Obama Campaign Accepts Proposal For Three Presidential Debates
The Obama campaign has just accepted the proposal put forth in June by the Commission on Presidential Debates that suggests a framework of three presidential debates and one vice presidential debate in September and October.
The move appears to shut the door permanently on the McCain team's desire for a bunch of town-hall debates, which the Obama team had rejected. By accepting the Commission's proposal, the Obama team has effectively tossed the ball on to McCain's side of the court. The McCain team has yet to respond.
The Obama camp announced their acceptance in a just-released letter to the Commission from campaign manager David Plouffe...
Due to the late date of the two parties' nominating conventions, and the relatively short period between the end of the conventions and the first proposed debate, it is likely that the four Commission debates will be the sole series of debates in the fall campaign. Consequently, we believe that finalizing the arrangements for these debates with promptness and certainty is in the interests of both campaigns and the American people.
The letter also announced that Rahm Emanuel has been appointed as the Obama team's liason to the Commission. Full letter after the jump.
Late Update: The McCain campaign responds, sort of.
August 2, 2008Mr. Frank J. Fahrenkopf, Jr.
Mr. Paul G. Kirk, Jr.
Commission on Presidential Debates
1200 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.
Suite 445
Washington, D.C. 20036
Dear Chairmen Kirk and Fahrenkopf:
I am writing on behalf of Senator Obama to accept the Commission on Presidential Debates' framework for three presidential debates and one vice presidential debate to be held in September and October. Senator Obama has designated Congressman Rahm Emanuel as our representative to meet with the Commission and the McCain campaign to review the specifics of the Commission's proposal, discuss any requested changes to that proposal, and resolve any issues left open by the Commission's framework. We will make our representative available at the earliest convenience of the Commission and the McCain campaign.
Due to the late date of the two parties' nominating conventions, and the relatively short period between the end of the conventions and the first proposed debate, it is likely that the four Commission debates will be the sole series of debates in the fall campaign. Consequently, we believe that finalizing the arrangements for these debates with promptness and certainty is in the interests of both campaigns and the American people.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.
David Plouffe
Campaign Manager
This seems fair. John McCain is an old man. It wouldn't be right to expect him to survive more than three hard kicks to the nuts.
August 2, 2008 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
ouch!
August 2, 2008 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know about the Obama campaign. Just wait Obama will now be known as a chicken. It has been a very bad week and it looks like it is not going to end anytime soon.
August 2, 2008 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amen, brother!
August 2, 2008 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ha! Well-said, Jenn. :)
August 2, 2008 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
McCain's taking another day off. Being nasty is apparently tiring work for a soon-to-be 72 year old. But I imagine that tomorrow we'll hear lots and lots of bleating about how Obama's afraid to debate more often.
And what they'll really mean is "Holy shit! How are we going to be ANY publicity after the convention if he won't debate us????"
That's what I'd be thinking after that rousing turn out at the McCain rally last night.
August 2, 2008 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sigh. That should read "Holy shit! How are we going to get ANY publicity...."
Preview function? Pretty please? With cherries on top?
August 2, 2008 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I actually didn't notice the mistake until you pointed it out. ; )
August 2, 2008 5:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
McCain's had a great week. He's resting and probably won't respond anytime soon.
A week ago, Obama was on his way home, riding a wave of global adulation. Perhaps he expected to return home greeted as a liberator and met with hugs and kiss.
After all Maliki 'agreed' with the Obama's timetable and the Europeans came out in large to support the symbolism of Obama's candidacy.
Instead, on Mon he was arrogant, on Tues he was a celebrity, by Wed the racial card is thrown into the mix, Thur more racial spades and by Sat Obama is tied McCain.
What a week. You think he's worried about debates right now?
August 2, 2008 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
You think McCain's worried that he can have a 'great week' and still not pull ahead? I do.
August 2, 2008 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
"McCain's had a great week. He's resting and probably won't respond anytime soon."
Really? Dropping ads comparing Obama to Paris Hilton, being chided by friend and foe alike - failing to offer one shred of substance the whole week. Yes, he's resting, mainly because tarnishing your already fictitious reputation and becoming an unrepentant smear merchant takes a lot of energy.
"Perhaps he expected to return home greeted as a liberator and met with hugs and kiss."
..the same way John McCain claimed that we'd be greeted as liberators in Iraq? But I digress..
"Instead, on Mon he was arrogant, on Tues he was a celebrity, by Wed the racial card is thrown into the mix, Thur more racial spades and by Sat Obama is tied McCain."
Clumsy and premature victory laps over already erratic polls makes you look both defeated and tired - kind of like an aging pornstar's nutsack.(Not saying that I'm an authority on elderly adult star genetalia mind you) That being said, this was a great week for Obama based on the low road McCain decided to travel this week. He can now inject subtle signs of ageism, run commercials with him physically embracing Bush and cite his being in lockstep with one of the worst administrations in history - splice in clips of his several gaffe and flat out question his overall fitness to hold the highest office in the land. Game on.
"What a week. You think he's worried about debates right now?"
That's not even a real question, especially if you take into account how horribly John McCain did against the proverbial tin cans that were his competition during the Republican debates. It takes unparalleled incompetence to get out-debated by the likes of Mitt Romney or Rudy Giuliani. Its kind of like getting out-acted by Carrot Top.
August 2, 2008 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Priceless!
I feel that your takedowns are on a par with TrollCritic's. And TrollCritic's stuff is just pure comedy gold.
August 2, 2008 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
You all should be given Nobel prizes for discovering that the GOP campaigns negatively.
Since the Obamaworld seems full childish remarks. How about this one. SCOREBOARD, SCOREBOARD, SCOREBOARD!!!
I know you folks want to dismiss those pesky Daily tracking polls.. but do so at your own risk.
If you think Waa-Waa-Whine on the Racial Wamabulance effectively combats this, i've got a bridge to sell ya.
August 2, 2008 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mel Martinez, McCain backer: I don't think Obama played the race card at all...I think he's done an admirable job.
Martinez on "race baiting"
Here's a good line, if you don't want to click and read it yourself:
Oops. Someone forgot to tell Martinez the party line.
August 2, 2008 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
"You all should be given Nobel prizes for discovering that the GOP campaigns negatively."
Thats precisely why people shouldn't be worried about the Obama campaign, they know the GOP is shameless, and they will successfully counter their usual brand of bullshit.
"Since the Obamaworld seems full childish remarks. How about this one. SCOREBOARD, SCOREBOARD, SCOREBOARD!!!"
Who's the one claiming that John McCain will beat Obama in a debate? How childish is that? That being said, claiming some sort of victory in the beginning of August is a form of intellectual dishonesty usually reserved for inbred children and fans of the band "Creed"
"If you think Waa-Waa-Whine on the Racial Wamabulance effectively combats this, i've got a bridge to sell ya."
Lets just hope that your bridge making skills aren't as subpar as your political rationalizations - because people lives could be at stake.
August 2, 2008 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's review. GOP goes negative and Obama clumsily rebuts. During the same period, Obama's daily numbers decline. Is it causation, correlation, or coincidence?
Or is it just shoot the messenger and bury our heads in the sand, ie the polls are BS?
August 2, 2008 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Let's review. GOP goes negative and Obama clumsily rebuts. During the same period, Obama's daily numbers decline. Is it causation, correlation, or coincidence?"
Lets Review: The Polls were fluctuating long before John McCain decided to sell out his family and side with the same people who smeared his wife and adopted child back in 2000. Why the clumsy victory lap? Besides, its August, you grasping at polling straws says more about you than the realistic state of the presidential race.
August 2, 2008 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
The was lame.. "fluctuating", "sell out his family", "grasping at polling straws"
All this says more about YOU than the realistic state of the presidential race.
I know your are, but what am I, is soo much fun. It's it.
August 2, 2008 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The was lame.. "fluctuating", "sell out his family", "grasping at polling straws""
.."lame" is not being able to have the mental capacity to manufacture a garden variety retort. Just admit as much next time. Thanks.
"All this says more about YOU than the realistic state of the presidential race."
Talk about lame.. But then again, considering the candidate you support, I wouldn't have expected you to have previously been a member of your high school debate team.
"I know your are, but what am I, is soo much fun. It's it."
Its fun for me, I don't particularly know how this is fun for you. But, whatever gets you through the day I guess.
August 2, 2008 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
What am i supposed to be retorting? YOU mentioned that McCain would beat Obama in a debate, i said no such thing. "Victory lap" and "claiming victory" were your words not mine. So there's nothing much to retort there.
The original point was about causation, correlation and coincidence.
You must have attended a Liberal Art college were they deprive you of Statistics 101.
August 2, 2008 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I went to a liberal arts college and they taught me how to think. And how to read, and communicate. And taught me statistics.
August 2, 2008 4:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
You weren't able to do that before you got to college?
August 2, 2008 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
"YOU mentioned that McCain would beat Obama in a debate, i said no such thing."
..you actually alluded to the debates when you said: "You think he's worried about debates right now?" Come on, try to keep up.
"Victory lap" and "claiming victory" were your words not mine. So there's nothing much to retort there."
Yeah, I wouldn't have responded either if I were you - it was a lose/lose situation.
"You must have attended a Liberal Art college were they deprive you of Statistics 101."
I'm suddenly thinking about a school you attended with extremely short buses, where the students participate in a "special" type of Olympics where even third place finishers get trophy's. I mean, you have to be retarded if you don't view polling in the proper context. Its August.
August 2, 2008 10:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
And you can tell by BK's response, a rapid changing of the subject, that you hit home....Keep up the excellent work!
August 2, 2008 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, yes, considering McCain was bitching about Obama and town halls just this week.
Your act is so tired.
August 4, 2008 1:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Off topic, but I had to share this info. Disgusting what are country is doing for wealthy, to the great shame of the 90% of the rest of us.
--Average pre-tax incomes in 2006 jumped by about $60,000 (5.8 percent) for the top 1 percent of households, but just $430 (1.4 percent) for the bottom 90 percent, after adjusting for inflation, according to a new update in the groundbreaking series on income inequality by economists Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez. Their analysis of newly released IRS data shows that in 2006, the shares of the nation’s income flowing to the top 1 percent and top 0.1 percent of households were higher than in any year since 1928. ...
--Some 42 percent of total income gains since 2002 have accrued to the top 1 percent of households, and 66 percent have gone to the top 10 percent of households. As a result, by 2006, the share of income flowing to the top 1 percent of households had surpassed the level it reached in 2000, at the peak of the 1990s expansion.
Link: http://www.cbpp.org/3-27-08tax2.htm
So MAD!!!!
August 2, 2008 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't be mad. Either get off your PC and find a better paying job OR shut up be happy with what you're willing to sweat for.
Or ask Obama to regulate the blood-suckers and take their money and give them to you.
August 2, 2008 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah just like your candidate, you can't compete in a serious debate about the economy so you toss out a bunch of irrelevant and inaccurate ad hominems.
August 2, 2008 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Serious. Economic. Debate?
LOL
August 2, 2008 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
oh, of course it's my fault, wouldn't be those tax breaks for the top 10% now wouldn't it.
You do realize what's happening here was one of the causes of the Depression, right?
August 2, 2008 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Depression? That's just psychological!
August 2, 2008 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
...."Had there been a better distribution of the current income from the national product -- in other words, had there been less savings by business and the higher-income groups and more income in the lower groups -- we should have had far greater stability in our economy. Had the six billion dollars, for instance, that were loaned by corporations and wealthy individuals for stock-market speculation been distributed to the public as lower prices or higher wages and with less profits to the corporations and the well-to-do, it would have prevented or greatly moderated the economic collapse that began at the end of 1929."
Marriner S. Eccles, who served as Franklin D. Roosevelt's Chairman of the Federal Reserve
As for me, I make a modest income (under 30k), which is fine by me, money can't buy you happiness after all. Happy were I am. Still doesn't make this right.
August 2, 2008 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now, now, now, Joseph, you don't want to play the class warfare card do you? I'm sure that guys like Dana Milbank never played like that at Yale.
August 2, 2008 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Joseph, take at look at the bottom 90% of earners(those under $104,400). How equally do you think incomes are distributed? Don't you think the ones closer to $104K have seen their incomes rise more dollar and percentage wise than those say making less than $40K? Shouldn't we redistributed some of their 'gains' down to the lower class? When does it end?
August 2, 2008 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
when people at the bottom can afford food.
August 2, 2008 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
How do you define "affordable food"?
August 2, 2008 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
when food doesn't rise 16% in a year.
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9291T5G0.htm
when it costs a family less than 20% of their gross income for the year.
I don't pretend to have all the answers. I can at least acknowledge the problem.
August 2, 2008 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
these right wing bigots dont know the difference between arrogant and confidence,obama is gonna rip him!!!OBAMA/CLARK 08!!!!
August 2, 2008 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
This past week, John McSame has made a total fool of himself and shown the world what a worthless dishonorable racist he really is. Obama has been right on target in all his responses. No one is going to switch to McCain because of those absurd and lowly ads he has been running all week. Disgusting! He must be flopping around now, worrying about how he can get out of debating Barack. Let the debates begin!
August 2, 2008 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
SUSA just came out. McCain is up 5 in MO.
August 2, 2008 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
wow. statistical noise that doesn't mean anything. whoopity doo.
August 2, 2008 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, time to panic, then, because in the previous SUSA, McCain was up 7.
August 2, 2008 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just typical troll behavior. Folks have ignore these people to get them to either leave or have serious discussion in here.
August 4, 2008 1:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
On Monday morning McCain is gonna have to pretend to be outraged about the proposed debates for some ridiculous reason. His team has to come up with something. Got to keep this thing in the gutter as long as possible.
August 2, 2008 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
The outrage will be tomorrow, not Monday.
Love your avatar, btw.
August 2, 2008 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, thanks! You're cute too! O.T., I personally have two cats and one dog.
August 2, 2008 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ummm, tomorrow is Sunday. You know Grandpa McCain doesn't work on weekends.
August 2, 2008 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
And the MSM doesn't work at all. Thats why they need their Monday morning stories gift wrapped on Sunday by the McLame camp.
August 2, 2008 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Certainly someone making $100K can afford food(all the organics they want) and have plenty left over. So let's go ahead and tax them to pay for that 16% increase in food prices.
August 2, 2008 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
straw-man.
August 2, 2008 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Strawman? Why?
August 2, 2008 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
because there are a number of other solutions besides the one you chose.
one possible solution: why not simply tax the top 1% more? or top 5% more? that what put millions of dollars in the coffers for whatever we wish. they can afford the tax raise considering the ungodly amounts of money they make in a given and they'd still have plenty to speculate on oil and grain futures.
Furthermore, $100,000 is aprox. what my parents make. they would gladly have their taxes raised to help out those in need and stimulate the economy. indeed that stimulation in the economy would probably help their business. esp. if you could give them universal healthcare so they wouldn't have to shell out $1000 plus a month for healthcare (and rising) despite being perfectly healthy.
But I guess they're "crazy liberals", not a die-hard taxes-are-bad conservative like yourself.
August 2, 2008 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
in a given year.
August 2, 2008 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
i'm also not suggesting we raise taxes to pay for that 16% increase in food prices, but rather we should do it to stimulate the economy, balance the scales, and hopefully prevent things from getting much worse (see Depression above).
once again, i don't pretend to have all the answers, and i certainly do not want to get into a bunch of math on a saturday. I can at least acknowledge this is a real problem in the U.S. Namely, there shouldn't be such a gap between rich and poor.
August 2, 2008 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
How about trying to understand why that gap exists in the first place? Why the instinctive twitch to raise taxes? I work my ass off to afford my food, shy should I pay more in taxes than you? Why are you not suggesting to regulate prices instead? Why are you not suggesting education investment to improve earning potential? Why the urge to solve someone's problem by taking away from another? Are you Lenin?
August 2, 2008 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
lenin. communism. socialism. that's all you guys have insn't it? case you didn't realize we have record defecits. and if you're in the top 1%, damn straight we should tax you more.
August 2, 2008 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
i can see you are fixated on your chosen scapegoat, you greedy green-eyed commie. i'm actually closer to your league than you think but i certainly dont want to get the 1% taxed more just because you're too lazy. i'm planning on breaking into 1% in a few years time, so keep your hands off other people's wallets.
August 2, 2008 4:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
i work hard too. i just don't see the benefit of having the rich hold onto all their money, why are economy suffers. i'm glad you're so concerned about the rich why people starve in the streets.
August 2, 2008 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
wow, "i just don't see the benefit of having the rich hold onto all their money" this is an instant classic.
income gap exists because despite calling this country "equal opportunity" we're not providing it, in truth. Income gap is a result of education and skillset gap, in most cases, except for things like illness, etc.
instead of focusing on reducing someone else's opportunity, how about focusing on helping people to improve their earning potential?
August 2, 2008 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
works for me and lets increase taxes on you rich bastards as well. Why? Again look at causes of the Great Depression and our record defecits.
August 2, 2008 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
other causes are lack of jobs to outsourcing, namely NAFTA and trickle down economic policies.
August 2, 2008 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
You also fail to realize that our most prosperous times as a Nation have come about when we've taxed the rich more. So I guess you are more interested in yourself than our Nation. Damn un-patriotic is you ask me.
August 2, 2008 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
delete NAFTA and close outsourcing if you think this is better policy, i have nothing against that. i fully agree we have to reduce the deficit asap and stopping the war would go a long way to help.
i just have a problem with a country that has equality in its constitution but not in its actions (which include the tax code).
either we're equal or we're not.
August 2, 2008 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, at least you recognize the income gap, which is how this whole thread started in the first place. So i give you props. I think if we worked hard on this we could probably come to a compromise here somewhere. But, it's nice to see we aren't in total disagreement. :)
August 2, 2008 4:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Also, "equality" can be fitted into many arugments going both ways, fair tax, higher taxes, lower taxes, it's all in your definition of what's "equal". I'd say somebody who makes 20,000 a year and is taxed, say, 25% hurts much more than the person who makes 2,000,000 a year and is taxed 25%. What's "equal" about that? The 20k person needs that too survive and will spend it. the 2mill person? not so much.
I realize their are many substantial arguments you could raise against this, I'm just saying, it's not black and white on the issue of equality.
August 2, 2008 5:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, income gap exists because "lower taxes for the ultra-rich" doesn't translate into "better wages for the people who work for them and have made them ultra-rich."
Look, this ain't rocket science - if 5% of the population has 90% of the wealth, that means that the rest of us have to get by on the remaining 10%, which means: less money circulating in the economy and all of the ills attendant with that circumstance. As josephcast correctly pointed out, the wealthy show more net gains when they are taxed higher. That's a direct result of lower deficits, a stronger dollar, and a greater amount of total wealth circulating because it's going to people who spend it. So lower taxes for rich people don't work to the benefit of ANYONE except the Republicans who tout it as a solution for every problem and manage to convince dullards such as yourself that it actually works. Consider the following, Einstein: the housing crash was caused by lopsided wealth distribution. Investment, as all else, is driven by supply and demand. As wealthy people gain more and more of the total money supply, they look for places to invest it to earn yet MORE money, because, god knows, they need even more money they'll never be able to spend. In any case...you reach a point where a handful of very wealthy people are searching for places to put money where it can generate income. Where are they going to put it when 95% of the population is so maxed out that they can't buy anything? That rules out manufacturing and retail as investment opportunities, and on down the line. What happened was that, believing the old saw that "real estate is always a safe investement", a huge portion of this excess wealth flooded into the mortgage market, creating a demand for more borrowers. And as we know, that led to a catastrophic loosening of lending standards, as the market tried to supply borrowers to meet the demands of investors.
The rest, as they say, is history.
But yeah, you're right...we shouldn't tax the rich more even if it destroys our entire economy to tax them less, because it SOUNDS better to say you don't think anyone should pay higher taxes. Even if you aren't doing them any favors by keeping their taxes low. Like George Bush said, it's "immoral" to have a 33% income tax rate. 30% is completely godly and above-board, but that extra 3%? That comes straight from the DEVIL.
Sheesh.
August 2, 2008 5:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
work hard on what? investing your stocks on wall street. have you broken a sweat in your life? have you ever done hard labor? i'd like to see you throwing hay bales in 100 degree weather.
August 2, 2008 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
you have no idea about what i do and already insinuating. Typical Obamabot.
August 2, 2008 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
typical name calling, greedy Republican.
August 2, 2008 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not a republican and i have a much better avatar. boooo
:-)
August 2, 2008 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
riiiiiiight.
August 2, 2008 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
you did the same. turn about is fair play.
August 2, 2008 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
why we have the income gap? Republican trickle down tax policies for one. With Bush, a trickle down economy.
http://indepthleft.blogspot.com/2008/04/sacrifice-economies-taxes-and-wars-then.html
August 2, 2008 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it's time we all wise up and realize we are going to have to sacrifice things in order for us to pull out of current downward trend as a nation. We need higher standards of education, improved healthcare, to cut our defecit, and balance our budget. All these if at all possible, and only possible if we increase our revenue, ie. raise taxes. If you know a better, more direct way to increase our revenue, I'd like to hear it.
The question then is, who faces that burden? Clearly, the middle class and below is hurting. Also, we don't want to push the high middle to lower high income people into the rut. Who can face this burden of higher taxes? The ultra-wealthy. The needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few, or the 1%.
It's in the interest of the future of our Nation that the wealthy begin to realize that it's in their interest to help out the working class. We do work for them after all. The happier we are, the more productive we are. I believe our future as a country lays in science and technology, for that we need a more educated work force. To pay for that we need to raise taxes on those who use that same work force. Then they can use that for subsidies or a tax break. Incentives can be utilized.
It's in everyones interest that we spread the wealth!
But that's just me....
August 2, 2008 7:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just hope Obama has been practicing his debating skills. I know it's unlikely it would help much, but his umms, aaah, and pauses really distract and detract from what he's saying.
McCain will have ready made pre-packaged answers that will make it seem like he knows what he's talking, even if he's not answering the question.
August 2, 2008 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I definitely thought he had gotten better as the primary debates wore on. And I'm sure it's something his campaign recognizes that he needs practice with and has been working on it.
I'm really hope he commits to memory every one of McCain's gaffes and flip/flops so someone can finally call McCain on his bullshit to his face.
August 2, 2008 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Also another point that could be interesting is that McCain Camp is lowering expectations for Obama with the sleazeball commercials and those who've never heard him before could then be surprised.
August 2, 2008 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course here is the AP headline that is currently up on the Yahoo front page - Obama backs away from McCain's debate challenge
August 2, 2008 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do you suppose the original draft of that had "slinks" instead of "backs"?
August 2, 2008 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fournier is probably pissed that the word choice wasn't "cowers". Me thinks Douglass K. Daniels will be going to bed without his supper tonight.
August 2, 2008 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama, in speech today: I'm not going to assault John McCain's character. I'm not going to compare him to pop stars.
Perfect.
August 2, 2008 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with those who think Obama is letting a golden opportunity slip away. McCain is an angry and befuddled geezer; Obama is an articulate and good tempered middle-aged guy. The more the two are thrown into each other's company, the better it would be for the Man From Illinois.
August 2, 2008 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good, the 23 debates from the primary were more than enough...it is ridiculous when you have to hear the same stupid crap 23 times.
I just hope McCain loses his cool in one of the debates for the whole country to see, without the media able to sugarcoat it. I want them to finally get the real McCain.
August 2, 2008 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
McSame's Forked-Tongue Express reminds me of another Yogi Berra aphorism: When you get to the fork in the road, take it.
August 2, 2008 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
In May, Obama said of McCain's town hall suggestion: "I think that's a great idea." In early June, Obama's campaign manager said the town hall debates were "appealing".
So what happened to the politics of change all of a sudden? The Obama camp changed their minds, is that what they mean by "change"? The simplest and most obvious explanation is that the Obama campaign has decided they don't want him speaking extemporaneously in unrehearsable settings. Wonder what they're afraid of? McCain loves that kind of situation, because it removes the scripted B.S. and gets down to the heart of things. I guess Obama doesn't like that so much. Yep, time for a change from politics-as-usual, huh, Obamabots? Same-old same-old debate formats.
August 2, 2008 5:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I had been hoping for a town hall or two, honestly. But mainly because I hate hearing how McCain is somehow stronger in town halls. McCain is completely awful when he's extemporaneous. Repugs should be happy McCain won't be cracking jokes about bombing Iran or rape on national television.
August 2, 2008 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who was it who chickened out? It wasn't McCain. Maybe Obama and his advisors know something you don't. Food for thought.
August 2, 2008 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
McCain loves that kind of situation, because it removes the scripted B.S. and gets down to the heart of things.
You mean McSame makes a complete fool of himself and depends™ on his base, the corporate media, to cover it up?
~
August 2, 2008 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
McCain was ready to go. Not much scares a guy who's been thru hell being tortured for a few years. Where's your guy? Didn't his community organizing prepare him for the crucible of a town-hall format?
August 2, 2008 6:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Suggestion for three moderators for the three debates,
Gwen Ifill,PBS
Josh Marshall, TPM
Juan Cole, Informed Comment
August 2, 2008 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
bill moyers!
August 2, 2008 5:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes!!
August 2, 2008 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Anyone but Charles Gibson.
August 2, 2008 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
My biggest concern is who the moderators are. The primary debates were farces. Who chooses these people anyway? It would be nice if we could have something other than hacks throwing out tabloid-style questions. I want to see moderators who understand the issues that plague our country and pledge to focus on them. Do the candidates have any say in who moderates? Do we?
August 2, 2008 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I assume one of the three debates will be a town hall format. IIRC Bush and Kerry had one where they could get up and walk around while taking questions from the audience.
August 2, 2008 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kerry was such an excellent cure for insomnia.
August 2, 2008 11:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
David Bromwich, a Yale professor who posts on HuffPo had a masterful critique of one of the primary debates. I would like to see someone outside the media like him as a moderator for one of them. According to the proposal, there is, in fact, one town hall-style debate.
August 2, 2008 6:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ten bucks says Team McCain tries to get the first debate to be the town hall, because viewership goes down steeply for each subsequent debate.
August 2, 2008 6:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Another very bad strategic move by the Obama campaign. Little wonder that McCain keeps gaining ground.
One way to help put to rest the 'celebrity' attack would have been to accept one or two town hall debates before the convention. Being seen by everyone directly addressing the concerns of average Americans would have worked to Obama's benefit and cut off that line of attack. But by playing it safe, he's running the risk of allowing McCain to gain so much ground, defining Obama as an out-of-touch 'celebrity,' that he'll have a very difficult time making up ground in the few weeks after the conventions.
Remember - August was the month that Kerry lost the election by not strongly and directly answering the swift boat attacks. Obama now seems to be doing the same thing.
August 2, 2008 9:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
How exactly ate townhalls "anti-celebrity"? Other than because the McCain camp tells you it is? Because it doesn't - McCain's campaign is trying to goad Obama into town hall formats because that is where McCain is most comfortable and where the campaign can best control the questions. In a moderated format, all questions are made up by the moderator and staff and kept secret until they are asked.
Besides do you realize Obama does townhalls daily (usually more than one since coming back from overseas) while out on the trail?
August 3, 2008 12:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama's been doing town halls all week. Shame you haven't been paying attention.
August 4, 2008 1:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
McCain campaigns spends little, but gets tremendous mileage out of the attack ads. And Obama tries to remain the nice guy, above the fray. There is a difference between being nice and defending yourself. Obama is being negatively defined just as John Kerry was in 2004, and their campaign had better wake up.
Hopefully, Obama will not go windsurfing.
No matter how absurd political junkies think the McCain ads are, we are not the audience. And there is no reason the polls should be tightening unless Obama intends to lose.
And where are the Democratic elected officials in all this? Sitting on their hands, savoring victory for themselves, and being unconcerned if McCain becomes President?
Would they stand up to a President McCain like they have to President Bush, and give him everything he could possibly want?
Looks like the only campaign that is showing any b*lls is the McCain side.
Let's see. Obama tries to keep positive, but gets tagged as starting the whole thing, and is tagged as being responsible for the negative tone. Seems like the Republicans know how to try and win, and the Democrats know how to fold.
I think the idea of an acceptance speech before 75,000 people is probably the worst idea in a long string of bad ideas. Enforces a celebrity status idea.
I was concerned about what would happen if Obama was faced with negative advertising, as he hasn't before. If he thought running against the Clinton machine was an attack, he was deluding himself.
August 2, 2008 9:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
it will be awkward when Hillary Clinton gets the nomination.
August 2, 2008 11:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, poor Boo, Boo. Get over yourself. Hillary is not now, nor will she be the nominee!
August 3, 2008 1:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
McCain loves the Town Hall format, which allows him to make statements and doesn't confront him with any hard questions. He can read prepared answers to the soft balls that are lobbed at him. So he wants Obama to play in that arena. Obama's a little too smart to do that. So the ball's now in McCain's court and look for him to be calling Obama a coward for not wanting to play in the Town Hall format. Ho hum, McCain, if he has to answer any hard ball questions and has to show he understands geography (past experience has shown he doesn't know Iraq and Pakistan have NO COMMON BORDER) and which parties are fighting whom in Iraq, may prove just how out of touch he really is. Let the games begin.
August 3, 2008 2:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
The bumpkins responding to McCain's slime are the same hayseeds who responded to swiftboating. All you need to do is get their attention, and stage-whisper: "Watch out, the Democratic candidate seems to be a traitor! Pass it on!"
And they will always, always, always go with it, no matter who the candidates are. So you have got to have a strategy to win that discounts these dependable, prejudiced numbskulls -- the Bush base.
August 3, 2008 8:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Damn the grumpy old man is resting wonder if he is refuelling at the pump for the next go around at $4+ a gallon. Waite forgot he is in bed with BIG OIL.
August 3, 2008 10:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Waite forgot he is in bed with BIG OIL.",,,,,,,, does he need little blue pills for that too? Kinky,
August 3, 2008 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama thinks he can win Indiana?
This guy really believes his own publicity.
August 3, 2008 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink