Hillary Challenges Obama to Non-Moderated Debate

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 >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • 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.!

    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!

    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.

    diarists must have gotten the Obama memo (5.00 / 3) (#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.

    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.

    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.


    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.

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


    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.

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


    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.  

    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.


    not the 22nd time (5.00 / 14) (#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.


    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 . . .   ;)

    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.

    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.

    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.


    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.

    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?

    Has Obama taken Nukes off the table? (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by nycstray on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 06:40:55 PM EST
    it's called deterrence (5.00 / 2) (#188)
    by BostonIndependent on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 06:45:29 PM EST
    Come On! (5.00 / 8) (#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.

    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
    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.


    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 . . .


    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.

    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.

    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?

    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.


    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.


    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

    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)."

    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.

    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



    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).

    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.

    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?


    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.

    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".


    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.)


    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. ;-)

    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.


    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.  


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


    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.


    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)

    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.


    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.


    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.

    What is annoying (5.00 / 2) (#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.

    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).  ;-)


    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.

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


    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?

    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.

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

    "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 ;-)

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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 / 7) (#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.

    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.

    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".

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

    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.

    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.


    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..

    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


    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.


    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.

    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.

    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."

    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. :)

    This Lady has more courage (5.00 / 12) (#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 (1.50 / 8) (#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.

    She won't have to do that (5.00 / 8) (#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.

    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.

    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...." ;)


    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.

    I agree, he's too busy dusting his tired msg (5.00 / 8) (#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 / 12) (#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."

    The last season of The West Wing (5.00 / 4) (#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?


    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.


    No one will ever accuse Hillary of being (5.00 / 8) (#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?

    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!"

    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.  

    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.

    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.

    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.


    "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.


    This is brilliant. (5.00 / 17) (#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.


    that would be brilliant (5.00 / 5) (#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.

    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 Hillary in this format, he'd blast McCain off the stage.

    Wow. (5.00 / 13) (#29)
    by lyzurgyk on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 03:57:57 PM EST
    Excellent idea.   They could finally debate real issues.  And if they didn't we'd know who to blame.

    But looks like Obama and his supporters are scared sh*tless of this.

    Scared?? Delusional. (5.00 / 8) (#39)
    by MarkL on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 04:08:37 PM EST

    That would actually be a good idea. (3+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
        JSCram3254, gooderservice, zhimbo

    She is a seasoned politician, but Obama is one of the best debaters I've seen in years. She is likely to get angry and red faced if he backs her into a corner on the war. Conversely, without moderators she is likely to play dirty. But that would also work in Obama's favor.

    They're all agreeing that Obama would be Lincoln if they had L-D debates.


    drinking it hell (5.00 / 6) (#100)
    by kempis on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 05:24:27 PM EST
    They're mainlining it....

    Snorting the powder dry! (5.00 / 7) (#116)
    by Fabian on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 05:38:16 PM EST
    I checked the poll.  The majority do NOT want a debate - and the comments paint Clinton as "desperate".  I dunno - is "desperate" better than "racist"?

    'she's using sex as a weapon' (5.00 / 7) (#41)
    by nycstray on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 04:11:21 PM EST
    lol!~ yup, one of them actually went there.

    Man, those comments were pretty funny and more than a tad bit revealing . . .


    LMFAO! Ooh, maybe she'll show 1/4in of cleavage (5.00 / 5) (#60)
    by Ellie on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 04:29:08 PM EST
    ... and send the tooboisie class bouncing off the walls again in outrage! And Outrage about the Outrage!

    And Keith Obamann will froth out a Have you No Decency Madam finger-wagger, combining the vicious disgust he has for, well, WOMEN generally, and the lavish lasciviousness he sputters when reprimanding one.

    OTOH, since Obamann's a sports fan, maybe he'd back a contest of sending the two of them into a room and betting on which one would emerge.


    The comments are even funnier... (5.00 / 6) (#51)
    by FlaDemFem on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 04:16:29 PM EST
    especially the ones comparing it to the Lincoln-Douglas debates, and saying Obama would be Lincoln.(Why, because he is tall?) Then someone pointed out that Douglas won that particular election. Then someone else points out that back then the state legislators elected the Senators, not the popular vote. So, Obama/Lincoln would have won because everyone just loves him. See??

    And someone else ... (5.00 / 11) (#53)
    by Cassius Chaerea on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 04:17:46 PM EST
    thought that "Douglas" was Frederick Douglass ...

    Well, so much for his supporters being (5.00 / 12) (#57)
    by FlaDemFem on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 04:21:53 PM EST
    the educated elite..snicker.

    that has to be (5.00 / 5) (#78)
    by boredmpa on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 05:02:09 PM EST
    the best troll ever...either that or i should put my head on my desk and cry

    LOL--to all of the above (5.00 / 7) (#96)
    by kempis on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 05:23:20 PM EST
    My god, that Kos thread is too funny. When the Hillary supporters left, they must have taken all the reference books. Sheesh.

    No challenging of the "facts" (5.00 / 1) (#222)
    by Burned on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 07:26:30 PM EST
    No need for reference.

    At least no one's suggested (5.00 / 2) (#127)
    by janarchy on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 05:49:11 PM EST
    it was Kirk Douglas... grins

    Or Helen Gahagan Douglas ... (5.00 / 2) (#154)
    by Cassius Chaerea on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 06:23:57 PM EST
    And they have the nerve to (5.00 / 2) (#135)
    by Iphie on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 06:00:26 PM EST
    call us "low information" voters.

    Thx; that's a great comeback (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by LHinSeattle on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 06:39:54 PM EST
    the next time I hear Obama compared to Lincoln.

    "Do you know that Lincoln didn't get his senate seat by the vote of the people, but by the state's politicians?"


    this is so disturbing (5.00 / 4) (#98)
    by boredmpa on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 05:24:10 PM EST
    What is wrong with those people that they spew soo much hate?  I feel old and disconnected...I mean most of my friends are women and it reminds me of one girl getting harassed in the ladies bathroom for not looking normative for the scene, etc.  But other than that I can't process what's going on in that thread--I thought the bathroom harassment was crazy at 23...but what is that crap in their comments?  

    Passive-aggressive geek misogyny? In a society with dead social structures and the internet, do people just get their power/involvement fix by bashing the crap out of others online?  How does "we are the change we've been waiting for" resonate with that crowd?  It just makes no sense to me, I mean I've seen trash talking and misogyny in video games, but I can't imagine kos' readership is Wow/CS players.  What demographic club IS kos readership that it's so misogynistic/juvenile?


    demographic? (5.00 / 3) (#107)
    by Kathy on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 05:29:55 PM EST
    Former republicans, for the most part.  Trickle down nastiness.

    Those guys are hilarious (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by talktomei on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 05:27:05 PM EST
    Kinda makes me wish I still had TU status so I could see all the dissenting opinions they hide-rated.  

    I checked for you. (5.00 / 2) (#123)
    by Fabian on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 05:46:05 PM EST
    I still manage to cling to TU status somehow.

    The first interesting comment was a wish for physical violence against Clinton, replied to by someone who complained that it sat for an hour without a single hide rate it.  After she called the comment out, it got piled on.

    It was in a DHinMI diary.  Curious, I read the diary.  Want to talk about "desperate"?  How about "Bill Clinton is trying to worm his way back into the Oval Office!" ?  How old is that moldy meme?

    That enough or should I go on?


    That's because they are....mean too! (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 05:42:09 PM EST
    I was a proud Kossack (5.00 / 2) (#133)
    by themomcat on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 05:57:25 PM EST
    This is so sad that what was once a proud Democratic supporting community has degenerated this level. This makes me very sad. Markos should be ashamed.

    I can actually remember ... (5.00 / 1) (#206)
    by Cassius Chaerea on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 06:56:50 PM EST
    reading it for actual news, not for finding out what the latest faction spin is. Not that long ago, too.

    Yeah, me too. (5.00 / 1) (#217)
    by Coral on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 07:18:37 PM EST
    Well, I'm wasting a lot less time online these days.

    Hope Obama went with the brown trousers today (5.00 / 5) (#31)
    by Ellie on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 03:59:54 PM EST
    Yeah, It's ON! This'll be fun!

    Obama DID smugly and offensively say on the Daily Show that Sen Clinton's tough campaign was "Spring Training" for him.

    It's The Babe's turn at bat and she just called her shot.

    Did he really say that? (5.00 / 4) (#35)
    by stillife on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 04:04:20 PM EST
    How obnoxious and dismissive.  He's not even fit to be in the major leagues!

    Yup - the 'Spring Training' remark still PO's me (5.00 / 9) (#45)
    by Ellie on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 04:13:31 PM EST
    I'm amazed it didn't go viral on the net. Maybe it got lost in the loud slurping noises from Stewart's predictable tongue bath.

    Team Clinton should dig it up and use it because it's acts like a brain splinter.

    Honestly, what kind of a pompous self-important jackwad takes the view of a more qualified, more experienced, more prepared in every rival: she's there to give him a workout!!!

    Bad form; bad budo on his part.


    omg (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by boredmpa on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 04:57:35 PM EST
    The stewart comment killed me...and made me think of a horribly tasteless idea.  Someone should remix the video of this other chicago celeb with hillary and obama clips.

    Ahhhh. but that would just be too tasteless and considered "emasculating."


    After Obama's humiliating loss in Pennsylvania (5.00 / 14) (#38)
    by DCDemocrat on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 04:07:03 PM EST
    he really should take her up on this and try to show he actually has some mettle.

    tbd (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by Cal on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 05:59:01 PM EST
    Does he have heavy mettle?

    Bravely Brave Obama bravely ran away... (5.00 / 10) (#40)
    by janarchy on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 04:10:26 PM EST
    Go Hillary for continuing to press him on this issue. It can't hurt her, it does hurt him, even if the current talking points seem to include the whole 'oh, we don't need any more debates. We've had TWENTY (said in petulant voice and with much eyerolling). We don't need anymore!'

    The thing is that even Obama supporters said early on that debating was never his forte. And once someone actually asks real questions, he can't answer them or hide behind a plate of waffles!

    Bouble Dare Ya (5.00 / 5) (#48)
    by themomcat on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 04:14:30 PM EST
    A brilliant challenge from a brilliant mind. Let see how the " brilliant orator" Obama stands up to her her brilliant questions and answers. Double Dare Ya!
    Rise, Hillary, rise

    If Obama refuses to debate, imagine (5.00 / 5) (#49)
    by felizarte on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 04:15:57 PM EST
    Hillary repeating the challenge in every state that still has a primary to hold? And be able to say, I asked Obama to debate, but . . ."

    Maybe Obama's afraid she'll throw China at him (5.00 / 5) (#75)
    by Ellie on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 04:57:09 PM EST
    ... or some other unfairly timed hard foreign policy question like, well, any of them.

    Yes! But she should not limit the challenge to (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by DeborahNC on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 06:38:06 PM EST
    one per state. I think that she should call him out at any venue she deems appropriate. Maybe she could get a little crowd chanting going like, "Debate, Obama, Debate!

    That would be so sweet!


    Oooo, trick question (5.00 / 6) (#52)
    by goldberry on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 04:17:18 PM EST
    Very clever.  Touche Hillary.  According to wiki, Lincoln-Douglas Debates are not about policy.  So, they should be one even ground, right?  Ahhh, but they are about values and morals.  And they get to ask each other questions.  Now, what is the great moral problem(s) that needs to be discussed?  What is at the crux of all that is wrong with America today?  
    Will he take her up on it or barricade the door?  After all, it's not policy.  How could he possibly look bad?  
    {{evil snicker}}

    Question for Obama (none / 0) (#153)
    by soccermom on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 06:23:45 PM EST
    Senator Obama, why did you miss the tribute to Dr. Martin Luther King?

    I know I'm just a typical white person, gun totin' Annie Oakley type, but I can still remember exactly where I was when I heard the news and how a bunch of us gathered and just absolutely sobbed at the awfulness of it all.

    So, why weren't you there?


    because of his tight campaign schedule n/t (none / 0) (#161)
    by angie on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 06:29:59 PM EST
    Obama's campaign refuses to this debate! (5.00 / 6) (#61)
    by Josmt on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 04:32:16 PM EST
    CNN Ticket

    Shortly after Clinton's remarks, Obama's chief strategist David Axelrod rejected the challenge out of hand, telling CNN, "In the next nine days we're going to devote our attention to the voters and we will see where we are after May 6. It doesn't matter whether it's Lincoln-Douglas, standing, sitting, what language it is in, it does not matter."

    Because everyone knows that... (5.00 / 7) (#83)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 05:08:52 PM EST
    ...voters don't watch debates. LOL.

    Sheer Cowardice Masked By Dishonesty (5.00 / 11) (#89)
    by Amileoj on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 05:12:29 PM EST
    In the next nine days we're going to devote our attention to the voters...

    Translation:  We're going to be too busy filling the airwaves with scripted propaganda to meet our opponent in unfiltered, truly democratic debate.

    Remember: It was Lincoln who issued the invitation to Douglas to divide time. But it was Douglas who at least accepted that invitation, and so his name lives on in our political history (albeit not in its first ranks).

    Does BHO really want to go down as the candidate who squandered a historic opportunity to transform presidential politics in a radically more democratic direction?  To break down the very wall of big-media distortion he has so lately (and correctly) learned to scorn, by giving the voters an unprecendented (for our age) opportunity to see their candidates debate the issues without media-imposed frames or filters?  

    Think about it:  No 30-second sound bites.  No "gotcha" questions--at least none that the person issuing them won't immediately be called upon to defend.  No preening journos taking up as much air time as the candidates. No biased agendas set by pundits who have decided amongst themselves which side of the scales to put their thumbs on this week.  No place for a candidate spouting weak arguments or lame attack lines to hide, when their opponent calls them to account.  This is what democratic debate looks like. The only danger is that we've forgotten what that is, so rare has it become in our official politics.

    If BHO ducks this (there is no other word for it) noble offer from HRC, it will give the lie to his entire campaign message of transforming our politics.


    Well, i guess I gotta be the one (5.00 / 1) (#233)
    by Cream City on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 07:48:53 PM EST
    to point out that Douglas also lives on in history because he basically won that series of debates, since he won the election.  These were the ones in 1858 for the Senate seat.  

    But the printed copies of the debates did help both of their careers, so they met again in 1860, when Lincoln won that rather memorable round -- although he won despite, in another parallel today, he wasn't on the ballot in several states soon to secede.

    Obama considers himself Lincolnesque, pointing out Abe's brief career in Congress before -- while neglecting that Lincoln had been in politics for 30 years, compared to Obama's 10 -- and Obama even declared his run for the White House in Springfield, too. . . .

    But fine, let the next debate parallel the Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858 as, after all, the winner then was Douglas, the Dem -- the real Dem.  And then, "Abe" Obama can wait his turn to win later, too. :-)


    Sounds a little like Dr. Seuss (5.00 / 7) (#110)
    by diplomatic on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 05:31:07 PM EST
    I will not debate her in a barn, I will not debate here in a shoe, or standing by a bar, nor sitting from afar....

    Wouldn't There Be Voters Watching The Debate? (5.00 / 3) (#122)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 05:45:43 PM EST
    Wow! (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by madamab on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 06:46:35 PM EST
    Brave, brave, brave, brave Obama!

    When debates reared their ugly head
    Obama bravely turned and fled....


    Bravo! (5.00 / 13) (#64)
    by Amileoj on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 04:37:09 PM EST
    This a masterstroke in so many ways from HRC:

    1. It preempts the argument from BHO's camp that more debates are pointless or worse, because the journos who host them ask mostly trivial, "gotcha" type questions.

    2. It is, on the merits, a far superior format because elite journos do, in fact, often grandstand, ask dumb questions, and play favorites -- behavior that was aimed much earlier and more often at HRC than at BHO.

    3. The historical example of the Lincoln-Douglas debates makes it an especially hard offer for BHO to duck, given the rather ostentatious identification of him with Linclon by his fans in the punditocracy.

    4. The unprecedented nature of it in the age of TV debates would make it a major news event, giving the MSM a rooting interest in pressing BHO to agree, and making it quite possibly the most watched event of the whole campaign, with a correspondingly outsized impact.

    5. It would set a new precedent and standard for TV debates that McCain would be hard pressed to duck in the fall, and that would almost certainly wind up hurting him badly if he agrees.

    If I were HRC, I would repeat this offer, loudly, at every campaign stop between now and May 6.

    It also reinforces the idea that.... (5.00 / 4) (#81)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 05:08:01 PM EST
    ...he didn't want to debate any more because the media was being too mean to him, although she doesn't have to say that overtly.

    You forgot one (5.00 / 1) (#212)
    by lobary on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 07:02:36 PM EST
    6. Exposes the fraudulence of the Obama campaign's central theme.

    If Obama is a New Kind of Politician, why would he refuse to partake in such an innovative format?


    Great idea, because America really has always (5.00 / 4) (#67)
    by athyrio on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 04:41:14 PM EST
    respected bravery and knowledge, two things she abounds in, thats for sure....

    I would love to see it. (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by Faust on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 05:06:14 PM EST
    But I very much doubt he will take it. It's probably in his interests not to.

    Maybe it's my sunny outlook... (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by lookoverthere on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 05:18:54 PM EST
    or maybe I got really really drunk while eating lunch and only think this is a good idea...

    Does anyone else see this as an opportunity for the Democractic Party to unify?

    These two can have a heated, intense, and substantive discussion that ultimately shows that they can and will work together on things that really matter. And that we can disagree without being total @ssholes to one another.

    They can set the tone. Each one can demand from the other. Maybe even hold each other to a standard of honesty simply not in the moderated debates we've seen so far. (That standard of honesty for politicians isn't very high, granted, but maybe the two of them could hold each other to something a little better.)

    And if Sen. Obama decides not to take the opportunity, Sen. Clinton should hold 90-minute press conferences. Any question, any reporter, one in Indiana and one in North Carolina.

    Ooooh, I think I hear a martini calling my name.

    I don't think she wants to buy the world a coke (5.00 / 3) (#99)
    by goldberry on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 05:24:11 PM EST
    I think she's looking to finish him off.  Given the nature of the debate format, I think I know exactly what she has in mind.  It's ingenious.  He can't hardly refuse given the terms and yet if he takes it, he's toast.

    It's a win-win for Hillary! She looks courageous (none / 0) (#190)
    by DeborahNC on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 06:46:45 PM EST
    and he looks, well....afraid. Which he likely is. I'd love to have a ringside seat at that debate, if it happened.

    I don't think he's up for it. Basically if he refuses, the message he'll send is, "I don't think I'm up for it."


    sounds good to me. (none / 0) (#149)
    by Arcadianwind on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 06:20:53 PM EST
    I'm havin' some Commodore Perry IPA from Great Lakes Brewing....Wow the hops...fabulous, and the grill is fired up with hardwood charcoal! I propose a toast to the next debate.

    Done! (none / 0) (#194)
    by lookoverthere on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 06:48:21 PM EST
    Barkeep, a round to the house. And doubles for Obama supporters as an offering of, if not friendship, then detente. We may not agree but we can drink together, no?

    To the next debate.


    Obviously we all must see these debates thru (5.00 / 3) (#113)
    by athyrio on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 05:32:54 PM EST
    our own filters of whomever we support, but we can also notice lack of knowledge and lack of depth....I think it would be an automatic winner for Hillary but I admit I am prejudiced in her favor....I am glad my candidate is so brave and knowledgeable.....:-)

    ya know (5.00 / 2) (#124)
    by karen for Clinton on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 05:46:57 PM EST
    After watching most of the debates and watching Hillary for all these years I'm sure she'd win the debate if it was Karl Rove asking her questions and Bill Matthews asking him questions.

    She's just so much more informed and a solid rock.

    Hillary is the first candidate (5.00 / 9) (#126)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 05:48:29 PM EST
    in my memory that I felt can handle any question, any setting and do really well.  I never sit on my hands thinking:  "oh my, hope she does not mess up".  No chance of mess up.  

    Bold move!!! I so proud of her (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by feet on earth on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 06:01:36 PM EST
    Hillary, go girl ..., show to anyone how strong and confident you come out of that room they want to lock you in.  

    I peed myself a little (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by BrandingIron on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 06:09:40 PM EST
    when I read about that, because Hillary is such a genius.

    But when I read about Obama's pussying out of it, I shrugged because that was no surprise.  He has absolutely no match of wit towards hers...he would go down in a giant ball of flames on national TV (worse than the Penn debate) and he knows it.  That's why "his campaign" declined.

    Ahem (5.00 / 0) (#202)
    by LHinSeattle on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 06:53:37 PM EST
    I'm sure you didn't intend it, but your wording
    when I read about Obama's pussying out of it

    is sexist.  And a tad ironic considering that, as I believe you'd agree, the female debater is one tough campaigner.

    That slang nomenclature never made much sense to me, seeing as how felines come in two genders. And no one ever came face-to-face with a cougar and thought: what a weak animal!


    Game, Set & Match (5.00 / 3) (#144)
    by cdalygo on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 06:12:17 PM EST
    She just ripped his heart out without even breaking a sweat.

    Now she just needs the Ad running everywhere about his refusal to debate. Years ago we had a guy in CA follow a candidate around in a chicken suit.

    I would throw in his smug line about spring training. Then I would figure in some way to work in Alice Palmer.(Or maybe save her for something special.)


    If I had the time and money (5.00 / 3) (#155)
    by BrandingIron on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 06:24:53 PM EST
    I'd follow Obama around in a chicken suit.

    why am I not surprised (5.00 / 2) (#160)
    by Kathy on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 06:29:57 PM EST
    that you already have the suit--it's just the time and money you need?  :-)

    How many times has Obama given (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by MarkL on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 06:22:22 PM EST
    the exact same stump speech?
    Surely, more than 200, right?
    I'm sure he can another debate, even if to him it is just more of the same.

    intelligent (5.00 / 0) (#186)
    by DJ on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 06:44:35 PM EST
    hard-working and brave.  That's the president I want.  GO HILLARY!

    New Debate Guidelines (5.00 / 0) (#219)
    by votus on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 07:24:29 PM EST
    Last summer Sarkozy and Royale, the candidates for president of France, debated on TV in a broadcast that was made available on TV5, the French language syndicated station in the U.S.  

    They sat facing each other across a table.  Topics were introduced by a moderator who only interrupted to put the dialog back on topic when it strayed.

    There was no live audience.  Camera action was restricted to discourage bias.  Neither candidate was  given a complimentary or disadvantageous close up or reaction shot.

    The candidates had to address their remarks to each other. This format held for a remarkable two and a half hours, as I recall.  

    So, the two candidates had to practice their statecraft and diplomacy on each other.  

    By the end of the contest it was comprehensible how Sarkozy had taken command of the table.  His election came as no surprise.  

    One could not watch this debate without feeling tremendous respect for both candidates.  

    Topic debates (4.75 / 4) (#4)
    by Step Beyond on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 03:29:24 PM EST
    I haven't watched any of the debates, but I think that would tempt me.

    I think another interesting option (although not as interesting as Clinton's suggestion) is to do topic based debates. Economy, healthcare, Iraq, etc and have experts moderate instead of journalists. Might be too difficult I suppose but a chance to really go into details and reasons for plans would really add some depth to a debate.  

    There have been topic debates (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Cream City on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 03:31:09 PM EST
    and they were not the most interesting, but maybe worth a try again, if Obama will say more than "what she said."

    But there was a portion of a debate, maybe more than one, that had the moderators STFU and had the candidates asking each other questions, and it was very interesting.  This would be good to do again.


    Ross Perot (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by Step Beyond on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 03:48:14 PM EST
    Not a Perot supporter at all, but I think he had a point with those infomercials with the charts and graphs. You really can explain things to the American public and they will listen. It's not fascinating tv, but it reaches the people who can't or won't go read position papers on campaign websites.

    I think a nicely done, topic debate can do that. Not just for the candidates and the party, but for the issue. Of course, I could be totally wrong. :D


    No moderators! Just a timekeeper. (5.00 / 7) (#8)
    by felizarte on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 03:38:32 PM EST
    1/3 each for Iraq, healthcare, economy in general. Each segment, 15 minutes of opening statements for each; 30 minutes for questions and rebuttals.

    coin toss on who goes first for each segment.


    yep (5.00 / 5) (#56)
    by Nasarius on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 04:21:22 PM EST
    Expand Iraq to foreign policy in general, and that's my dream debate. I don't always agree with Hillary on these issues, but she really knows what she's talking about, and it shows. Obama, not so much.

    Debate WHAT at this point? (3.00 / 4) (#104)
    by Dadler on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 05:28:39 PM EST
    How they both won't end the war immediately as priority number one?  Any economic recovery is entirely impossible unless the war is finished yesterday.  A third of a billion a day.  Neither of these candidates has the spine or the courage or the brains to simply say "This war will end the day I take office."  Say that and you are the President.  End of story.  Why?  Because THAT is the will of the people.  End this war now.  Nothing could be more clear.

    When this murderous, financially ruinous war ends, we will have resources for, gasp, actual Americans here in America.  If the war continues for much longer, complete economic ruin is at hand.  That is simply logic.  Waging a war that is both unprecedented in terms of costs AND unpopularity is a certain and unmistkable recipe for self-destruction (along with the destruction of others we continue to engage in).  We're preparing that recipe as we speak.  And it won't taste good going down.  

    you should listen to Clinton (5.00 / 4) (#111)
    by Kathy on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 05:32:18 PM EST
    Neither of these candidates has the spine or the courage or the brains to simply say "This war will end the day I take office."

    She has repeatedly said the first thing she will do on day one is demand a withdrawal plan from the top generals, then begin to implement it as safely as possible.

    If that's not ending the war, I don't know what is.

    Obama's advisors admit that what he says to get elected isn't necessarily what he'll do.  A lot of his advisors have been saying that lately, though.


    I've heard what she's said (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by Dadler on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 05:45:41 PM EST
    Asking the generals for a withdrawl plan is not ending the war.  She would still maintain a military presence there beyond that, as well.  Obviously, I believe she WANTS the war to end, but I don't believe she has the personality or leadership traits that are required to do the job of simply saying "It's over, we are withdrawing as of now."  She has an enabling personality, and an original enabler of this war I haven't heard or seen from her anything approaching the fire and passion that this murderous debacle deserves every day.  It IS the reason this nation is in the economic tank.

    And I am no Obama man either, I've heard even worse from him on it.

    I have family in this war, it's a personal issue with me as well as a political one, and the malevolent stupidity ALL the candidates have shown on this issue never ceases to stagger and infuriate me.  We are killing others and killing ourselves in the process.  It is the SINGLE issue most destroying this nation.


    Sir, (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by soccermom on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 06:35:53 PM EST
    I absolutely hear you.  But there has to be a plan.  Otherwise, the last battalion left gets the brunt of all of the violence and killing.  Fine if your loved one isn't in that rearguard.  Senator Clinton will require the military to create a plan for the first withdrawals within 60 days.  I see March '09 as the beginning of the end of our folly in Iraq.  No more stoploss.  No more IED's.  From your lips to God's ear.

    Not True (none / 0) (#216)
    by squeaky on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 07:15:14 PM EST
    The Iraqis will cheer and welcome with open arms the departure of the last battalion, not shoot at it, imo. Our troops are getting killed because they are an occupation force, and because they are shooting at Iraqis.

    So you missed the withdrawal from Saigon (none / 0) (#236)
    by Cream City on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 07:57:37 PM EST
    and thus do not share the nightmare vision that still recurs to me of the Viets who had helped us, desperately trying to get into the U.S. compound, desperately clinging to the copters that could barely take off. . . .

    Demobilization always takes planning.  With the mood of some Iraqis, as you say, we do not need to endanger more of them as well as our troops -- the last of the troops leaving, with none there to protect them.  And we no longer have enough equipment to fly out everyone at once, for pity's sake.  Plus we need to remove equipment and munitions as well that could make the situation worse if left to fuel further civil war (not to mention that some of it is not the military's but belongs to the state Guards, and so much already has been left there that some of us are in states that don't have the equipment needed to handle emergencies here).

    Please, let this blog be a rare rational place about this issue as well.  If we really want to bring our troops home, alive, and to protect Iraqis after what we have done to them, we must leave with far more responsibility than we arrived.  


    I have several family members (5.00 / 0) (#214)
    by Kathy on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 07:10:35 PM EST
    in Afghanistan, Iraq and Germany fighting this war.  I want them home safely and sanely.  

    I ams surprised amongst the partisans (1.00 / 1) (#195)
    by bruhrabbit3 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 06:48:31 PM EST
    you haven't been deleted yet. The fact is you re right- debate what exactly? It's a political stunt. Not a substantive attempt at getting beyond the b.s. I support either Obama or Clinton because Mr 100 years war is far worse, but that doesn't mean i need to fool myself into believing these candidates aren't about fluff right now.

    Wow (none / 0) (#221)
    by squeaky on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 07:25:27 PM EST
    TL has gone downhill. Several one ratings for speaking the truth about the Iraq war and voicing a healthy skepticism about Pol's campaign promises. Must be the fever, and perhaps a few stealth wingnuts.



    This feels like a stunt (2.33 / 3) (#84)
    by bruhrabbit3 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 05:09:24 PM EST

    Well... yeah. (5.00 / 5) (#120)
    by eleanora on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 05:45:21 PM EST
    Brilliant one, IMO. She just looked Obama in the eye and said, "Come at me, cause I'm coming for you."

    It's not all that brilliant if the goal is to (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by bruhrabbit3 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 06:43:24 PM EST
    talk to the voters rather than political insiders.

    And I note this site continues to go down hill with the rating of my post as 1 merely because I question the value of the debate. I don't see much difference between that behavior and the Obama supporters doing the same on their various haunts online.

    It's a stunt because it has nothing to with understanding the candidates, the popular vote or delegate count. I note when I bring up the real conversation- its avoided. This is along those line. The only ones 'wowed' by it are the various partisans. This is basically what Harold Ford did in his race. Try to force confrontations by saying "see the other guy isn't as real as me." At this point- the problem is that its too late for all of this. These are tactics had she not listened to folks like Mark Penn that may have mattered toward the early part of the primaries. Now they have less impact.

    However, with any luck, Obama will play it on her terms.


    bruh, hang on a second (5.00 / 1) (#208)
    by lookoverthere on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 06:59:59 PM EST
    This is a good strategy if you want to talk to a lot of voters and prepare for the general election. More TV time, the better. These two should take every last minute they can, as messy as it gets, because Sen. McCain simply cannot keep up.

    Just because it's an advantage to Sen. Clinton doesn't mean it's a bad idea. It could very well be a great advantage to the party as a whole, and we need some good ideas if we're ever going to get that unity engine going. Of course, it could be a disaster, but then, I could walk out my front door and be bit by a rabid wallaby. That doesn't mean I'm not going out my front door ever again.

    More people watch this debate, stay interested in the election, the greater the turnout---How can you not like that?


    To say it has nothing to do with (none / 0) (#196)
    by MarkL on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 06:48:39 PM EST
    understanding the candidates is just ludicrous.

    Well (none / 0) (#205)
    by bruhrabbit3 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 06:56:18 PM EST
    that certainly answered me. Saying my comments are ridicolus. Why? Well because they are. Circular logic is what is left of partisans on both sides. Obama is great because he is great. clinton is great because she is great. And no, it doesn't have anything to do with undersatnd the candidates. if it were, it would have been something she wanted a long time ago unless that wasn't her goal until now. If it were about that, then this wouldn't be true:


    There are other things I can bring up, but what would be the point. You would just down rated, call it stupid, and pretend as if you are right because you are right.


    I gave your comment all the respect it (none / 0) (#210)
    by MarkL on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 07:00:19 PM EST
    deserves. Not all of your comments are bad. That one was silly though.

    You have no substantive (none / 0) (#215)
    by bruhrabbit3 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 07:11:12 PM EST
    arguments for your positions. I've given you several for mine. So you lash out because you feel that you are right but don't know how to explain it other than lashing out. Typical online support- whether Obama or Clinton supporters.  It's fine, but don't make it more than what it is.

    Debating *is* talking to the voters. (none / 0) (#209)
    by eleanora on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 07:00:03 PM EST
    I'm pretty sure there'd be an audience both in the hall and on tv. That's why you have debates, so voters can listen to the candidates and see what answers work best for their own lives, which helps them decide how to vote. How is that not giving them a way to better understand the candidates? And this debate won't have weird moderator questions, just Obama questioning Clinton and vice-versa.

    The popular vote/delegate count is about talking to political insiders, isn't it? I don't get your point there.

    I'm sorry you got downrated-- I'll uprate. But I don't think ratings matter much around TL; BTD always says to ignore them.


    Yes But (none / 0) (#218)
    by squeaky on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 07:21:05 PM EST
    Wouldn't you rather meet a candidate than see him or her on the tee vee? I would. In any case, I think that this was a good answer by Obama, even if it was a partial truth.

    I dont know how they work here (none / 0) (#226)
    by bruhrabbit3 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 07:34:34 PM EST
    I assumd the ratings meant that my comments would be hidden.

    Nope, no hiding comments here (none / 0) (#237)
    by tree on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 07:59:56 PM EST
    The threads can be viewed in such a way that the the higher rated posts go to the top but you can change that in your preferences if you want.  Most people here do what I do and just give high ratings to a post we particularly agree with or commend. It saves on bandwidth that way. One of the ironic things about getting "1" rated is that it will actually move your comment above one that is not rated at all.

    What For? (1.66 / 6) (#62)
    by Spike on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 04:32:45 PM EST
    This is a transparent ploy by Clinton to get free air time. She's deep in debt and can't compete with Obama. Why would he agree to a proposal designed to give her the TV time she can't afford to buy?

    Good Ploy for Her (5.00 / 11) (#63)
    by themomcat on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 04:34:52 PM EST
    if Obama refuses he looks like he can't stand the heat in the kitchen.

    you are right (5.00 / 14) (#70)
    by angie on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 04:47:42 PM EST
    elections should only be won by those who have the most money.

    pssst! Somebody forgot to tell PA ;) (5.00 / 7) (#74)
    by nycstray on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 04:53:42 PM EST
    To show he is viable (5.00 / 6) (#91)
    by Marvin42 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 05:14:59 PM EST
    Honestly if he can take her on in this format (I don't think he will do it) I think it would be a deal closer for a lot of people.

    Why Would He Want To Show Why He Should (5.00 / 2) (#125)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 05:47:53 PM EST
    be president?  Your argument does not hold water...sorry.  Obama still has to show he has any leadership qualifications; we already know he has terrible judgment skills.

    This is an interesting (5.00 / 4) (#142)
    by Iphie on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 06:10:06 PM EST
    argument from a supporter of the man who made a pledge to accept public financing. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the whole point of public financing that it takes the money out of politics and evens the playing field for all candidates regardless of the size of their bank accounts? Or is his support of public financing just more "words?"

    Iphie......DOUBLE SNAP! (none / 0) (#193)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 06:48:07 PM EST
    Makes sense to me... (5.00 / 2) (#166)
    by white n az on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 06:33:50 PM EST
    He should refuse to debate because he has more money in the bank.

    All this time I was hoping that he would grow a pair...you're telling me that he doesn't need to grow them when he can simply buy them.


    From Montana (1.00 / 3) (#165)
    by sirlost1 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 06:33:25 PM EST
     We in Montana just heard Hillary Clinton gave the brother of a superdelegate Brian Schweitzer a position as an advisor on her campaign. We in Montana know walter as a some what of a person who doesn't dabble much in politics. I think if she can't get the superdelegate to come to her way of thinking, she get the relatives to work on the delegate or at least get some dirt she can use to blackmail ol brian. I think the other delegates better keep a close eye on their families. Hillaries tricks are getting pretty desperate.

    dirty politics indeed... (5.00 / 2) (#175)
    by white n az on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 06:38:31 PM EST
    giving people jobs...the nerve.

    Montana or Mars? (5.00 / 3) (#177)
    by cdalygo on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 06:39:49 PM EST
    That leap you made is really pretty "special." She hired a super delegate's brother just so she could "gather blackmail material" on the super delegate.

    Okay. Let's assume you didn't mean to write satire.

    How do you explain the following:

    1. Dean's brother runs a Dean For America (DFA), which campaigns almost non-stop for Obama.

    2. The Obama campaign has been pumping cash over to super delegates' campaigns.

    Oh wait. Let me guess. That's different because people only work with Obama because they ADORE him. But no one feels the same way about Hillary.

    Honestly, grow up.


    Not everyone in Montana agrees with you (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by athyrio on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 06:43:07 PM EST
    latte drinkers in the western part of the state...I am in the eastern part of the state and I adore Hillary, so speak for yourself, buddy....She is one of the bravest women I know...

    Link? (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by eleanora on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 06:50:05 PM EST
    I'm in MT too and haven't heard about that yet. I did hear that Schweitzer and Baucus are both leaning Hillary though. Policy wonks of a feather flock together :)

    Interesting first comment (5.00 / 0) (#200)
    by waldenpond on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 06:51:28 PM EST
    Are you sure you're new or did you just come back in with a new name?

    Well, Walter (none / 0) (#180)
    by pie on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 06:40:22 PM EST
    could have refused to take the job.  

    He didn't.


    Did my radio just say he rejected the challenge? (none / 0) (#143)
    by cymro on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 06:12:02 PM EST
    Or were they talking about some other debate?

    He Ran Away (none / 0) (#170)
    by cdalygo on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 06:35:14 PM EST
    See above.

    Iraq Is Not Comparable To Vietnam (none / 0) (#238)
    by squeaky on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 08:02:26 PM EST
    A better analogy would be Algiers. Response to Creme CIty's comment 236