home

Hillary Challenges Obama to Non-Moderated Debate

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 03:21:59 PM EST
Tags: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, 2008 (all tags)
Share This: Digg This!! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Hillary Clinton today asked Barack Obama to participate in a Lincoln-Douglas style debate without moderators. They would each ask the other questions.

Obama tells Fox News in a segment that will air tomorrow there will be no more debates before May 6, when Indiana and North Carolina vote.

Hillary's challenge:

“You know, after the last debate in Philadelphia, Senator Obama’s supporters complained a little bit about the tough questions. And you know, tough questions in the debate are nothing compared to the tough questions you get asked when you’re president and you have to answer them to make tough decisions,” she said.

“So here’s my proposal: I’m offering Senator Obama the chance to debate me one-on-one, no moderators. Just the two of us, going for 90 minutes, asking and answering questions. We’ll set whatever rules seem fair.”

Update: Comments now closed.

< Newsweek Poll: Obama's Lead Drops by Half | Did Obama Go After Fox? Uh, No >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Hillary Challenges Obama to Non-Moderated Debate | 229 comments (229 topical)
    Wow! (5.00 / 10) (#1)
    by felizarte on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 03:25:03 PM EST
    That is some challenge.  It should make a riveting 90 minutes.  That would be the equivalent of intellectual wrestling.

    Respect! (5.00 / 8) (#43)
    by stevenb on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 04:12:01 PM EST
    Wow indeed.  Senator Clinton just upped the anti on Obama.  Now, who is the stronger, more confident candidate to represent the Dems. this year?  Go Clinton.!

    [ Parent ]
    One brave woman who has a very (5.00 / 6) (#114)
    by hairspray on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 05:33:47 PM EST
    smart woman behind her, Maggie Williams.  Yeeeea!

    [ Parent ]
    With Only One Opponent In Shape For The Battle (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 05:25:03 PM EST
    Regarding this article on HuffPost, there is soooooooooo much wailing and gnashing of teeth by obama sheeple, you almost and I say almost, have to feel sorry for them.  You can smell the desperation on the board.

    [ Parent ]
    diarists must have gotten the Obama memo (5.00 / 4) (#167)
    by Josey on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 06:34:21 PM EST
    to smackdown any suggestion of a debate because they're bashing the amount of minutes and the format because Obama needs a longggggg time to cover a topic. So- they'd prefer an hour for each candidate - just like the Lincoln-Douglas debates.
    Don't know where they stand on pillows though.  Large or small, puffy or firm, etc.

    [ Parent ]
    Oh Boy! Will they be in trouble (5.00 / 3) (#182)
    by felizarte on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 06:42:23 PM EST
    when Hillary says, OK! Two hours, even three hours.  I'm pretty sure she will agree to a whole day and night of debate.

    [ Parent ]
    The Obama paTrolls are out in force and on message (5.00 / 2) (#197)
    by Ellie on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 06:50:03 PM EST
    Squawking point: Bad Monster Lady's trying to get free airtime!

    (SAP / sorely absent point) The public airwaves are primarily there for stuff like -- :: shocks Almighty! :: -- candidates for public office talking to voters about candidacy. credentials, and policies.

    [ Parent ]

    Is 'sheeple' reserved for Obama supporters only? (4.00 / 1) (#128)
    by Denni on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 05:51:31 PM EST
    Just curious.

    [ Parent ]
    That would be up to the sheeple (5.00 / 4) (#129)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 05:52:06 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Sorry, Obama said No... (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by FlaDemFem on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 06:03:03 PM EST
    Here is what his campaign had to say about the debate..
    "We have participated in 21 nationally televised debates, the most in primary history, including four exclusively with Senator Clinton.  Senator Clinton refused an earlier invitation that had been accepted to debate in North Carolina.  Over the next 10 days, we believe it's important to talk directly to the voters of Indiana and North Carolina about fixing our economy, cutting the cost of health care and ending a war in Iraq that never should have been authorized in the first place."

    So, we don't get to see The Great Debater in action. Or Hillary either. But she is doing well on her own. She's out talking to the "ordinary people" that Obama and Michelle think they are in touch with. Heh.

    [ Parent ]

    I believe what you meant to say (5.00 / 2) (#147)
    by soccermom on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 06:16:15 PM EST
    was "We don't get to see The Great Debater in action.  Or Obama, either.

    [ Parent ]
    I was being sarcastic. :D nt (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by FlaDemFem on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 06:25:56 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Funny, I though he could talk directly (5.00 / 2) (#148)
    by LHinSeattle on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 06:19:20 PM EST
    to the voters who were watching a debate. Like the 10 million watching the last one.  Especially if it gives him a chance to ask Hillary a question and hear her answer. Oooops -- that lets him do the "what she said" again. He ought to say what he thinks about an issue first, then ask her for her position.

    Hillary's asked for 2 debates in Oregon, pointing out that no debates have been held in the NW. She wants those OR debates to include what do to for the problems in Oregon's rural areas. That sounds really specific.
     

    [ Parent ]

    more lies from Obama camp (5.00 / 3) (#169)
    by angie on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 06:35:03 PM EST
    the way that reads is meant to imply that Hillary also refused a debate in NC when that is not the whole story.  When the NC debate was first being scheduled, the NC Dem offered April 19 as a possible date and Hillary declined that date because it was the first day of Passover.  She did not decline to debate in NC -- she just asked for another date, which is how they got to the 27th, a date which she accepted.  

    [ Parent ]
    I don't like wrestling (1.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Denni on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 04:12:15 PM EST
    and wouldn't want to watch a debate that is a 90 minute argument.  I think we've all heard more than enough.  Nothing changes the final outcome of this race.  I don't see the point.

    Rather than debating each other, for the 22nd time, I'd love to have them out talking about what makes them different from John Mccain.  The ultimate 'job interview' is with McCain.

    [ Parent ]

    not the 22nd time (5.00 / 15) (#54)
    by p lukasiak on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 04:20:32 PM EST
    17 or 19 of the 22 debates were mob scenes.  Clinton and Obama have only gone head to head 3 times.

    And the fact is that voters in states that aren't voting in the coming week or two don't pay much attention to the debates.   Just because you are tired of the debates doesn't mean that voter in North Carolina, Indiana, Kentucky, West Virginia, Oregon, South Dakota, Puerto Rico and Guam don't want a chance to size up the candidates.

    [ Parent ]

    Methinks there was a reason 10 million (5.00 / 17) (#58)
    by nycstray on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 04:22:09 PM EST
    watched the last one . . .   ;)

    [ Parent ]
    I read that the demcratic party in NC (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by hairspray on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 05:12:33 PM EST
    was very disppointed in the fact that there were no more debates.  They were counting on having one there and the revenues it would bring to the party.

    [ Parent ]
    Yep The NC Dem Party Lost About $300,000 (5.00 / 8) (#140)
    by MO Blue on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 06:06:46 PM EST
    in revenue because of Obama's decision. But heck, that is a small price to pay to protect Obama from having to compete with Hillary.

    [ Parent ]
    Does anyone know (1.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Denni on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 04:45:06 PM EST
    how many debates are typically scheduled in a primary season?  I haven't heard one new talking point from either candidate since debate (?!??!).

    Wasn't it Paul Begala who said that more people visit the circus than the Library of congress?  There's so little new to discuss that the debates have become a circus.  ;-(

    I'm not going to vote for Sen. Clinton, but I can't help but think that if the 'obliterate' comment comes up, it's a lose-lose for her.

    [ Parent ]

    But (5.00 / 8) (#72)
    by Just another person on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 04:51:44 PM EST
    but I can't help but think that if the 'obliterate' comment comes up, it's a lose-lose for her.

    But then that's only because you assume she doesn't have a satisfactory reply for the comment. Her middle-east policy isn't what the media makes it out to be. I'd actually want that comment to come up so she can set the record straight.

    [ Parent ]

    Do you understand at all why there was no (5.00 / 2) (#173)
    by tigercourse on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 06:38:14 PM EST
    nuclear war between 1948 (around when the Soviets got the bomb I believe) and 1991?

    [ Parent ]
    Has Obama taken Nukes off the table? (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by nycstray on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 06:40:55 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    it's called deterrence (5.00 / 2) (#188)
    by BostonIndependent on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 06:45:29 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Maybe you should (5.00 / 1) (#225)
    by Just another person on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 07:32:16 PM EST
    go back and read the blogs on this site titled "Umbrella of Deterrence" - you'll get a better idea.

    [ Parent ]
    If People Would Take The Time to Understand... (5.00 / 5) (#106)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 05:28:59 PM EST
    the obliterate comment will not hurt her.  There were caveats that came with that comment, but those who are not in her corner, always gloss over that type of information.

    [ Parent ]
    Come On! (5.00 / 9) (#55)
    by felizarte on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 04:21:20 PM EST
    What better, more efficient way of hearing what they have to say than for the two of them standing side by side and talking about issues that affect the whole country?  This cannot be accomplished with 3,000 people at a time.  But I can understand the apprehension on the part of the Obama supporters because this format is not exactly his cup of tea.

    [ Parent ]
    And He Might Have To Tell What His Policies Are (5.00 / 4) (#109)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 05:30:34 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I LOVE this argument (5.00 / 15) (#65)
    by angie on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 04:38:31 PM EST
    voters don't need any more information! voters don't need another chance to see the two candidates side by side! which all boils down to -- limit the information they get & keep them as ignorant as possible so my guy can win.

    [ Parent ]
    That's a misrepresentation (1.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Denni on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 04:46:48 PM EST
    I would never say that voters don't need NEW information.  There just hasn't been any NEW informtion since the 13th?  14th?  15th? debate.  Do you think either candidate has switched positions on any of the issues?

    I think this is a ploy for free airtime, but another debate is not the way to go about it.

    [ Parent ]

    no, you are just saying (5.00 / 11) (#77)
    by angie on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 04:58:04 PM EST
    that the candidates should not try to maximize every opportunity voters can have to see them and learn about them. Do you realize the last debate had 10 million viewers?  Do you honestly believe every voter out there has seen every one of the last 20 debates? Because if you believe there is a chance that some of those voters have not, in fact, seen all of those other debates, then the candidates should give them another opportunity to see one -- that is their jobs as candidates.  Those voters in IN & NC who did not see those previous debates may very well tune into this one now that the campaign is coming to them. And, keep in mind, that at the beginning of this race most of the people in IN & NC believed the primary didn't really matter to them because they were too late on the calendar to "make a difference."  The facts are totally against your argument that another debate would not "offer anything NEW" to any voter. Therefore, my initial response to your post is NOT a misrepresentation. It is, in fact, exactly what your guy's strategy is, whether you want to accept it or not.

    [ Parent ]
    Bad information (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by Marvin42 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 05:07:00 PM EST
    Do you know how much NEW information has come to light since the 14 or 15th debate? Its not just about positions, but about the candidates, what they say vs what they do, and tons of intangibles.

    There is no way that the two of them meeting face to face will not give voters new information. I won't give them any new talking points.

    [ Parent ]

    Didn't we get new info from Hillary (5.00 / 6) (#88)
    by nycstray on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 05:12:21 PM EST
    regarding FP last debate?

    And remember, NC had one scheduled until . . .

    [ Parent ]

    If the format is a success we might (5.00 / 8) (#92)
    by hairspray on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 05:15:12 PM EST
    get rid of those millionaire blow hair dried excuses for newsmen once and for all.  Let the debates be people powered not "gotcha" powered.

    [ Parent ]
    These sound like talking points from HuffPo (5.00 / 4) (#112)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 05:32:49 PM EST
    There is plenty of information Obama can give, since he has not addressed exactly what he is about besides hope and change.  I would love to hear how he is going to turn the economy around.  His thoughts on capital gains aren't going over too well.

    [ Parent ]
    Besides Cable/Regular Broadcasting (5.00 / 2) (#130)
    by BarnBabe on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 05:52:10 PM EST
    Also, 10 million people watched the debates because they were not on cable as most of the other debates were. So for many, it might have been the first time they have seen the candidates. The only reason the BHO does not want another debate is he did not do well at all at the last one and he does not want to take a chance on a repeat. What does that tell us about a candidate especially if the people of Indiana said they wanted one. If the people ask for such a small thing and are told no, how will that forebode for the future?

    [ Parent ]
    We want to hear Obama actually (5.00 / 4) (#150)
    by FlaDemFem on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 06:22:02 PM EST
    articulate his policies. We want to hear him explain how he is going to bring about all that change. We want to hear him say something besides, "My staff will have it up on my website soon." when asked what his policy and plans are for any given subject. We want to hear something besides, "Huh, Um, hope, change,..Hillary did it first..the Clintons are racists..uh..look, hope, change!!".

    The presidential campaign is a job interview. We, the voters, have a RIGHT to hear the candidates explain themselves. Just because your candidate is incapable of doing so is no reason not to have debates. It is the best reason to debate, so that the voters can get a good look and listen at the job applicants. If Obama cannot explain his plans and policies, then he shouldn't be President. And we have a right to know whether he can or not. It's just that simple. Really, it is.

    [ Parent ]

    true, BUT (5.00 / 1) (#201)
    by BostonIndependent on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 06:51:32 PM EST
    so do all politicians who run as though they are against politics. This argument and vision suffer from two very big holes

    a. no matter what the rhetoric it actually is very hard to eliminate the influence of money in politics and
    b. even if I grant Obama that he will be able to succeed where others have failed in a. he still needs to make the case for what he will accomplish once he HAS. And I find his answers on that front weak, and not very well thought out.


    [ Parent ]

    just fyi (4.66 / 3) (#213)
    by ccpup on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 07:06:24 PM EST
    Obama actually beat Kyl-Lieberman -- a vote he conveniently missed, by the way -- to the punch by six months when he offered his own "Iranian Revolutionary Guard is a terrorist organization" bill in March 2007 with S. 970

    [ Parent ]
    ccpup is right (5.00 / 2) (#223)
    by lookoverthere on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 07:28:00 PM EST
    Sen. Obama did not vote on Kyl-Lieberman. He later said he didn't know the vote was coming up. This appears to be untrue according to CNN.

    ABC's Jake Tapper reported that on April 24, 2007, Obama had cosponsored the [binding] Iran Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007,which, like Kyl-Lieberman, would have designated the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a Foreign Terrorist Organization.

    "The Secretary of State should designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a Foreign Terrorist Organization under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1189) and the Secretary of the Treasury should place the Iranian Revolutionary Guards on the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists under Executive Order 13224 (66 Fed. Reg. 186; relating to blocking property and prohibiting transactions with persons who commit, threaten to commit, or support terrorism)."



    [ Parent ]
    Another Point (4.00 / 1) (#227)
    by squeaky on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 07:38:38 PM EST
    That makes Obama and Hillary identical, and hardly progressive regarding the ME.

    [ Parent ]
    It Most Certainly Does (4.00 / 1) (#232)
    by squeaky on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 07:48:36 PM EST
    Sec 2b, paragraph (14)  It also repeats the 'wipe Israel off the map' egregious mistranslation

    link

    [ Parent ]

    OOPS (5.00 / 1) (#235)
    by squeaky on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 07:55:09 PM EST
    That was the house bill. In the senate bill the language appears

    Sec 3 paragraph 8.

    (8) The Secretary of State should designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a Foreign Terrorist Organization under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1189) and the Secretary of the Treasury should place the Iranian Revolutionary Guards on the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists under Executive Order 13224 (66 Fed. Reg. 186; relating to blocking property and prohibiting transactions with persons who commit, threaten to commit, or support terrorism).



    [ Parent ]
    Yes, I have heard him speak.. (5.00 / 2) (#203)
    by FlaDemFem on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 06:55:39 PM EST
    and I am not impressed. He talks in generalities, saying things I, and others, have been saying for a lot longer than Obama has been on the national scene. And if Obama is going to change things, perhaps the first step would have been NOT to line himself up with the money men as soon as he got to Washington, setting up his own PAC and taking lobbyist contributions. And he doesn't have the political muscle to pull off the change he preaches about. It would help if he had had the personal principles to not participate in the system himself. If one is going to preach, one should practice what one preaches. Obama doesn't. Obama is a hypocrite.

    [ Parent ]
    A ploy for FREE AIRTIME!?!?! How dastardly!!!! (5.00 / 2) (#163)
    by Ellie on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 06:31:44 PM EST
    A candidate for public office is trying to get on the public airwaves without paying?

    Have the producers of Law and Ordure: The Un-Scooped Dog Poop Unit been notified of this ... this ... outrage?

    [ Parent ]

    Honestly, (5.00 / 2) (#176)
    by felizarte on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 06:39:02 PM EST
    it is understandable for Obama and his supporters not to want any more debates, "in whatever format" before May 26 because they are afraid Obama will do badly again as in Philadelphia.  It would acceptable and less subject to rebuttal instead of coming up with all sorts of excuses.

    [ Parent ]
    ah, yes (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by ccpup on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 06:47:45 PM EST
    but I would not want to be the person on Obama's team having to explain to an uncommitted SD why he's afraid to debate Hillary, but would be fine in the GE debating McCain.

    I somehow think "just trust us" isn't going to cut it this time.  Even with a "pretty please with sugar on top".

    [ Parent ]

    Tell Obama to shelve his tired old same old SPEECH (5.00 / 6) (#71)
    by Ellie on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 04:49:31 PM EST
    Yeah, that piece of cud's not disgusting to look at for the brazillianth time.

    This is the only way to pin Obama down to actually say something of substance.

    Lord knows the in-the-tank media haven't challenged him, nor do they intend to. (Gently asking him to explain his own words and actions and rushing forward in full soothing mode at the first sign of a whimper doesn't constitute hard-nosed journalism.)

    [ Parent ]

    Which one would that be? (1.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Denni on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 04:52:51 PM EST
    I don't know of any speech he gives every single time he stumps or that he gives any more than Sen. Clinton has a speech that works for her. ;-)

    [ Parent ]
    oh please (5.00 / 10) (#85)
    by Kathy on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 05:10:03 PM EST
    If you're gonna say that the last debate didn't bring up brand new topics that were not really discussed in the prior ones, then you need to get your head out of the sand.

    If Obama can't go head to head with Clinton, then he needs to say that.  He pretty much implied it by canceling the debate he'd already agreed to.

    The guy needs to man up.  He's not running for the president of the law review.  This is the presidency of the United States.  If he can't take the scrutiny and the hard questions, then he needs to go back to IL with his tail between his legs and let the adults take the stage.

    [ Parent ]

    I'd love hearing what the new topics were. (1.00 / 1) (#132)
    by Denni on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 05:55:13 PM EST
    I may have missed them.

    Sen. Obama has kept up for 21 debates.  Why would he suddenly have fear of not keeping up?  He needs to focus on McCain, IMO, not more infighting in the party.  Sen. McCain is pulling ahead of BOTH Democrats.  

    [ Parent ]

    One had to do with 'obliterate' . . . (5.00 / 2) (#139)
    by nycstray on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 06:03:58 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    this is not infighting (5.00 / 3) (#159)
    by Kathy on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 06:27:48 PM EST
    this is deciding who the best nominee is for the democratic ticket.  I just don't understand why you don't grasp that concept.  I know you think your candidate has already sewn it u p, but that is simply not the case.

    Chest beating about how you've already won a race when all the votes have not been counting smacks very much of the 2000 election.  Why are you afraid for your candidate to undergo scrutiny?  What does he have to lose if he is such a strong contender?  Why don't you look at this as an opportunity for him to finally get the voters he needs to seal the nomination?

    These talking points of yours are really rather tiresome.

    [ Parent ]

    Umbrella of deterrence? (5.00 / 2) (#174)
    by lookoverthere on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 06:38:22 PM EST
    You don't remember hearing Sen. Clinton bring up this foreign policy position, something similar to a NATO for the Middle East?

    I'd like to hear more about that.

    And I'd like an answer to the question asked when Sen. Obama was interrupted while eating his waffles: What about fmr. pres. Carter's meeting with Hamas? And what will the role of former presidents be in the next administration?

    I have a question regarding changing the the Department of Agriculture to Dept. of Rural Affairs with a change in emphasis from subsidy-based agriculture to jobs, stemming the migration of young people from, the potential in alternative energy, organic farming, no-till practices, and so on.

    She spoke at the National Rural Assembly in 2007 on this and I'd like to hear more about it.

    She has policy papers and stuff, but I'd like to have her expand a bit more and tie it into cross-current issues like energy (biofuels, solar and windfarming) and food shortages in the world.

    [ Parent ]

    Thanks for that link! (5.00 / 2) (#191)
    by nycstray on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 06:47:17 PM EST
    I would like to hear more on food production and also import safety. I've seen a bit out of both (much more from Clinton, of course), but that's an area of concern for all of us (and the environment)

    [ Parent ]
    nycstray... (5.00 / 1) (#220)
    by lookoverthere on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 07:24:30 PM EST
    I think both senators would have a lot to say on the political realities bread.

    Seriously:

    Food production and safety. Health and safety. Import/export. Environment. Agricultural practice. Jobs. Migrant workers and worker exploitation. Union busting. Tariffs. Rural culture. Loss of farm land. Water rights and natural resource allocation. Transportation, distribution, and infrastructure. Waste (think about the packaging). Energy. Alternative energy decentraliztion (think the Great Plains and harvesting wind).

    I would LOVE to hear both of them talk about this.

    We could call it the Toast Debate.

    Hope no one gets in a jam. HAHAHAHA

    I should troll rate myself for that.

    [ Parent ]

    Don't Know How This Works, But Is Denni A Troll? (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 05:35:03 PM EST
    Sorry, I have to ask.  Seems like her/his goal is to stir the pot.

    [ Parent ]
    Troll? No. (4.00 / 2) (#131)
    by Denni on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 05:53:44 PM EST
    I was told in another thread that this was a progressive site (or supposed to be) and that I could post pro-Obama comments, but that I would have to realize that most here are pro-Clinton.

    I haven't called anyone a name or claimed that anyone has their head stuck in the sand (or any other crevice).  ;-)

    [ Parent ]

    Not a troll (5.00 / 2) (#145)
    by Burned on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 06:12:38 PM EST
    But being against a 90 minute, one on one debate between the two on the grounds that it takes time away from taking down McCain is just plain argumentative. It doesn't make sense, and it's not fair to the people that haven't made up their minds yet.

    [ Parent ]
    Okay....had to ask (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 06:39:51 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I don't think Denni is a troll (none / 0) (#137)
    by Just another person on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 06:02:44 PM EST
    At least he/she is not posting the same thing in reply to every comment. Just disagrees with the common sentiment of this site, which I think is within the rules, no?

    [ Parent ]
    What is annoying (5.00 / 3) (#162)
    by Kathy on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 06:31:05 PM EST
    is the insistence that Obama has already won, which is not the case, and that Clinton is taking Obama's eye off the prize, which is McCain.  Characterizing what is going on between the two contenders for the nomination as "infighting" demeans senator Clinton and begs argument.

    [ Parent ]
    I agree with that (5.00 / 1) (#224)
    by Just another person on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 07:30:05 PM EST
    And Denni is welcome to state his/her case and we have every right to call him/her out on it. But that doesn't make Denni a troll.

    Now that jondee person with those stupid comments that have no substance - I think that is a troll.

    [ Parent ]

    Well, I like Craig Crawford's suggestion that she (5.00 / 2) (#231)
    by derridog on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 07:46:50 PM EST
    have a debate with John McCain. Tell Obama he's welcome to join if he wants. It would be a fabulous move and put Obama right where he needs to be -in the corner, pouting.  He would then have a choice --his two rivals debating without him, or facing up to both of them.  

    For her it would be a brilliant move.  She and McCain could have at it, implying that Obama was irrelevant or else O would have to show up, eating his words about not debating her.

    Why can't Craig Crawford be one of her advisors?!

    [ Parent ]

    I would not want to play chess (5.00 / 16) (#2)
    by Cream City on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 03:25:09 PM EST
    with Hillary Rodham Clinton.  Checkmate! :-)

    Would one of the rules (1.00 / 2) (#14)
    by jondee on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 03:43:43 PM EST
    of the intellectual chess game be that you're not allowed to mention the word neocon and put it in it's historical context vis a vis the current It Takes An "Obliterated" Village project?

    [ Parent ]
    Freestyle! No-holds-barred! (5.00 / 8) (#19)
    by felizarte on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 03:48:03 PM EST
    Let the viewers register their decision/opinion in the voting booths.

    [ Parent ]
    Bitter much? (5.00 / 4) (#27)
    by doyenne49 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 03:53:15 PM EST
    Guess your guy is losing...

    [ Parent ]
    "Yes, we're p*ssed" (3.00 / 1) (#34)
    by cymro on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 04:03:29 PM EST
    Today's Borowitz Report ;-)

    [ Parent ]
    LOL, is that real? (3.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Denni on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 04:13:39 PM EST
    He has an odd sense of humor, if it is.  I like it.

    [ Parent ]
    He's a comic who specializes in political satire (3.00 / 1) (#118)
    by cymro on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 05:41:30 PM EST
    You can subscribe to the daily Borowitz report (it's free). It's a pleasant moment of relief from the seriousness of the political blogs, if you're not too thin-skinned.  Check out his archives.

    [ Parent ]
    Huh? What? (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Marvin42 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 05:08:11 PM EST
    If you want to do hit pieces could you please make sure they are intelligible? Thanks.

    [ Parent ]
    He's going to refuse to go. (5.00 / 11) (#3)
    by Josmt on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 03:26:24 PM EST
    But I hope he accepts; she's going to eat him alive.

    I too think he will refuse. (5.00 / 8) (#7)
    by felizarte on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 03:31:29 PM EST
    If he does not accept, he can at least maintain that he has a tight campaign schedule.  If he accepts, he would be standing there getting creamed for all the world to see.

    [ Parent ]
    No debater is he. (5.00 / 5) (#13)
    by Cal on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 03:42:35 PM EST
    hope-change-page-turn work well at the rah rah campus emotive rallies, not so much in real debates on actual policy issues with an informed, experienced opponent.  There his three words are um-looook-uh and he can't bs his way out of answers.

    [ Parent ]
    Seven words actually (5.00 / 5) (#16)
    by stillife on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 03:44:06 PM EST
    Don't forget "I agree with Hillary".

    [ Parent ]
    It's not about policy (5.00 / 3) (#103)
    by goldberry on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 05:27:11 PM EST
    Bwahahahaha!

    [ Parent ]
    Sure comes in handy (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by LHinSeattle on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 06:22:02 PM EST
    that "tight campaign schedule."  So tight he doesn't want the voters to hear him in a debate. Might look bad when he wants to stop to eat his waffles on national TV.

    [ Parent ]
    His refusal will bite him on the (asterisk) (5.00 / 10) (#37)
    by Ellie on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 04:05:42 PM EST
    The beauty of it is, any wording or explanation will come off as lame given the ratings of the last debatate and what's at stake ahead.

    If he can't go head to head with Bad Monster Lady who's purportedly limping to a "surefire" loss, he's not ready to go head to head with McCain.

    [ Parent ]

    He did refuse... his campaign (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by FlaDemFem on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 06:13:53 PM EST
    said so this evening..Here is the story..

    [ Parent ]
    He's not "ducking" (5.00 / 2) (#158)
    by LHinSeattle on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 06:26:29 PM EST
    sez that article:
    Shortly after maintaining that he isn't "ducking" debates with his Democratic rival, the Illinois senator admitted that the two hopefuls are "not going to have debates between now and Indiana."

    Voters in Indiana and North Carolina will head to the polls May 6.

    In the interview, Fox News' Chris Wallace asked Obama why he was ducking another one-on-one meeting.

    My, my, the press are getting rough!     /snark

    [ Parent ]

    Hell no, he won't go (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by Cal on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 03:29:34 PM EST
    He doesn't have the cojones.

    OMG! (5.00 / 7) (#9)
    by stillife on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 03:39:14 PM EST
    Obama has enough trouble coming up with coherent answers.  If he had to do both questions and answers - well, let's see if he can walk and chew gum at the same time.  

    I expect him to do about as well as he did at bowling.

    Wait a second (4.66 / 3) (#86)
    by Marvin42 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 05:10:07 PM EST
    I honestly think this is a great proposal. But not because I think Sen Obama will get creamed. He may do quite well. He is very intelligent and articulate. I am not sure why everyone assumes he couldn't hold his own.

    But I think it would be very enlightening in many ways.

    [ Parent ]

    History (5.00 / 5) (#97)
    by Kathy on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 05:23:33 PM EST
    I am not sure why everyone assumes he couldn't hold his own.


    [ Parent ]
    Completely different format (5.00 / 4) (#108)
    by goldberry on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 05:30:28 PM EST
    I'd be worried if I were him.

    [ Parent ]
    If Obama accepts this... (5.00 / 6) (#10)
    by diplomatic on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 03:39:34 PM EST
    it will go a long way in showing that he has what it takes to be a Commander in Chief.

    That is assuming that all he has to do (4.83 / 6) (#15)
    by felizarte on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 03:43:53 PM EST
    as qualification for CIC is to show up and say, "present."

    [ Parent ]
    Well I meant that it reflects on his character (5.00 / 4) (#30)
    by diplomatic on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 03:59:13 PM EST
    his courage and his ability to face tough situations head on. :)

    [ Parent ]
    This Lady has more courage (5.00 / 13) (#11)
    by felizarte on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 03:41:05 PM EST
    than any candidate I have ever seen before and I have seen many. Wow! She's all in! Will Obama fold?

    Lets see if she has (1.44 / 9) (#21)
    by jondee on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 03:49:05 PM EST
    the "courage" to take the high road and not bring up more Rev Wright slime, or stories about how she's just a small town country girl who'll obliterate the enemies of McCain's favorite pastor if it'll siphon a few votes from the Right.

    [ Parent ]
    She won't have to do that (5.00 / 9) (#28)
    by felizarte on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 03:54:37 PM EST
    the blogs have already beaten that to death.  But policy discussions are where she excels.  She would prefer a policy/issues debate.

    [ Parent ]
    Nah, she won't have to.. (5.00 / 8) (#36)
    by FlaDemFem on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 04:05:17 PM EST
    all she will have to do is ask him to explain his policy on anything at all, and his plans for implementing it. That will stump him totally. It's not like he can tell her his staff hasn't told him what is on the web site. So, we will get, "Uh, about that...Um...Uh..look, I am going to insist on hope and change..Uh..and unity." I look forward to it. Heh.

    [ Parent ]
    oh, you're no fun! (5.00 / 4) (#93)
    by kempis on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 05:15:46 PM EST
    I want her to open the debate by tossing down a shot of Crown Royal and shooting an apple off of Barack's head. Then Barack can do something working class, like demonstrate that he can build a sawhorse in one minute flat.

    Seriously, I've always been a big debate fan. I think it's in debates that we get a real sense of the candidates' command of information, problem-solving, and temperament. And my dream has been that we have more debates and fewer commercials and stump speeches in our politics. A Lincoln-Douglas style debate between Hillary and Obama would be like the World Series or the Superbowl to us political junkies. :)

    And I think Obama's debating skills have improved in this past year. I'll give him credit. He stumbled badly in the last one, but during the first several debates last spring and summer, he wasn't crisp and focused, and he was even more tentative than he sometimes still is. I think he's a much improved debater and he's no dummy. I think Hillary would be in her element in that kind of format, but I honestly think he could do well--or as he would put it, "well enough...." ;)

    [ Parent ]

    Rev. Wright Is Helping Slime Obama Now (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 05:39:13 PM EST
    He picked a helluva time to rear his head.

    [ Parent ]
    I agree, he's too busy dusting his tired msg (5.00 / 9) (#12)
    by thereyougo on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 03:42:23 PM EST
    to make it sound new and crisp.
    Plus he looks tired. Guess they had alot of eggs in Tuesday's loss.

    and Hillary is getting her 2nd wind. Dang she's tough!

    did you say solutions to unfair debates? (5.00 / 13) (#17)
    by mexboy on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 03:46:03 PM EST
    So Barak complains of unfair treatment on the last debate?
    Hilary just solved the problem for him.

    If this isn't courage, leadership and huevos I don't know what is.  

    Come on Barak take her on what are you afraid of?

    Hillary just won (5.00 / 10) (#25)
    by felizarte on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 03:51:32 PM EST
    the debate about debates.  I relish the thought of this event. And Barack is in the proverbial "between a rock and a hard place."

    [ Parent ]
    The last season of The West Wing (5.00 / 5) (#18)
    by mulletov cocktails on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 03:46:45 PM EST
    I was having a conversation with my brother a few months back about how great the last season of the West Wing was esp. b/c the writers knew the series was done and so they went for broke.  We both lamented about how unlikely it would be to see two candidates actually debate each other with no moderators to ask questions and just let the candidates live and die by their own abilites.

    One can only hope.

    I mentioned this last night to my gf (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by lobary on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 06:44:36 PM EST
    During last night's Real Time with Bill Maher, one of the panel members (either Garry Shandling or Arianna Huffington) criticized Hillary for challenging Obama to another debate with the inane argument that we've already heard everything they have to say. I screamed out loud: "No we haven't! Get rid of the moderators and have a real debate."

    How can anyone be opposed to this? This is exactly the kind of REAL CHANGE the electorate has craved in its presidential politics for a very long time. Aren't we all fed up with the poor performances of the Russerts, Matthews, and Gibsons?

    If Obama is a different kind of politician, why won't he accept the challenge?

    [ Parent ]

    he and his campaign (5.00 / 1) (#207)
    by ccpup on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 06:58:07 PM EST
    are under the illusion they're still in the driver's seat, so they believe they can call the shots and swat Hillary away like a fly because they're now "focusing on the GE and McCain".

    Problem is, the political landscape changed dramatically after his multi-million dollar, seven week trek to a resounding loss in PA.  No excuses on that one.  No "I had no money" or "If I had had more time" malarkey.  It was a loss, plain and simple.  A drubbing.  An embarrassment.  Following an alarmingly inept debate performance.  I trust more than a few SDs sat back in their chairs with a queasy stomach and a pounding stress headache after THAT one.

    But Barack and his boyz still arrogantly assume they have this Nom in the bag.  I mean, really, is anyone paying any attention to the Media comparing him to McGovern and openly debating his GE electoral map chances?  Of course not!  Everyone LOVES Barack!

    That must be one industrial strength bubble Obama's being kept in.

    [ Parent ]

    No one will ever accuse Hillary of being (5.00 / 9) (#22)
    by Anne on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 03:50:12 PM EST
    afraid of putting herself on the line, but I suspect the Obama reaction will be to treat the invitation as one might treat a pesky fly - he will have so much more important things to do, ya know?

    It's very clever - take away the things that both of them have complained about, and just go toe-to-toe.  Kind of a "here's our chance to do this our way," opportunity - he should be leaping at it, but he won't, because he will realize that if he does poorly, he will have nothing and no one to blame it on, and it may be that even Axelrod and Plouffe wouldn't be able to spin that straw into gold.

    And if he does refuse, I think her response ought to include something along the lines of, "Gee, and I was even going to offer to bring the waffles and syrup."

    ;-)

    i think the hit he would take... (5.00 / 6) (#23)
    by nic danger on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 03:50:29 PM EST
    if he refuses this offer,is much less than what would happen if she cleaned his clock.just sayin...

    I don't know anyone who cares at this point... (1.00 / 4) (#50)
    by Denni on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 04:16:06 PM EST
    what's the point?  How would one more debate change the final outcome?  It doesn't.  Why would he waste energy on a debate when sealing the delegate lead is what he needs to do, now?

    [ Parent ]
    It will say, "The emperor (5.00 / 10) (#59)
    by felizarte on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 04:24:46 PM EST
    has no clothes!"

    [ Parent ]
    again, don't waste energy on voters! (5.00 / 3) (#66)
    by angie on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 04:40:48 PM EST
    why maximize the opportunities they have to see the candidates in action -- they might change their minds and not vote for my guy.  

    [ Parent ]
    Errr, huh? (5.00 / 6) (#87)
    by Marvin42 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 05:12:08 PM EST
    Sealing the delegate lead? You mean getting to 2024, don't you? Because barring a way to do that he needs to show he can attract part of her base or he may be on his way to losing the nomination.

    [ Parent ]
    i care. (5.00 / 8) (#105)
    by sancho on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 05:28:42 PM EST
    the ratings would be huge. obama supporters who dont want to watch could skip it and reread his website.

    [ Parent ]
    The last debate (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 06:26:25 PM EST
    brought Obama's national poll numbers down 10 points.

    Debates help people see the unscripted Obama. And People are apparently not impressed.

    [ Parent ]

    "sealing the delegate lead" (5.00 / 2) (#164)
    by LHinSeattle on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 06:33:05 PM EST
    Yeah, that lead just might go down after one of these debates!  

    Since neither can get the # required, the whole delegate thing is tangential. Psssst:  Delegates, pledged and S, can change their minds all the way up to and including the 2nd vote count at the convention.

    [ Parent ]

    This is brilliant. (5.00 / 18) (#24)
    by Iphie on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 03:50:41 PM EST
    It's a win/win for Hillary however Obama responds -- either he comes off looking like a coward, or he debates her and comes of looking inexperienced and incapable.

    It seems more and more to me that the Hillary campaign is totally on their game and that Obama's is in disarray.

    I cannot wait to hear Obama's response and the resultant spin explaining it away.

    The spin, always the spin (5.00 / 5) (#32)
    by Lou Grinzo on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 04:00:41 PM EST
    I, too, would love to hear the spin from the Obama fanboyz on this one.  "See?  This would only further divide the Dems, so Hillary should drop out now!"

    In all seriousness, I agree with others here that making the offer is a brilliant move.  I wonder what it would be like to see Obama that far off script, with none of the lapel pin idiocy in the questions.
    What is The Cost of Energy?
    [ Parent ]

    that would be brilliant (5.00 / 6) (#26)
    by kempis on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 03:52:17 PM EST
    What a fitting thing to do in this long, historic campaign. I hope Obama takes her up on it. As felizarte says, "it should make a riveting 90 minutes." Indeed it should!

    Out of curiosity, anyone know the last time a Lincoln-Douglas style debate was held in national politics? ...Probably when Lincoln and Douglas did it....

    I read that this years planned Presidential (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by Teresa on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 04:11:57 PM EST
    debates will have one of them with at least one hour of this format. Something like eight minute segments without the moderator interrupting for various topics. This would be good practice for Obama if he wins, though I'm sure he'd prefer McCain as his debate opponent.

    [ Parent ]
    really? Then he definitely should do this (5.00 / 3) (#95)
    by kempis on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 05:19:36 PM EST
    If he can go toe-to-toe with