Well the vapors over Hillary agreeing to debate on Fox should be measured against Obama's appearances on Fox. After all, he's agreed to go on Bill O'Reilly's show.

As for giving the Republicans "time" by appearing on their channel. Frankly how is that really different from appearing on MSNBC or other networks right now. Most of them are bending over backwards to praise McCain at every step.

Obama and his supporters just have not had it directed at them yet. But wait for it.

In any case, if he doesn't want to appear on Fox then fine. But that's no excuse for skipping the other debates.

Let's see, we've had 18 debates. How precisely are these debates supposed to illuminate the choices people have to make between the candidates that people haven't seen already?

What I find interesting, is that by requesting more debates with Obama, Hillary's treating him like the frontrunner. It is usually the underdog that requests debates to take advantage of the free press. That coupled with her financial woes paints a stark picture for Camp Clinton. I think Obama should simply declare himself the front runner and begin a general campaign against McCain. Tactically, that would be the best strategy moving forward.

Sooooo....out of money then, HRC campaign?

Free media attempt?

Heh.

Ms. Doyle is groveling for free TV exposure on Fox! This is not good. Although I am an Obama supporter this is when Senator Clinton's supporters should step up. Where are you folks? I took out my checkbook for Obama this morning. Are you actually going to force her to kiss up to Murdoch. Put your meny where your mouths are.

Agreed. I really....REALLY...don't need to see them debate again. This is just Hillary looking for some free face-time on TV. Major props to Obama if he says, "Thanks, but no thanks!"

Way to go Sen Clinton. Mr Murdoch will get a laugh at the way you have folded. You treat his propaganda machine as a legitimate news outlet. If you win Mr Murdoch's FOX will spend the next four years slandering you and making your life hell and you just legitimized their efforts. You are truely a substandard political strategist.

Up to 7 million a little while before 9:30AM on Thursday.

I agree. Enough debates.

I agree Clinton is the better debater. But really, if she hasn't made it clear to the general population that her better debating skills are important, why does she think we should put up with more of this now? The only reason is to feed the 24 hour cycle news media with crap to talk about besides their coverage of the horse race in February (also crap information, but for her it will be doubly crappy since she will lose the remaining February races).

OTOH, if she wanted a sitdown debate with NPR (like they did last time, 30 minutes per topic) and a sitdown debate with a progessive group (like the DailyKos convention) then America would actually learn something REAL about these candidates. But please, no more nonsense from Wolf, Tweety, and the usual suspect "journalist"

and UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES a debate on Fox. Clinton has already done her campaign harm by agreeing to a debate by Fox. As a staunch Edwards supporter, I am sure she's not winning any votes from other Edwards supporters by playing nice with Fox.

Wait, you mean Patti Solis Doyle can actually communicate, in English, with people who are outside the Hillary bubble?

This is so much the classic Campaigns 101 textbook play for the side running out of money (relatively speaking--any of the Republicans would love to have as much in the bank as Hillary does)that it is almost laughable. Though, of course, her supporters will never admit to seeing it that way.

But, hey, way to fly the bird to all your good friends in the Obama hating wing of the blogosphere with that Fox thing, Patti. Its going to be fun to see all those guys do the full Ingsoc doublethink flip with a twist on this one.

And yes, I know she only put it in as a bargainning chip. But its risky. were I Obama's people, I'd talk about how the Fox suggestion ties directly into the "say anything, do anything" ethic of the Clinton campaign.

I think they could have one or two more debates, after the next two elections. I would kind of prefer no debates since Obama has so much more money and it would be a massive free media thing for Hillary.

They should certainly not debate on FOX news. For one thing it would be rewarding bad behavior, Legitimizing fox, etc.

For another, Rupert Murdoch is a huge contributer to the Clinton global initiative and obviously someone who slants coverage to help his friends. I don't think it would be fair.

Hillary is out of campaign funds, and had to spend five million off her own money. That is why they are seeking so many new debates. They want to get as much free TV coverage as possible. Obama can afford to purchase TV time, so he should not play by the newly revised Clinton debate game tactics.

Obama should propose one or two debates, using only progressive sponsors/venues. All completely separate from what Clinton proposed. She's not the incumbent, she might not even be the frontrunner. No reason to play by her rules, or let her set the agenda.

If she doesn't like it, she gets NOTHING. Which would be fine for the Obama campaign.

Since none of you brains want anymore debates thats means we will have probably at least 3 more debates.
Your batting avg are about 240. As I have said and Chairman Dean is now confirming we are gonna have a ticket of the two. I STILL say Clinton/Obama 08.

You brainiacks make me laugh all day long. Fight to the death and crap like that. You know you need to unite. Kiss and make up. Kiss the queens ring.

Obama should send a PUBLIC note back . . . Hand-written on a napkin:

Hill,

I do not care how much money Murdock has donated to your campaign. Democrats do not debate on Fox until it becomes a News station.

XXX,
O

Debates need to be single topic Lincoln-Douglas style debates. Heck, they could do two on two different prepared topics each night . . . That way both get to present affrimative cases.

It would be shorter than the masterbatory events so far and would cover something other than what right-wing tool should be asking another right-wing tool.

Okay but Obama and Clinton are RWT's BUT they are registered Democratic.

Anyway, right-wing venues help the fear-mongering Clinton so Fox NEEDS to be nixed HARD and PUBLICLY. Obama can not revert to his fall back position of chiming in five days later and following the other guy . . . Sorry . . . Flashing back on Edwards . . . gal. Obama can't let Clinton lead him into surrendering principles. Let Clinton dance for her corporate overlord under the harsh light of day like a trained monkey. Let the American people see HRC for what she is realy is and point out the green stains on the knees of her pants-suit.

Everytime the Hillary and Obama debate she goes up in the polls. That means when America sees the two of them side by side and hears her case verses his they chose her.

It's understandable that Obama doesn't want more debates. He's scared.

Let Hillary buy TV time.

She is trying to change what was agreed to, again. The Clintons never keep their word.

Dear Hillary,

Go FOX yourself.

It's not that she's better at debates, it's that she's better at the digs and the soundbytes than he is.

I fully expect him to agree to another one or two debates, so they can't call him scared, but by god he better turn down Fox.

The Debate Problem in daytime TV format for the large amount of uneducated Hillary supporters.

Hillary: You think your a tough guy Barack? Have showdown Debates with me. I'll show you whose tough.

Barack: Hillary, calm down. We have had enough fighting. Debates showing who can score the most political points is not a good indicator showing the good judgement you need to be POTUS.

Hillary: Bullshit you yellow soft wimp! People want to see whose going to be tough on terror. I voted for the war, I voted not to tie the hands of the president, I voted to stop the cluster bomb ban. See how tough I am?

Barack: Hillary, I am not going to go down the low road with you.

HEADLINE FROM HILLARY CAMP

OBAMA REFUSES TO SHOW AMERICA WHAT HE'S MADE OF!

He's not scared . . . they've debated 18 times. What's one more. But when your opponent is cash strapped, why would you WILLINGLY help that candidate with free publicity? No, he's he not scared, she's DESPERATE (hence the open letter).

Publicus: "while we've already had 18 debates, we've not had any tests of strength and stamnina. How about 1 on 1? Or a foot race? Arm wrestling?"

May I suggest hoops?

Barack Obama would be crazy to accept more debates, especially on Fox News! Clinton's own supporters should be up in arms about that. Why isn't the Democratic base - her stronghold - absolutely furious about this? Won't she lose support from this suggestion? She should!

And as a campaign strategy, this holds no advantage for Obama. Didn't we all say we wanted a candidate who knew how to campaign? After all, we've seen them both in umpteen debates. There's nothing new to learn from the debate format now. This is just a hail-Mary pass from a campaign that's becoming increasingly worried.

And they SHOULD be worried, too. Go, Obama!

I agree. We've had too many debates already. I don't want to see one a week for five weeks. If HRC has something to say let her take it directly to the voters. Debates are theater and as we've seen, not always honest. I don't see how any more debates would help illuminate issues.

If they did have more I would vote to let John Edwards moderate.

THAT may be interesting.

Well, duh, Obama isn't as effective a debater as Senator Clinton (though he's sure improved in that regard) so he would rather play to his strengths, just as Hillary would. How can anyone fault him for that?

What will actually occur is something in the middle. Having 5 debates in less than 4 weeks is absurd. But having no debates is almost as absurd. Expect 1 or 2 debates between now and Super Tuesday, March edition.

Well, bret08, check out a rerun of the last debate. I think you might have missed that one. There have been so many, I know that they all run together. Also, you want detail check out barakobama.com/issues. I think that should cover it. I am really tired of this bs argument about detail. Remember carter was "detail oriented" and a micro-manager. How great was his presidency. Next.

THE GOOD THE BAD AND THE GUTLESS

What hypocrites. What absolute hypocrites. You've been saying how Obama is less well known, and how voters flock to him when they hear his message. One on one debates are an idea way for voters to compare the two candidates platforms and to assess their character side by side.

Now Obama and you who parrot his last talking point, are running away from open disclosure. You're running away from your campaign commitments to open process. You're running away from a 60 year old woman whom you defame in these page daily.

If Obama is so superior and Clinton is a - (you fill in the epithets, you've been at it a long time), why does he not use these platforms to demonstrate his fitness to be chief executive? Why not, because he has no b0lls. If he's afraid of a 60 year old woman, what chance does he have of confronting the bad guys who threaten us?

I don't mind the idea of further debates, though it clearly indicates that Hillary is worried and thinks more side by side with Obama will help her. I do, however, think the very suggestion that a debate be held on Fox or in cooperation with those swine is reprehensible, repugnant and yet another very clear reason why Clinton should not be allowed to become our nominee.

My man was Edwards and he had the balls and insight to take the lead on telling Fox to go fuck themselves. She is now trying to reverse the significant icing out of Fox by the Democrats. What a disgusting move.

So, debate? Sure. On Fox? When hell freezes over!

While their have been many debates, they have been largely on Cable stations. Just because all the political junkies have cable (except for me, aparently) and can access YouTube videos of the debates over their broadband Internet hookups - don't assume every can. So if there are any more debates, I would like to have them on broadcast TV. You'd think with the writer's strike the networks would be falling all over themselves for a show that can pull in 8M viewers on CNN.

I'd suggest having a one hour debate on this Sunday, around noon (or during an extended Inside Washington *, on WJLA and pick it on the other MD and VA ABC affiliates, and anyone else in the country that want to carry it. Alternatively, have both candidates on either THIS WEEK, or MEET THE PRESS this week.

* Though please keep a reign on Charles Krautheimer.

Billy Glad-
Anybody who buys that BS about Rezko hasn't read enough from the site we are on. That was debunked ages ago.

My advice to him? Agree to every debate but FOX. I stand with Barack in not lending the credibility of the Democratic party to the television media arm of the Republican Party.

If they want to be the number-one television outlet for Republican Talking points instead of a real news network, that's their business. We don't have to give them any of ours.

Obama campaign should counter with the suggestion that the debate be a "town hall" style meeting in a university arena setting to be hosted by a student organization.

How about one big debate? But make it big, and not a publicity stunt.

So: no tv, internet only.

Invite all significant liberal voices (Huffington Post, Daily Kos, TPM, Krugman, Rich, etc). Start at 10 AM, go on as long as long as there are questions (with some breaks here and there). Post all the videos on youtube and equivalents.

My question to Mrs Doyle would be this,” How do you believe that debating in a national format with the upcoming primary and caucus states outperforms the need for both of these candidates to campaign directly in the states?" I guess what I mean is that debating takes away face time with the voter's in the upcoming primaries and caucus's. Personally even though I have yet to see any of the candidates in person as my state has not had its primary yet, I would prefer the opportunity to see them in person, taking questions from the voter's (not staged questions but real ones from the communities)! I agree with the other poster's that say that unless their is a debate NPR style or Lincoln-Douglas style then I think it only serves the media's need to create spin and story. I am tired of spin and story, I want real conversations, real rationale, and historical perspective from my candidates not sound-bites. As far as fox news go, they can go to hell with their appeal to the lowest common denominator and pure political punditry in the guise of journalism. Both candidates have appeared on Fox and I feel this is enough as they are a station which appeals to style not substance type of reporting. Obviously this is a comfortable format for many American's but I think it is dangerous in any way to encourage uninformed positions which reek of short-sighted and knee-jerk responses to problems and topics that deserve a better discourse. Fuck Fox and most major media, they keep on trimming their investigative reporting and staff-writer's do not always get full benefits or retirement packages because they are classified as contract employees. This practice gives its audience less substantial journalism at the price of profit and profit in the place of caring about each and every employee.

It seems to me that holding a debate on Fox is a bit like holding a Presidential Debate in Iran.

It's not going to be useful questions, it's not going to be useful analysis.

I could see maybe another sit down type debate, like that last CNN one. Give the candidates to realy talk and show how they think. Maybe on MSNBC instead of CNN.

But Fox News? I don't see the point.

Bret08 wrote at 11:30:

FOX has been the most unbiased during the primaries. . . . . I watched Fox the entire night of Super Tuesday. It wasn't a lot of drama, just the facts and results.

Gee, I'm shocked, shocked I tell you. From reading your posts, I would never have guessed that you're a fox entertainment fan. Who would have thunk it?

Are any of you the same people that heralded a new politics of hope and unity? That said that HRC was too polarizing? Who thought Obama was all that and a bag of chips for agreeing to be interviewed on Fox?

I would like to hear Barack say some more nice things. About hope and stuff.

Brought to you by...the $2300 donated by Rupert Murdoch to Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign...plus whatever else.

I agreee with many of the sentiments here that enough is enough with these major network debates. They are a spectacle with little or no fact-checking from the moderators. In a literal "he said she said" exchange, we cannot a expect a substantitive discourse between the candidates. Although I think that both candidates have had their facts wrong from time to time, it appears to me that Clinton generally has been following a pattern a deliberate misleading. If I were Obama, I would also be hard pressed to agree to another debate in an environment where I'm subject to false assaults that cannot be exposed and fact-checked on the spot.

If we were to be subjected to anymore of these debates, I would at least like to see/hear them in a forum with higher journalistic standards and where 2 minute rhetorical responses are eliminated. For you ESPN fans on here, Stat Boy could stop all the lies and disseminations shot around in the debate instantly with his trusty laptop and we could watch a REAL debate happen!