT a worthless Internet poll) puts her ahead of McCain by 9 points. Obama and McCain now match up about even. ...

I suggest waiting until after the nomination is secured before putting any stock at all in polls such as this. There is a lot of animosity going on between Obama and Clinton supporters that makes a poll like this rather meaningless. You have a significant number of Democrats saying they're going to vote Republican if their favorite candidate doesn't get the nomination. I don't buy it. While there is likely to be some of this, I suspect that there are a lot of emotional decisions going on in a race that's gotten quite combative. However, neither candidate has demonized the other to a point that their supporters can't jump on the other's bandwagon at some point. The two are almost identical when it comes to the issues.

[T.A.M.]

Absolutely. Right now, Obama is taking ALL THE HITS, the Wright Issue, the recent BITTER issue. Apart from the occasional comment about Bosnia (very occasional) Hillary gets nothing negative, except the fact that she herself is negative.

Once the nom is done, if she were to win, she will be nailed to the cross.

TAM:)

[quixotecoyote]

Sorry, but Obama is the one who said he'd be "happy to have that debate [about his patriotism] with them any place, anytime,” knowing no such debate is actually going to happen. But when Clinton wants to debate substantive issues (and I agree, his patriotism is not a substantive issue), he runs for cover.

You're missing the context here. Obama wasn't actually proposing a debate, he was calling a questioner out on illegitimate argumentation. Someone asked him a mealy-mouthed question about what 'some people' thought of him. Obama said he'd have a debate about that with them any place anytime. Obviously, the 'some people' was the person asking the question, but rather than legitimize that tactic, Obama challenged the hidden premise. Trying to turn that rebuttal into an empty promise of a debate missed the context and the intent of the comment.

See below about 'substantiative issues'


Please. They could easily agree to a debate format and issues to discuss at each one (assuming they wanted to do more than one). A debate about health care. Another about foreign policy other than Iraq, since their positions are very similar. Another about the economy. Two other Illinoisans, Lincoln and Douglas, did it in 1858, and the nation was the better for hearing them. And isn't there a thread around here that asks if Obama is another Lincoln?

When there appears a chance in hell of mutual agreement on the subject, feel free to notify me. Obama does not appear to have declined the excellent proposals you've outlined above, but rather a proposal to a general 'debate' where the gloves can come off. I think he's wise to decline that.