Hillary Challenging Obama To Free-Form Debates
Hillary Clinton is upping the pressure on Barack Obama to hold new debates before the next round of primaries, challenging him to what she referred to as Lincoln-Douglas style debates, sans moderators.
"Just the two of us going for 90 minutes asking and answering questions. We'll set whatever rules seem fair," Clinton said. "I think it would give the people of Indiana -- and I assume a few Americans will tune in because nearly 11 million watched the Philadelphia debate, and I think they would like seeing that discussion. Remember that's what happened during the Lincoln and Douglas debates."
Meanwhile, Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs said the campaign is reluctant hold any more debates before the next primaries: "Over the next 10 days we believe it's important to talk directly to the voters of Indiana and North Carolina."
(Ed. Note: This is not in fact the format used by Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas -- which in turn would be anathema to a modern viewing audience. In those famous debates, one candidate would speak for a solid hour, the opponent would go for an hour and a half, and then the first candidate would make a half-hour rebuttal. In this format, there was simply no active role for a moderator to play.
A better term for Clinton's proposed format might be "Santos-Vinick," after the fictional West Wing debate acted out by Jimmy Smits and Alan Alda.)















We've see 21 Debates so far. In most primaries we're lucky to see half that many.
Hillary is desperate to make more attackes on Obama's personal life. He would be a FOOL to take her up on any more Debates this close to the final two BIG States that will most likely END this thing FINALLY.
April 26, 2008 11:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
AMEN! How many more debates do we really need?
Hillary is just looking for a venue to throw Farrakhan and "bitter" issues into the mix.
April 27, 2008 1:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
"NO DEBATE, NOW OR EVER" B. Obama
After an exhausting head to head debate against a "formidable" potted plant on Fox News (moderated by Chris Wallace) Barry Obama declared that his decisive victory in Colorado combined with the trouncing of "this here potted plant is all the information Hilary needs to endorse me".
Obama did not rule out debating Keith Olberman or perhaps Madame Trousseau's Wax Museum.
April 27, 2008 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clip already released of Obama categorically refusing any debate before IN or NC because he wants to spend his time with the people.
Hillary wants debates because she needs the free air time as she hasn't been able to raise enough money to campaign against Obama on her own dime. Too bad. Enough is enough.
April 27, 2008 3:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Let's be honest here, half of those 21 debates had far too many people to be interesting.
Furthermore, even if you're a huge Obama supporter, you've got to think that he could do with more practise before going up against McCain; his performance in Philadelphia was a trainwreck! I think he's had maybe 2 strong debates, hardly a good ratio.
And let's not forget, before Philadelphia the *Obama campaign* was pushing for more debates, hardly a consistent platform.
April 27, 2008 9:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
McCain is one of the worst debaters I have ever seen. Obama may not be a brilliant debater, but he is at no disadvantage against McCain.
April 27, 2008 9:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
O I think a better term for Clinton's proposal is:
Another Futile Attempt to Make the Nominee Look Bad So I Can Convince The SDs to Hand Me the Nomination That I've Already Lost.
April 26, 2008 11:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
CAN I JUST FINISH MY WAFFLE? GEEZ!
How annonying is this? If people want to know what I have to say they should try to get past our security at our Nuremberg-sih rallies and I'll babble platitudes until they faint.
Besides Lincoln was a Republican. Who wants to copy that?
Ciao
B. Hussein Obama
VOTE YOUR CONSCIENCE
NOT YOUR GUILTY CONSCIENCE
April 27, 2008 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
She's desperately trying to remain relevant. It's probably killing her that McCain and the Republicans haven't attacked her at all lately. I think she'd challenge Obama to a nude cage match if she though it would help revive her flagging campaign. She's toast. Obama's buttah. No buttah for you, baby.
April 27, 2008 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
He should simply ignore her spoiled brat immature bullying tactics. She's trying to set the agenda by advancing her talking points to the media and challenging him on her terms.
Of course, the media is always happy to be her megaphone and stenographer.
He needs to NOT take the bait by simply not responding.
April 26, 2008 11:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton bitching about debates didn't work for her before Wisconsin and it's not going to work now. There is nothing new to "debate."
April 26, 2008 11:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
He should accept.
Things change like gas prices, food shortages, Iran election and Iamanutjob wants to talk about nukes, Syria bombing, w's meeting on the North American Union, etc...
April 26, 2008 11:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yawn. So predictable. That's why I love you.
June 3rd. And if I'm lucky, May 7th.
See you then.
April 27, 2008 12:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why should he give her any free publicity? She's got nothing to bring to the game. Why should he pay her a moment's notice?
If she wants another debate, she should ask nicely. In fact, I think a little groveling might be in order. He should make her say, "Pretty please, President Obama." Yeah, that's the ticket.
April 27, 2008 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is it me or has Hillary now completely morphed into the the Black Knight
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eMkth8FWno
"All right then, we'll call it a draw."
April 26, 2008 11:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes!
April 27, 2008 1:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Alright, I'll do you for that. I'm INVINCIBLE!!!"
April 27, 2008 8:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary IS the Black Knight!! - What a GREAT comparison - I haven't watched that movie in decades and after I watched the clip...I was laughing my ass off...thank you soooo much!
April 27, 2008 9:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Awesome. Thanks for the link. Hillary IS the Black Knight.
April 27, 2008 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary who?
Obama's only real opponent now is John McCain. Hillary can go pound sand.
(Though it would be fun to see his campaign counterpropose a REAL Lincoln-Douglas debate with each candidate speaking for an hour.)
April 26, 2008 11:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep. The next person Barack Obama debates is John McCain.
Hillary is totally irrelevant.
April 27, 2008 12:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama repeatedly whines about the media playing gotcha with trivial issues at the debates.
This is his chance to show his stuff, go toe to toe, throw a few elbows, show that he's the eloquent man of substance.
Instead he hides.
He has no choice, look weak or debate. Put up or shut up.
April 26, 2008 11:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll say it again: Hillary tried this same stunt before Wisconsin. She was all over the airwaves hammering Obama and refusing to accept any more debates. And we all know how well that worked out.
It's a non-issue for the average voter. And for the highly-informed voter, like us, we see it for what it is: a ploy for a floundering, cash-poor campaign to get more free air-time.
April 27, 2008 12:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
"hammering Obama about..."
April 27, 2008 12:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
If there's anything I'm sick of in this campaign it's the blinder Hillary worshippers who persistently speak of Obama's "whining."
I challenge you to refer us to a single occasion or, preferable, video where Obama does any such thing.
He is one of the least likely to "whine" of all our public figures.
April 27, 2008 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Amen, Hillary who?
Let's get this clear for those of thickened skulls
She Lost. It's over.
Run the old Lawrence Welk tape
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1aHJTvD2WgA
"Adios, au revoir, auf Wiedersehen...."
April 27, 2008 12:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Was that a Cheap Trick reference?
April 27, 2008 12:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good tune. Nirvana's entire career was based on it.
April 27, 2008 8:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just me or are these the words of someone who already has a really, really clear idea of what rules seem fair?
April 27, 2008 12:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
He can do that when he debates John McCain.
Hillary doesn't matter - she's irrelevant.
April 27, 2008 12:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. She matters not one iota. He's onto the GE now. 50 State get out the vote, working on behalf of the DNC and all the down state reps/senators.
Clinton can go fuck herself as far as he's concerned.
April 27, 2008 12:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Now that is funny!
April 27, 2008 1:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. Obama does not need to prove himself against Hillary. He does not need to be legitimizing this race anymore. It's over. Everyone's just playing this out because Hillary is making them, come hell or high water or John McCain, so lets just get it all over with so we can start the general.
April 27, 2008 12:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
This would've been a good idea like 20 debates ago. Or maybe as soon as the field had been reduced to just Obama and Clinton. People are just too sick of debates at this point.
April 27, 2008 12:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Its pretty clear that there have been more then enough debates. The Obama supporters have been telling us this for the last few debates. I remember all the posts telling us that there were 18 debates, no one wants any more. Now there have been 21 and its the same convincing argument, no one wants any more. The evidence is clear. Nobody wants these debates. Just take a look at the number of viewers.
California 4.9 million
Texas 7.6 million
Ohio 7.8 million
PA 10.7 million
You can see how the American public watched each debate in greater and greater numbers to express their desire that there be no more debates. Not only that, the public's desire for an end to the debates was sustained throughout the whole 90 minutes of the debate. Even against American Idol 96% of the viewers decided to stick with the debate to make it clear to the networks that they didn't want the debate to occur.
"The first hour of Wednesday's debate ranked first in its time period among Total Viewers, Adults 18-49 and Adults 25-54. Up against Fox's "American Idol" and an original episode of CBS' "Criminal Minds" at 9 p.m., the debate retained 96% of it Total Viewing audience, retained 100% of its Adults 25-54 audience, and grew 4% among Adults 18-49 from the first hour to the second hour."
Given this trend it appears that if there is another debate even more people will tune in and watch the whole debate to show the networks that the American people don't want debates. Enough already. No one wants debates.
April 27, 2008 12:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, a 25% increase in viewership with a switch from a cable broadcast to a network broadcast is about as small as one could conceive of.
April 27, 2008 8:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
No one's saying she can't run all the ads she wants...what's the problem with doing that. Hehe.
No soup for you, Clinton.
April 27, 2008 8:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
The debate was on free tv. More people watch free tv shows than cable tv shows, even though they all seem to have cable tv. Just one of those quirks.
That is why the ratings were highest. If you put American Idol on A&E, no one would be talking about it.
April 27, 2008 8:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
re: ocean
People have been looking for a debate that actually deal with the issues that they are concerned about, not the soap opera details that MSM highly relishes. However, the American people have been sorely disappointed.
Forty-one states have already expressed their opinion for their candidate. Anyone else who hasn't made up their mind now between Senator Obama and Senator Clinton, they will have to make their best guess. They will have to wait until the general to choose between Senator Barack Obama and Senator McCain.
This would be different if there was a SNOWBALL chance for Hillary. I know that you are smart enough to understand the "fuzzy" math!
More 55-45 victories for Hillary won't prove anything. However, I'll consider 80-20 victories at this point!
Bill4Obama '08
April 27, 2008 9:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
We've had more than enough debates, and they are obviously bad enough even with moderation. Having no one around to shut her up when she wants to go off on something does not seem like a good idea.
She needs to cut the desperate tricks to try to get a leg up. Besides, I don't even think she can perform in debates effectively anymore, with getting used to having the moderators attack Obama for her and all.
If she wants to keep escalating she should just challenge Obama to a fight to the death.
Watch her try that if she loses Indiana.
April 27, 2008 12:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm waiting for her to pull a "Zell Miller" on Obama and just challenge him to a duel.
April 27, 2008 9:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is just part of the Hillary campaign to put forth the talking point that he's "afraid". She knows that no more debates will take place after the NC state party said no and the Obama campaign releasing a statement of no debates before May 6th.
I've come across the code words that he's "afraid", "running scared" and hiding behind a skirt (James Carville). Multi-various dog whistles.
Plus it plays into her "tough" and "fighter" and "doesn't quit" persona.
April 27, 2008 12:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
She's broke. in debt and didn't raise the $10 mil she claims to have - it was all a shell game, like her 10, no $!5 mil debt. Even if she did rasie close to her stated amount, most is probably for the GE,, just like last month when she said that "almost all" of the $20 milion she raised was for the primary, but according to the FEC filing last week, only 12 was.
She's a patholigical liar.
Of course she want 90 minutes of free ad time.
Obama didn't bite. He emphatically said, NO.
April 27, 2008 12:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
One of the things I don't think the media folks have articulated properly is the ramifications of Hillary wrestling the nomination away from Obama.
From my vantage point, Obama has the "cleanest" path to the nomination. He is leading in the most important yardstick for voters to understand, the pledged delegate count. This is how the system is set up. His argument for the nomination is easy to understand and extremely logical for the regular voter to figure out. Hillary is attempting to cloud the picture with her talk of the "popular vote". For her it brings back memories of 2000, which still makes dems like me wince. I totally understand why she is trying to make this new argument on a theoretical level, but it is clear that the pledged delegate lead is the cleanest argument by far. That is why his argument never changes, and hers does with each primary vote.
So, by this measure, the nomination clearly is Obama's to lose. He will absolutely end the primary season with the most pledged delegates and therefore, his claim to the nomination will make sense to voters sense of fair play. He won by the yardstick that was in place at he beginning of the process. It will make sense to the average voter.
So when I see Hillary trotting out polls showing that she does better in certain states (Ohio, PA) than Obama, what the press never seems to mention is that her path to the nomination is much more difficult and fraught with peril for the Democratic Party. Any scenario that gives her the nomination (other than discovering photos of Obama with a naked teenage boy) will without question involve undermining the expressed will of the voters of the primary season. Her path is the one that will create the riots on the streets of Denver. His path does not.
So assume for a moment that she manages to snatch the nomination from Obama under these circumstances. It will essentially destroy the Democratic Party. Black voters (one of the bases of the party), young voters (also known as the future of the party), and very possibly the "upscale educated" voters (that would be us, minus Matthew, gotalife and Otto) will leave the party in droves. No Democrat can get elected without these groups.
No polling with her numbers in a general takes into account her destructive path to the nomination. That is one of the huge flaws of her campaign right now. She trots out her arguments of "electability" but the linchpin of her path involves undermining the expressed will of voters. No polling asks these questions. And therefore these polls mean less than nothing until they factor in her only path to become the nominee.
April 27, 2008 12:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
I wouldn't leave the party, but I'd probably randomly punch a few people who would've otherwise not deserved it!
April 27, 2008 8:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Free-form debates? Are they going to wear tutus and jump about randomly on stage?
There has not yet been one debate this season. There have been a crap-load of piss-poor dog and pony shows . . . But no debates.
Lincoln-Douglas style debates are highly structured debates with a clearly defined set of rules. The affirmative is given 7 minutes to present a prime facia case for change and the respondant is given about 11 minutes to teardown the affirmative case. The affirmative then has several minutes to rebut and rebuild. The opposing side is given time to disassemble then the debate is closed by the affirmative who summerizes and asserts the plan again. There are two periods of cross examination (questioning) - one after each each sides initial presentation.
Dear G-d declare Obama the winner and release Clinton so she can take her rightful place at the right-hand side of McCain. I am so done with all three of these pukes.
Hillary has to even make up this shit to gain air time. I vo
April 27, 2008 12:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
I picture a jazz odyssey, perhaps Obama on tenor sax with Hillary flailing on drums.
April 27, 2008 8:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Jazz Odyssey"
Derek Smalls on bass, he wrote this.
April 27, 2008 8:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Can't wait for the ad...
audio: the sound of a clucking chicken
voiceover: "Clinton wants you to decide. Instead Obama hides. What's he so afraid of? "
visual and audio: Hillary Clinton talking to the public.
voiceover:" Hillary Clinton believes you deserve to know where she stands."
April 27, 2008 12:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Too bad she can't pay for the ad.
April 27, 2008 12:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Now that is funny!
April 27, 2008 12:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Another $50 to Hillary.
BOOM!
April 27, 2008 12:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Another $50 to Mark Penn!
BOOM!
April 27, 2008 1:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Now that is funny!
April 27, 2008 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
All she needs is $45 million more...keep giving bro! And always give double what you first think of, because it seems her campaign isn't run very well and that breeds inefficiency.
April 27, 2008 8:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
BEST AVATAR EVER LOL :)
April 27, 2008 9:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton has lost--why would Obama debate her? She just wants free air time and to look like she's still viable. The thought of Hillary having an endless amount of time to go on and on and on in her annoying grating voice--you couldn't pay me to watch it. She loves listening to herself talk.
April 27, 2008 12:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Look, I'm not crazy about listening to a preachy, finger-wagging, arrogant, smoking thespian.
Hillary's bottle blond hair is more authentic than Obama.
Bring it!
April 27, 2008 12:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Because Clinton has not lost. If Obama wants to win this thing, he needs to put her away. If he runs from her now, it makes him look weak.
April 27, 2008 2:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Doss, that is where you are wrong.
This race is over. She will be unable to catch him in delegates, which is the way we choose our nominee in this party. There is no scenario whatsoever on this planet where Obama will be seen as "stealing" the nomination from Hillary. Conversely, there are a bunch of scenarios where she can be seen as "stealing" the nomination.
Yes, I understand that the supers will decide it, but her arguments all involve conjecture and polling that do not take into account her path to the nomination. His path does not create chaos in the party, hers does.
What is she supposed to do when she gets the nomination? Should she spend all her time attacking McCain, or should she be attempting to repair the damage with activist voters, black voters & young voters? She will need to do both things to have any chance to get elected, and only about 7 weeks to do so.
The race is over.
April 27, 2008 9:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
By all metrics she has, except for perspective. He wins in Indiana and the perspective changes and the final nail in her campaign will be hammered in. While she's begging for free air time, he's airing ads in every primary state left, putting boots on the ground, and preparing a general election campaign. She has amazing name recognition and a very strong and solid base of support, if she couldn't beat him with that is basically her fault. Why should he throw her a lifeline.
April 27, 2008 9:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
She has already lost. I see you have trouble with the fuzzy math. She need 9 more 55-45 victories to stay in the race an by that time it will be ALL ovah!
April 27, 2008 9:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Gang, I hope Obamba changes his mind about the debates. I'm from Oregon and I am very hopeful that we will get to see a live debate. Oregonians rarely get the privilge to see the candidates, let alonge witness a live debate. What a wonderful thing for a new president to say, that they really did stand for change and let every persons vote count. I want a Pres that will go the extra mile. Don't wimp out on what you are afraid might happen or McCain will win.
America can't be asked to continue the burden of a broken county. Debate and show your STUFF!
April 27, 2008 12:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well according to Halperin, Clinton is wanting not one but two debates in Oregon, "one on the issues generally and one on fixing rural America."
http://thepage.time.com/2008/04/26/b-clinton-asks-voters-to-push-for-oregon-debates/
As someone registered to vote in Oregon (I voted in the Dems Abroad primary, however), I appreciate the extra attention the state is getting, but two debates? At some point enough really is enough!
April 27, 2008 3:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
If I see a mosquito on my arm trying to suck my blood, I don't attempt to save it and place it in a jar to live another day.
April 27, 2008 12:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, but if you don't smack it, it will not only suck your blood but bring it's friends.
Obamas afraid to engage in a real debate. When he's off script he's toast and he knows it.
Clinton's gonna make hay out of his for the rest of the campaign.
Can't wait until the people in chicken suits start showing up at Obama rallys.
April 27, 2008 12:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Pokette - We had a debate here in Texas but nobody could get tickets to it. It was all party officials etc. So you'd still be watching it on TV like the 21 debates before. And if Obama debates her that would be the same as saying Hillary has a legitimate path to win. Did McCain debate Huckabee after he was the presumed nominee?If she wants air time, let her pay for it.
April 27, 2008 12:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's not how the Lincoln Douglass debates actually worked. Rather then two people talking, each candidate talked for a long time (like 90 minutes) and then the other candidate talked for the same amount of time, then they each got a half-hour follow up.
April 27, 2008 1:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Believe it or not, there are actual people in these states who have not decided who they're going to vote for and do not know much substantively about the candidates. Debates are not always the best form of communicating policies or politics but they're a hell of a lot more informative than mudslinging ads or canned stump speeches or partisan hit pieces online or slobbering local newscasters excited just to talk to a real candidate. Obama will take a slight hit for running from debates but that's a political calculation they've made.
April 27, 2008 1:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is there some reason people in Indiana couldn't watch the Texas or Pennsylvania debates?
One of the reasons Lincoln and Douglas had so many debates in such a short amount of time was because there was no national television broadcast.
There have been plenty opportunities for voters in all states to see these two debate.
April 27, 2008 1:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Debra, I think I would have a pretty good chance to witness a debate. I did get to see Hillary, Obama and former President Clinton. You just have to be willing to stand in rain four hours. It was worth it. Of the 21 debates, only 4 were between the two candidates, and alot has happened since then. I have read the Oregon Hillary.com website regarding the solutions for the problems we are having in Oregon. They are sound ideas. I want to hear what Obama's plan/ideas for our state are. The last time he was down it was a wonderful pep rally, but no substance. Our state is in peril and we need a quick acting plan. You may be blessed to live in a well to do state. Most of our good jobs are over seas now. We pay the second highest gas prices and on and on.
April 27, 2008 1:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Debra- Obama is not the persumed nominee. Yes, you would ike to believe that but the race is not over. Your comparison of McCain/Huckabee is outrageous. The delegate count wasn't even as close as it is between Barack and Hillary.
I can totally understand why he's scared after the last debate he looked less than HOPEFUL. In fact there were certain topics discussed that he wished he could CHANGE. There were also a couple of questions that made him look a little BITTER.
April 27, 2008 1:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Debra- Obama is not the persumed nominee. Yes, you would ike to believe that but the race is not over. Your comparison of McCain/Huckabee is outrageous."
Er, yes he is, yes it is, and no it isn't.
The delegate difference is more than large enough that it's over. She can't catch up on elected delegates, and the superdelegates won't overturn the election results. All that Hillary is doing is drawing out this rather painful process. He doesn't need to play along.
April 27, 2008 3:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
First, your whiny line above reads like a third grader a recess. Compare the numbers for McCain/Huckabee and Obaama/Clinton...it is nowhere close. It's not nice to lie when you are being schooled...So, no recess for you and to the time-out corner you go.
As an Obama supporter you continue to address only the issue about Hillary rather than that of your own candidate being weak in many of the debates. He says nothing of substance and when he does it's a carbon copy of what hillary already said.
Second, your assumption is incorrect. No one knows what the superdelegates are going to do at this point so persuming anything on either side of the campaign would not be a smart thing for anyone to do. Let's be real if Obama was really who everyone wanted he would have locked this up long ago. He could have done it in Ohio, Texas and maybe just maybe Pennsylvania. If he had kept his hopeful, bitter words to himself. But, he didn't and now the race must go on.
In my opinion Obama's choice not to debate does two things.
One it shows he is a ittle scared of going head to head without the support of his media cronies to feed him questions and thus makes him look a little sheepish and very weak. Not the qualities I want in a president in 08.
Second, it also shows the non-importance of the voters in these upcoming states. If you want to get out there and talk to the people then the best way to do that is in a debate format. The OBAAAMA campaign excuse that they want to talk directly to the people is asinine at best. How many people will you really be able to reach? If Obama really wants to cut into Hillary's base then perhaps he's not pulling in the right people at his rallies. When candidates have events the people that usually go are supporters and even then many of them can't get in. Believe me I have seen it happen. At this point you want to reach the many, many voters who are still undecided...those people will not be attending Obama events.
April 27, 2008 10:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
minamo,
Every debate he has with Hillary legitimatizes her fallacious claim for a road to victory and gives her free media attention that she otherwise cannot afford. Being "scared" doesn't even enter into it.
Obama has more than held his own in the debates. Hillary does excel in the debate format, I will cede that point, but Obama's performance hasn't been too far off (with the exception of the ABC debate in which he was having to debate not only Hillary, but the two "moderators"). To suggest that he is scared is simply what Hillary's shills would have you think. You should be able to come to your own, more moderate, conclusions.
Finally, Obama has not marginalized any states. He is the candidate with the true 50-state strategy. It is Hillary who was using the old 12-state strategy (which is one reason she is focusing on FL). So, suggesting that Obama doesn't care about the voters in any particular state is incredibly intellectually dishonest.
April 27, 2008 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
StYMied:
Intellectualy dishonest...where have I seen this phrase OH EVERYWHERE ON TPM. It is so tired and so overused please try and be orignal next posting ok.
I am just stating the truth about these events and rallies that are hosted not only by Obama but all candidates. When he goes to these events the people attending are already Obaama talking heads. You don;t reach any new voters in that way. If you don;t want to debate fine, but don;t use the sorry excuse of talking directly to the people. It doesn't hold water. Now go back to your table put your head down for nap time and wake up with a better dig than "intellectually dishonest" YAWN!!!
April 28, 2008 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama's refusal to debate Hillary is a compassionate move on his part. It's like refusing to resuscitate a terminal patient. It may appear cruel, but he's actually doing her a favor.
April 27, 2008 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reality check - Huckabee did not drop out until McCain reached the magic number required for the nomination. There is no way Obama can do that without super delegates. Therefore the situations are nowhere near analagous.
Hillary has every right to fight for the nomination. And all the Obama whiners trying to count down the clock should take a lesson from John Madden. The prevent defense only prevents you from winning. There is something just pathetic about a campaign that began based on hope and new politics being reduced to counting votes and praying Hillary doesn't overtake you. Obama's campaign has reason to be scared and they are. The voters in primary tend to want to sew up the nomination for the presumed winner particularly when the media has been running the Obama story from almost 6 weekd that the campaign is over, yet the voters disagree and keep the race going.
If I was Obama I'd take the chance to get assertive and take the debate challenge. That would actively give Hillary supporters or other voters reason to compare the two on the issues. But no he's trying to run out the clock and prevent a gaffe or an even comparison of him and hillary on the issues. Becuase he and his campaign are scared and rightfully so. The politics of hope beats the politics of fear. Hillary and her supporters want to debate because we hope she can win. Obama and his campaign are driven by fear to duck the debates at any cost. Who wants a president like that?
April 27, 2008 9:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Math is simple: 2+2 DOES NOT EQUAL 5!!!
April 27, 2008 9:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
"I have read the Oregon Hillary.com website regarding the solutions for the problems we are having in Oregon. They are sound ideas. I want to hear what Obama's plan/ideas for our state are. The last time he was down it was a wonderful pep rally, but no substance."
Let's see. You went to Hillary's website to learn about her policies, yet either attended an Obama rally or saw the coverage on TV. From this, you conveniently agree with the Clinton talking point that Obama is no substance. You are aware most of Obama's policies are laid out in detail on a website, correct?
You may be too stupid to search "Barack Obama" on the internet, but I don't think so. I'm calling troll.
April 27, 2008 1:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary is like a terrior that wont let go of the bottom of Obama's pant leg. He has to drag her around until she falls off, and keep focused on his real opponent: McCain. In other words, she is just an annoyance at this point; Hillary might still win some battles but she already lost the war, because she didn't win the delegates she needed in March and April to catch up.
April 27, 2008 1:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yadda Yadda. When is the first Obama vs McCain debate scheduled for?
April 27, 2008 2:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Her campaign is broke. Period. Just trying to get free air time. Desperate is the word. She knows he (Obama) is the presumed presumptive (for those who do not want to just say presumptive). She can still save face by telling Bill that the strategy now is to save face, support the candidate who is winning by the rules we (her and Bill) agreed to (in our favor at the time) and regain the respect of millions. Senate majority leader HRC is a lot better than scourge.
April 27, 2008 2:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
No! People need to know the issues for 22 times or they don't undestand!
April 27, 2008 2:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
hi brewmn61, Actually I am very good friends with several of the Obama volunteers. You might find it interestihg that the man who translates in spanish is not a US citizen, can't vote and does not want vote, but he gets paid very well. It is interesting what money buys. Hopfully not too many Super D's.
It's been fun. My first night with you all. Goodnight.
April 27, 2008 2:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
pokette, what are you suggesting with your empty, asinine accusation?
- That only US citizens should be paid for their work?
- That non-US citizens should be treated as slaves?
- Than non-US citizens should have a right to vote in American elections?
- That non-US citizens have to give up their nationality and right to vote in their own country so they can vote here?
April 27, 2008 9:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Too bad Obama turned it down. Had he done well he could have erased the image of his last debate.
April 27, 2008 2:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
the image of his last debate? Oh! you mean the one that was crafted by the ABC moderators to ratchet up fear that he's a terrorist sympathizer?
Yeah, I'm sure the next debate would help him, especially if the moderators asked "Which scary black man do you love more: Malcom X or Suge Knight?"
Obama's not the problem. It's the racism embedded in the corporate media that's the problem. No debate between now and May 6th is going to fix that.
April 27, 2008 2:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Stop pretending that there's anything Obama could do to sway your opinion. You just don't want to deal with the numbers.
April 27, 2008 9:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Minamo - count how many delegates Hillay picked up in March and April, and ask yourself how she is going to pick up enough delegates in May. She had the opportunity to close the gap in those two months in states that Obama was way behind, favored her demographics, strong establishment support behind her, and even with Rush Republicans voting for her, not to mention an ex-president stumping for her giving six speeches a day. She's had so many advantages it would be like playing poker with someone and letting them have duces, 10s, jacks, kings and aces wild, and still be holding the most money at the end. Maybe she'd like Obama to take his name off the ballot?
April 27, 2008 2:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
I second that!
April 27, 2008 2:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Debra- Seriously? She has had so many advantages...Seriously? I "persume" you don't have a tv right? The media is an advantage for Obama and has been for most of this campaign. Until recently when they had to acknowledge a few screw-ups on Obama's part.
The truth is like you said she can't pick up enough NEITHER can he. He has had more than enough opportunities to take it all, but he can't. Ask yourself why? Why are people still divided? Obama does not speak for me and he is not the chosen candidate for everyone. She doesn't want to thrown in the towel and neither do her supporters because our votes mean something and are no less than your own votes. Why should she just hand him the nomination he should work for it and work hard. Because believe me McCain is coming and you have no clue how bitter he is!!!
Let's also remember that if he is the "persumed" nominee he will need to win over Hillary supporters if he even wants a slight chance of winning.
April 27, 2008 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
You seriously don't believe a political machine built up over two decades, a President (a popular one to begin with) stumping everyday on your behalf, $100 million raised, and a couple hundred SDs in tha bank before the primaries even began is not an advantage? You don't think the media is kissing her ass?
She's has had every chance in the world to prove to people she's the better candidate and get their votes. She has failed to do that. If she pulls it out with the remaining primaries, so be it. But it ain't gonna happen. There's no problem in letting her continue, but it looks to me that she's trying to delegitimize any Obama nomination. Now, if she's willing to spend the time mending the fences and convincing y'all to support the Party's nominee, fine. I'm not certian she'll do that.
April 27, 2008 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
I find Hillary's ongoing attempts at campaigning pretty cringe-worthy, and I think they're putting undue strain on the Democratic Party, but I think that people are being pretty silly when they conclude that she won't step up for Obama when she finally decides that he's the inevitable nominee.
People usually base this conclusion on the idea that she can't possibly win in November if she gets the nomination after a floor fight that leaves then Democratic Party a wreck. They either think she's in denial about the damage it'll do to the Party if the supers give her the nomination, or she just wants to see Obama lose and doesn't care if she loses too.
The first would be really stupid. I can think of a lot of unflattering adjectives that can be fairly applied to Senator Clinton, but "dumb" is absolutely not one of them. There's no question she's aware of the strain this would put on the Party.
The second would be extremely petty. Now, I know the Clintons have a reputation for being vindictive, but it sure didn't stop her from going and asking Richard Mellon Scaife for an endorsement, or running ads on Rush Limbaugh's show. Clearly holding a grudge isn't more important to her than winning.
So what's left? I think Clinton and her campaign must think that McCain is a laughably weak candidate. She thinks she can beat him even if the Democratic Party is a smoking ruin in the aftermath of Denver. This might mean she's preposterously overconfident, but after the sort of campaign she's run against Obama, I think "overconfident" is one of those unflattering adjectives we can apply fairly to Senator Clinton.
This also means that the attacks on Obama's electability are part of a huge scam, but we knew that already. It means that she probably thinks there's no way her attacks could actually make it so that Obama will lose to McCain, so there's really no downside to her continuing as long as she's got even a slim chance of being the nominee (and thus, in her mind, being a shoo-in for the Presidency).
April 27, 2008 7:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
For the life of me, I don't understand why the Obama supporters complain that Clinton is trying to "wrest the nomination" from him.
Isn't he also trying to wrest it from her? Why is it okay for him to try to get himself nominated, but not okay for her to try to get herself nominated?
Why the double standard?
April 27, 2008 2:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Because Obama is ahead in delegates, popular vote, and states won, and barring events of a miraculous nature, Hillary cannot overtake him. It would have been decent of her to concede when this state of affairs first became clear, say, after Wisconsin.
April 27, 2008 8:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
doss,
The reason many of us feel this is a silly exercise now is because she can't overtake him in delegates. Yes, he probably won't reach 2025 by the end of the primaries, but for the life of me, I can't see why SDs should ignore that lead and hand the nomination to Clinton. She herself said he could be elected, but she thinks she's better. Fair enough, but she had her chance to convince more primary voters that she is, in fact, better. She failed to do so.
April 27, 2008 9:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Because it's a delegate race, and Obama won it. If the superdelegates overturn the clear leader in delegate count than the voters might as well had stayed home and let the superdelegates pick the nominee in the first place. Why have an election? The rules were set up for who won the most delegates. Clinton wants to change the rules because she lost the delegate race, but I seriously doubt the superdelegates will destroy the party for the Clintons.
April 27, 2008 2:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wait... is this the same Hillary Clinton who, at the NAACP debate, had a private tete-a-tete with John Edwards about having candidates without a credible chance of winning excluded from future debates?!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-WsvQhVmhc
Serves ya right, honey.
Really, how many times is she going to keep whineing for more free air time?! She had a $100 million lead on all the other candidates, largely made up of lobbyist money and corporate bundlers. Isn't that enough of an edge?!
Perhaps she believes she's a disadvantaged minority of one, entitled to special treatment... or that we somehow *stole* America from her, and that she deserves a chance to steal it back?
The only people she's convincing here are a small fraction of her own supporters... most of her supporters simply don't really believe that there's any kind of obligation that says that the two candidates *MUST* debate in the next ten days.
April 27, 2008 2:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
No! Go with it! Let's see how far can this stupid anachronistic debate metaphor can go - costumes, 19th-century verbage, and real soapboxes.
The true test of the presidency should be whether someone can wear a pince-nez and a bodice while answering questions like "Kansas: should it come into the Union slave or free?" and "How do you think Buchanan handled the Panic of 1857?"
For some reason I don't think Hillary would have an advantage under this scenario. There's no way she's going to play a believable Lincoln when there's this picture floating around. Tall skinny guy from Illinois with little experience, but poised to throw out a corrupt party and a reckless president? Wherever would we find a convincing candidate for this pre-Civil War reenactment?
April 27, 2008 3:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
I was thinking the same thing myself.
April 27, 2008 4:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Doss, getalife and the rest:
Once Hillary pays her bills, and starts speaking the truth...Then Obama should be willing to Debate.
A truthful exchange would be refreshing.
We have yet to have one.
April 27, 2008 5:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
An exchange of words is called intercourse...You do know what the is don't you Hill?
April 27, 2008 5:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
meant to say that not the..sorry cant edit post
April 27, 2008 5:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
As they say on the South Side of Chicago. Never give a sucker an even break. We've moved past you Hillary and we're not coming back.
April 27, 2008 6:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here's what bothers me...after the debate (if there is one) and she throws out all her lies...then loses. How can she go out and swallow what she already has said..and support the the party?
April 27, 2008 7:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Link??
April 27, 2008 7:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Breaking headline: Senator Clinton asks for do-overs.
April 27, 2008 8:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Except for Michigan...Michigan was the only fair primary we've had to date.
April 27, 2008 9:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
She's once again putting herself out there with what others will see as a romantically fun proposal...and she doesn't care whether he accepts it or not, she just wants to be out there, taking the lead, drawing more attention to her campaign.
It's another clever ruse...she knew he'd refuse and she can now (as planned) characterize him as hiding and ducking and scared of another debate with the great and ominous Hillary. So, she'll claim, his refusal gives her the right to call him a wimp.
There's no end to her deviousness. Obama's rejection of another debate is perfectly understandable to all, but I think Gary Cohen's blog calling for a more proactive Obama on other hot news issues would help him grab that damned batton away from her.
April 27, 2008 8:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry to bust your bubbles Obamakids but it's been only been 3 one on ones and his ass has been handed to him the last 3 states sooooo I think if he does not reconsider it's waffle time. Now you head-stuck -up-his-assers might not believe it but your boy is having a hard time putting this little bitty girl away and to run away from her crying doesn't look very good. So lets wipe his bloody knees and get his ass back out there and have him take his ass whippin like a man cause that little girl is gonna beat the bark of his Arab wannbe black ass. Have a wonderful day.
April 27, 2008 8:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, you convinced me. Great argument pal, keep trotting that one out. Don't let your knuckles hit the floor.
April 27, 2008 9:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
My favorite part was "Arab wannabe black ass." That was great, you should get a radio show or something. I hear Rush is looking for a ray of sunshine like you to flagellate on air with him.
April 27, 2008 9:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
I live in southwest Oregon, and I have seen eight of the 'debates' so far, and I don't want to see another one. Those dog and pony shows were not debates, they were manufactured crap to drive up ratings. If you don't know where the candidates stand by now then you are beyond hope.
Hillary needs a 'debate' to legitimize her candidacy, and I hope Obama denies her it. He needs to focus on wrapping the primary up and on McCain. Hillary is nothing more than a dangerous distraction for the party. She is no longer relevant, and ceased being so onceit was clear that Obama was going to win the primary.
I hope Barack just ignores Hillary and the traditional media catcalls to 'debate'. It will just be another three ring circus that accomplishes nothing except to give Hillary another chance to go after Obama for whatever latest tripe she has armed herself with.
It is time for her incompetent campaign to come to the end that it should have long ago. She had every advantage coming in to this, and other than her initial super delegate lead, she has trailed since the start of the primary contest. Obama beat her fair and square, with the deck stacked against him from the beginning.
Obama is presidential material people. Despite the odds against him, he pushed forward and pulled it off. That is the sign of someone who can get the job done, even against what looked to be insurmountable odds.
He has won the primary, get over it.
April 27, 2008 9:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary wants debates because she is broke and needs the oxygen the free air time gives her. It also furthers the fiction that her campaign only wins if she does something nasty to the party first.
The TV people want debates for the same reason that they air reality shows and Dancing With the Stars: ratings, ad dollars. They don't care that they're bringing the collective IQ of the public down by several notches: they're cashing in as usual. It's not about the civic duty with those clowns.
The above have mutual interests. I don't see why we need to further subsidize the networks, nor do I see a need to throw a life saver to a candidate who has not been able to attract enough financial support to make it on her own.
April 27, 2008 9:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Who gets to be Lincoln?
April 27, 2008 9:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Presumably, she wants a North Carolina debate so that she can be Douglass and try to encourage all the blacks to go back to the Clinton plantation of their own accord.
April 27, 2008 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Correction: it furthers the fiction that she can win without doing something nasty to the party first.
April 27, 2008 9:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
When is this selfish woman finally going to realize that she's now seriously damaging her own party for whats become a very unrealistic aspiration of presidency?????
April 27, 2008 9:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are absolute correct. At some quote her negativity will come back to bite her in the ***. Republicans are going to recall this and play up her divisiveness. Won't be good for the Dems.
April 27, 2008 9:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Because Barack was Wise enough to point out how unfair and uneven the questions were directed at him, they label him a "whiner" instead of someone who and rightly so, is defending himself from a "hit job". But, if he does this, this might expose the ones who are directing the barbs and hits so they distort with a multitude of voices, all saying the same thing to give it power (brainwashing)!
Clintons and Republican Spin Machine all aligned against Barack! Both are liars, distorters, engage in fear and smear... there is no truth from either of the Giants only domination... they have even colloborated together for greater strength, then one will overthrow the other if they get what they want!
Most of the corporate media, cable news, ABC, NBC are owned and Republican controled. They tell us what they want us to Hear, not what we need to Know to truly inform us as a society, which will give us power and aid in their demise!
They know Clintons have ailenated African-Americans so they are now actively courting their support while trying to elevate Hillary and deflate Barack. They MSM are not asking Hillary any of the pertinent questions, not on Iran, not on Mark Penn, although he is still on conference calls to this day, not on a pending lawsuit in California or anything elese that might damage her candidacy in the eyes of the people. There is even some talk of personal dalliances of Bill Cllinton which they know about and plan to release if she is nominee.
April 27, 2008 10:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton's proposal smacks of the deperation that her hapless campaign faces. It's not anyone's fault but her own that she has reigned over one of the most ignominous failures in modern political history.
For most of 2007 we read or heard the word "inevitable" alongside her name in every news report. She owns the Democratic party establishment, yet she has seriously lagged in fund raising. Now that she's staring down the barrel of a humiliating defeat, she is willing to tear down the prospects of the party in lieu of accepting the fact that she has miserably failed.
This on-on-one WWF cage match debate gimmick is just her latest attempt to create a freakshow hail-Mary moment to obstruct and delay in the hope that lightening might strike her superior vanquisher. Comparing her proposal to the "Lincoln Douglas" format demonstrates yet again that her campaign cannot seem to come up with anything that is not poorly researched and half baked before going public.
Please Superdelegates, oh please do the right thing and end this freakshow now.
April 27, 2008 10:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Debates are good for democracy and for candidates. Win or lose, they get directly in front of votes and not through the filters of the media. Unless Obama needs to hide behind the media, he should be right up in front supporting debates.
Matthew
http://www.TheIndependentView.com
April 27, 2008 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Gotta love those situational ethics.
April 27, 2008 11:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
I totally agree. Obama and McCain should schedule a debate immediately.
April 27, 2008 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Once again Obama is on the defensive.
Once again Clinton controls the narrative.
Once again Obamites claim it's all about money.
Once again Clinton continues to lead in the actual popular vote.
Once again Obamites want to change the rules to claim the delegate leader is the nominee.
Once again Obama shows fear.
Once again Clinton shows leadership.
And once again the people are deprived of substantive interchange because once again, Obama is afraid to be off script.
Cluck, cluck.
April 27, 2008 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
I do believe Obama has turned down the debate, and Hillary is making that an issue.
April 27, 2008 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
I do believe Obama has turned down the debate, and Hillary is making that an issue. Increasingly Obama is looking like 1) he doesn't want a repeat of his flop on ABC, and 2) he just wants to coast to victory on his earlier victories before Super Tuesday and Texas/Ohio/Pennsylvania.
April 27, 2008 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
You know, I don't think Clinton would even accept a real Lincoln-Douglas style debate, as she knows that the main reason that she's a better debater is that she can change the subject faster (look at how she dealt with the affirmative action question in the PA debate), and the secondary reason is that she specializes in snippets, so she would be at a major disadvantage in a long-answer debate.
April 27, 2008 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
The fight for all the marbles for the Democratic Nomination is far from over. These two are fighting like aninnals, and just like Angelo Dundee had Sugar Ray Leonard fighting like an animal when he knocked out Thomas Hernes in the 14th round! This is the big enchillada here, and anything and anything goes, get it! Not pretty, but they are fighting for the most powerful job on the planet! Of course their real challenge will be to knock out the old fool and king of war mongering John "Wayne" McCain. For the sake of America's future, we better ALL this old fool does not somehow steal the election in November.
April 27, 2008 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Look, it's pretty understandable he would refuse more debates because he feels that they would hurt rather than help him. But for his campagn and his supporters here to raise bogus excuses (too many debates, too busy campaigning etc) is an insult to the voters intelligence, especially when "no BS" is one of the rationales of your campaign.
I suspect in the end he'll find a way to agree to one and I'm surprised he's boxed himself into this embarassing position. With Hillary crying chicken over the next few days he's not going to get off the hook since wimpishness is becoming one of his weak points in the media narrative.
April 27, 2008 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think I ever said any other reason besides it's to his strategic advantage not to debate because she doesn't have the money to compete any other way. I believe that's the majority argument on this board. Clinton chose to ignore debates in both her Senate races for the same reason, what's the difference?
April 27, 2008 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
The vast majority of the debates have been multiple candidate- "you have 30 seconds for your response" style. I think the idea of debates without moderators is fantastic. It's a lot more difficult for a candidate to initiate ad hominem attacks without a moderator there to do it for them.
It is shocking to me that so many here, merely for tactical advantage, want to restrict the flow of information to the voters rather than expand it. Ten million people watched the last debate. Clearly the voters, as opposed to fanatical commenters, are interested and I can't think of a better way for actual issues to be discussed than in a debate without moderators.
April 27, 2008 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
He already agreed to an NC debate over a month ago and much hay was made in the media about her not accepting. So now she changes her mind and calls him a wuss ?
The sooner the woman exits the national stage the better.
April 27, 2008 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
For all of you saying that Hillary doesn't matter, I hope you know she has millions of supporters. I guess we don't matter either. This use to be the democratic party, now it is the 'vote for Obama or else' party. Anyone who disagrees that he is not black jesus, is attacked. I will never vote for Obama, because he is too inexperienced to deal with the problems facing this country. We need a real leader, not someone who is afraid of being seen for who he really is. Why not debate? It is the best way to show what you are made of. He always looks weak in debates, because he is so scripted and he can't rely on teleprompters and prepared speeches. I will vote for Hillary or McCain. I am a life long democrat and if Obama gets the nomination, it will be the first time that I vote republican. McCain has experience and we can't allow Obama's inexperience to make us worse off than we are now. It is not the time for a learn as you go president. We have too much to lose. For those concerned about the war, Obama is not committed to removing the troops right away. I hope you know that. He will say it is too dangerous to pull out now.
April 27, 2008 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
"...I am a life long democrat ..."
Lies do not become you.
April 27, 2008 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I somehow doubt you are really a lifelong Democrat who will support McCain if Obama gets the nomination. But perhaps you ought to read the editorial in today's Boston Globe. http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2008/04/27/hillary_strangelove/
April 27, 2008 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary's Problem Ahead....The Weather !
I just checked the forecast for the next 2 weeks in Indiana and N. Carolina and noticed that Hillary may have one major problem ahead....The Weather ! For the next 2 weeks you will notice that all of Hill and Bill's rallys will be in outdoor venues....parks...back yards...parking lots...etc.. The reason? She's so broke she can't afford to rent halls anymore for her appearances. So they are forced to holding their rallys in 'free' outdoor venues. Problem is....it's supposed to rain alot in both Indiana and N. Carolina over the next couple weeks. So what will they do ? They can't afford to go indoors....they can't cancel...And now that she has been known not to pay her bills the halls want their money up front.That's where the Hill supporters come in. If you are a true, strong supporter of Hillary....she needs you all to do an Indian...'Hope it DON'T' raindance ! Seriously....she needs your help. Just stand in the mirror and start your don't raindance jig...but then stop....look in the mirror....and ask yourself.... Is this REALLY who you think should be running America !
Visit: Blacks4Barack.org
(A Multi-Racial Grassroots Org...Dedicated To Truth)
April 27, 2008 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
HILLARY CHALLENGING OBAMA TO HELP HER REMAIN RELEVANT
April 27, 2008 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton's looking for free airtime.
April 27, 2008 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I love Clinton's idea to do this kind of debate, and was wondering myself why debates are always moderated by fatuous pundits instead of having a direct head-to-head between the candidates. My only question would be, why wait until this late in the game to bring this up? It would have been nice if we could have seen this type of debate as early as the run-up to Super Tuesday.
April 27, 2008 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why in the world would any politician agree to a "free form" debate with no moderator? That's just stupid.
April 27, 2008 5:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
You Obamabots really don't believe that everyone is not in love with him. I will vote repub for 1st time, if he is nominee.
April 27, 2008 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, I just don't believe you're a Democrat. I don't love him or Clinton, I disagree with many of his and her decisions and policies, but that doesn't mean I won't vote for Clinton if she somehow pulls this off. Hell, if she legitimately pulls this off, she deserves the damn nomination.
But you, sir, don't sound like any Democrat I've ever spoken with...and my circle of Democrats here in a rural area of NC are composed of a rough bunch of cattle farmers, pig farmers, University elitists, African Americans, professional class Dems, and working class joes. It's a true cross section, and none of them sound like you.
So I asked myself, is he really that disaffected --or-- is he a Republican with an agenda? You fit the latter more. Believe me, it's my pet peeve to be called "not a real Democrat," so i thought about it before I posted. If I'm wrong...apologies, perhaps you should think about what you're saying. If I'm right, we may never really know, but at least I got my opinion out there.
April 27, 2008 7:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
All this over Hillary "I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base" Clinton...for President ? NO WAY !!!!! I can picture the GOP's attack ads against her already !!!!!!!!!!
Visit: Blacks4Barack.org
(A Multi-Racial Grassroots Org....Dedicated To Truth)
April 27, 2008 6:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Stop that. Talk about the debate proposal and those issues directly related to it, or leave.
April 27, 2008 8:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
TSK, TSK, TSK Mr. Jones:
Are you seriously thinking about the commercials that the GOP will have against Hillary. You should turn your concerns to the ones they will have against the UNITER...I mean Obaama. The Reverend Wright one's will be my absolute favorites!
ACTION:/
They will just keep replaying that sermon over and over again. Then they will show Obama saying he was never in the presence when he made one of these sermons. Then they will shoot to the Race speech in PA when he said he did hear some of the things Rev. Wright said and he denounced them. Then that will be followed by Barry at the debate denouncing Rev. Wright himself....END SCENE/
WHEW...I just created my very own GOP montage and it took like 30 seconds. The truth is these ads won't work on the Obaama sheep. But, they will have a significant effect on the blue collar white vote that Obama can't seem to make a dent in.
Worry about your own candidate and his ever mounting issues.
BTW where in the world is Barack Obama? I saw a clip of him making the rounds in Indiana today he was looking scared while talking about the possibility of debating Hillary. This clip on MSNBC was very "dramatic"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHjFxJVeCQs
April 27, 2008 8:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
That never fails to give me the giggles. Thanks sis :)
April 27, 2008 9:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama has a BAD CASE OF FRAIDIUM! Signs are a yellow streak done your back, knocking knees and fear of debating Hillary Clinton one on one.
April 27, 2008 6:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Isn't doing anything to win the quality Clinton supporters admire in their candidate? Hence it's OK for pledged delegates to switch allegiance, it's OK to elevate the GOP candidate over the Democratic rival?
Why, then, even if it is "running out the clock", is that a negative for Obama?
April 27, 2008 10:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Come on.
No one has done more for the debate team than Barack Obama.
April 28, 2008 12:32 AM | Reply | Permalink