onegoodmove

challenging Obama to face off with her in a debate without a moderator,

Good idea if Obama is willing to get tough. He's reluctant to attack Hillary re her Bosnia lies, the infidelity of her husband, and all of the other many tough isses that she should have to address. Hillary, on the other hand, is willing to attack Obama on Reverend Wright, what he said in San Francisco, and any other weakness he might have.

Why is it she should have to address the infidelity of her husband? Does having a cheating husband or a wayward wife disqualify one from being president. I would think you would want it issue oriented not focused on lies about Bosnia and flag pins.

Does having a cheating husband or a wayward wife disqualify one from being president. I would think you would want it issue oriented not focused on lies about Bosnia and flag pins.

Yes, I would prefer it to be issue oriented. But Hillary won't allow that. She has attacked Obama over and over again on non issues. And he has to be prepared to hit her right back on similar non issues.

The point is that if you are going to call into question Obama's electability re Reverand Wright and flag pins as you have done, then why not call into question similar issues re Hillary?

What if we found out that Michelle Obama had been messing around? Would that be an issue? You bet it would. Hell, if Obama not wearing a fucking flag pin is an issue that he has to answer to, if the views of his pastor are an issue that he has to answer to, I have no doubt that the infidelity of his wife is something he'd have to answer to.

Why does Obama have to be a perfect messiah to be elected?

Why does Obama have to be a perfect messiah to be elected?

You mean to tell me that there is such a thing as an imperfect messiah? Isn't a messiah by definition perfect?

If they want the debate you describe JoAnn, we could just rerun the ABC debate. I think they'd rise above such lowly expectations. I'd vote against any Messiah on principle.:)

If they want the debate you describe JoAnn, we could just rerun the ABC debate

Nope. On the ABC debate, Obama did not pile on when asked about Hillary's hillarious Bosnia tale. Obama spent the first hour discussing personal issues. Hillary did not. And every stupid issue brought up against Obama, Hillary piled on.

Obama did rise above on the ABC debate. Hillary did not.

You mean to tell me that there is such a thing as an imperfect messiah? Isn't a messiah by definition perfect?

Why don't you ask Hillary Clinton this question. Apparently she has a direct line to the Holy Spirit.

messiah (n) - a leader or savior of a particular group or cause.

Nothing about perfection there, Lemos. Please try again.

@JoAnn -- the infidelity is way out of bounds.

@Norm -- a debate without a moderator would be a total clusterfuck. And "Lincoln-Douglas style" would actually mean hour-long speeches, not candidates asking each other questions. Not that it matters, as this is a transparent political move rather than an actual request...

See also here.

I think this is an excellant idea. Here in Missouri Obama only won by 1% and I know lots of folks want this one on one debate and its good for the Democratic party to be free of press and media hype. What could it hurt and besides his Campaign needs to study the letter this is not a constitutional law class its a debate before the people of Indiana who deserve the best to represent them in the Whitehouse too. I see no reason not to hold such a debate. But then maybe I want more for my VOTE than some settle for and know we really need a truly experienced ready day one President with all the problems we now face due to the Bush Administration.

I think it would be a terrible idea. At this point, it would just be offering up on-going and future fodder for the Republicans. At this point, I want them attacking the damage Bushco has done to this country and I want to hear what the next steps are going to be. I think they should both start running their actual campaigns against McCain at this point.

Recall that it wasn't the better candidate (Lincoln) that won the senatorial race after the debates with Douglas. Don't delude yourself that a Lincoln-Douglas type debate will help us choose the better nominee.

My god - will this wretched woman never get off of Obama's leg?!

"Lincoln-Douglas style" would actually mean hour-long speeches, not candidates asking each other questions.

Bingo. Obama must counter her offer with one of his own. A speech-off!

He should just admit straight up that he knows that Hillary is better at the debating format than he is. And since he's already cheerfully agreed to 20 of them, maybe they should switch it up a bit and make one final sweeping argument to the voters in the final primaries.

Both candidates alternate speaking for one hour and then 1/2 each afterward for rebuttal.

He's said on record several times when asked about future debates that they've debated so often he could do Hillary's lines and she could do his, so it's perfectly within reason for him to request something different.

His campaign declined.

That was a mistake; even I would have watched that one! More "Not Ready for PrimeTime" I guess...

BTW, the best, and most-informative and most issue-based Presidential debate I've ever seen... was French:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_R54Jq3D7Ck

I like the format, I liked the moderators. And watch what their media does after the debate. Would the French please teach us about Democracy (again)?

He should really do this, and they should play the song "just the 2 of us". that would be good. he is too liberal she is too conservative. why can't we all just get along. no really if you are a democrat you should be happy with either. some reason many dislike Hillary when it seems they would dislike Obama more, because of lack of experience, and certain remarks. however he really needs to do this debate, b/c what else does he have to lose. she can take it but he makes it look like he can't. do we need that kind of president that can't handle the heat or pressure?

really how ironic is it that obama's name is so close to osama. and the only difference is the b&s. obama is great, i do like him but i was just typing his name a minute ago and really noticed. we'll get a democrat no matter what and both will fight for us (at least we hope). to me personally i just feel hillary is more of a fighter.

That's hilarious. Clinton is REALLY desperate. Her only hope is that Barack screws up somehow, so she wants a forum where she can try to trick him for 90 minutes into saying something stupid.

He's got the lead- of course he won't take her up on that.

B

No-one can teach the USA about democracy because:

a) They are a Nation under God

b) They work on absolute rules that have been working perfectly for over 200 years

and

c) Teaching the world about democracy is Their Job! Ask any Iraqi.

Whether Clinton is desperate or not is a separate question. Unlike all the political junkies here there are many people in Indiana and other places that haven't availed themselves of the opportunity to hear the candidates debate. It is seldom a bad thing to discuss the issues, Barack is a politician more than the agent for change he claims, he is doing the political thing here. He understands that he has done poorly in recent debates and so avoids them. He is also limiting his contact with the press in general. So much for a new kind of politics. The debate format that Hillary has offered, and Barack has refused is much better than the debates that have gone before. It is a shame that he is unwilling to participate. You want someone for president that can be tricked into saying something stupid. You lack confidence in your candidate, do you B?

Because the most important attribute of a good president is an ability to avoid "gaffes" in response to gotcha questions. Got it.

God it will be great when the primary is over and we can stop debating in bizarro-world.

It wasn't really like a true Lincoln Douglas debate however, those were where a person could speak for an hour uninterrupted before letting the other person respons for 90 minutes and then a rebuttal for 30 minutes

she wanted back and forth for like two minutes each, not really a good debate format, no the first would be acceptable, it would be like long stump speeches, the second not so good

Senator Obama is hiding from any more debates. I can't believe he wouldn't want to debate.

What is he afraid of? Reverend Wright's vicious attacks about our country? William Ayers the terrorist that bombed the pentagon? Louis Farrakhan, the anti- Semitic Nation of Islam Leader questions? Tony Rezko the criminal from Syria? His wife's just realizing that she is proud of our country? Obama's elitist attitude towards middle Americans?

These are all associates of Obama. He should be happy to explain himself. How dare Obama NOT explain himself and expect to be President of the US.

He is scarey.

This debate is the political equivalent of a schoolyard bully pushing his finger into the chest of the smart, dorky kid that makes him feel inadequate.

Obama should either ignore her attempts to bully him or, as I already said, counter her offer with one that favours his oratory strengths.

She's tawdry, he's elegant. She can't compete on his level, so she's gotta drag him down to hers. That's been her sole gameplan since her original plan of easily cruising to victory on Super Tuesday was shot to shit. And when he dances to her tune, it's to his detriment.

The debate format that Hillary has offered, and Barack has refused is much better than the debates that have gone before. It is a shame that he is unwilling to participate. You want someone for president that can be tricked into saying something stupid. You lack confidence in your candidate, do you B?

Worlds better format and it truely is a shame that it will not be done, but I trust in my candidate to have the political smarts to avoid traps.

1. Every human being can be tricked into saying something stupid, because we are all human and the definition of something stupid has become so broad all he would have to do is say "uhh" the ussual number of times.

2. He has already, locked up the lead in pledged delegates. That part of the race is more or less over, why should he acknowledge it as a contest if it isn't one.

It has been said in many previous elections that losers debate, winners address their constituents. there is no reason to engage Clinton once again. We are tired of canned rhetoric anyway. You always know when her answers are rehearsed because when a question comes up she doesn’t anticipate every other word out of her mouth is UUUMMMMMM ! Besides, we are tired of her pretending to be Blue Collar when her tax return says $109,000,000 in earnings. Give me a break.

P.S. Hillary was the one who initally rejected the debate a week earlier...

Mr. Obama showed interest in an April 19 debate in North Carolina, which would have presented viewers with a second debate before the Pennsylvania primary. Mrs. Clinton’s campaign expressed concern that April 19 was the first day of Passover, and the organizers went back to the drawing board to propose alternative dates. Mrs. Clinton’s campaign subsequently agreed to the April 27 date, but Mr. Obama’s did not.

and holy crap, obama knows Economics 101!

"The only way we're going to lower gas prices over the long term is if we start using less oil," Obama said in Anderson."

I didn't know Clinton supported this gas tax garbage... Does she not understand basic supply/demand? I guess her and McCain can battle about who knows less about the economy in the general, right?

Paul Krugman, from march of 2000...

But the gas tax proposal is nonetheless revealing. Mr. Bush numbers some of the world's leading experts on tax incidence among his advisers. I cannot believe that they think cutting gasoline taxes is a good economic policy in the face of an OPEC power play. So this suggests a certain degree of cynical political opportunism. (I'm shocked, shocked!) And it also illustrates the candidate's attachment to a sort of knee-jerk conservatism, according to which tax cuts are the answer to every problem.

P.P.S. Obama did vote to decrease Illinois state gas tax from 6.25% to 1.25% in 2000, which gave us the proof in an MIT study that gas costs only went down 2.5%, instead of the 5% decrease.. Well, at least he doesn't think that will work anymore and can learn from his mistakes.

Hillary was the one who initally rejected the debate a week earlier...

Clinton did not reject the debate. She cited that the original date coincided with the start of Passover and was therefore not acceptable. The date was then moved to April 26th.

Observant Jews are entitled to watch these debates, are they not?

Charles --

Ah, I understand: he's an anti-Semite!

Seriously, I'm sure they are smart enough to find YouTube and read newspapers like the rest of us.

Seriously, I'm sure they are smart enough to find YouTube and read newspapers like the rest of us.

And what about the Amish! they are being discriminated against because of all this televised debating. I think we should have them tour around together and stand on tree stumps at the edge of fields and debate.

Passover huh? Didn't realize hillary was now jewish. Maybe that's why she all the sudden find the need to be Israel's nuclear defender.

On top of the lame excuse for her rejection of the inital date, what do you think the american public would think of two democrats sliming each other face to face while all the republicans get in line for McCain. That can't be a good image. They aren't THAT different on policy (other than nuke iran, gas tax cuts, and health care mandates), so what they'll be left to debate on is electability, and that's an ugly arguement for both candidates (especially with Hillary cheering on controversies such as Wright, Ayers, etc...)

@magnolia: Haven't you heard?