Hillary Clinton, reeling after eight straight losses to Barack Obama, is airing a new ad criticizing her rival for not agreeing to a debate in Wisconsin, which votes next Tuesday.
It is the first negative ad that Clinton has aired against Obama in weeks.
“Both Democratic candidates have been invited to a televised Wisconsin debate,” the narrator says. “Hillary Clinton has said yes. Barack Obama hasn’t. Maybe he’d prefer to give speeches than have to answer questions. Like why Hillary Clinton has the only health care plan that covers every American, and the only economic plan that freezes foreclosures.
Refusing to debate because you think you’ve got the lead, and don’t think you are as good a debater as your rival — which I suspect are the two factors uppermost in the mind of the Obama campaign when they refuse debates — is not change, or a new kind of politics, it is business as usual, and it sucks.
I say the more debates the better, but has a “my opponent won’t debate me. What is he hiding?” argument ever worked?
remember, we’re living in reality tv times. people love to watch scheming and cutthroat maneuvering. a part of that is being skeptical of everyone’s motives. i think for that cohort, especially those who are only now starting to think about the candidates, this ad will work quote well. also should work well in missouri (you know, the “show me” state. đŸ™‚
Maybe in another race, but it’s not like anyone can say they haven’t debated. Is anybody but Clinton clammering for more debates? It could very well be that TV-watching America is all debated-out for the time being.
<
p>After all, if you want to know where Obama or Clinton were on a particular position during a debate, all you have to do is go to youtube.
Yes.
have watched those debates? i’m not so sure. and also, enought time has lapsed that the candidates need to restate themselves.
<
p>also, at this point it is just clinton and obama. the debate can be much more in-depth than most have been in the past. no need for 30 sec. soundbites at this point.
<
p>i am nominally a clinton supporter, and i am clamoring for more debates. i want to hear them in-depth on the specifics again. and i’ve already voted in my primary!
I’m sure the people of Wisconsin would appreciate a Wisconsin-oriented debate. There are specific issues for specific states, which is why we typically do primaries a few states at a time (imho). The fact that there have been other debates out there doesn’t mean there have been debates that address the concerns and issues related to any particular state. Personally, I think if a state wants one, candidates should do what they can to provide it.
People aren’t really claiming that there should be 50 debates in an election cycle, one for each state, are they? Clinton and Obama have debated how many times already – 10? 15? There are additional debates scheduled February 21st and 26th in Austin, Texas and Cleveland, Ohio. Enough already. Debating is part of campaigning, but allowing time for other forums and appearances is also part of the process.
<
p>If we had a better coordinated primary schedule, this would be less of an issue.
have debated one on one a total of one time. There were lots of candidate forums with 3, 4, 5 and 6 candidates…but this process deserves some one on one debates.
<
p>What’s the problem with that? These two want to be the leader of the free world…there’s no question they should debate each other as much as possible before the end of the Primary process.
“debating as much as possible” in favor debating an appropriate number of times coupled with other kinds of appearances, such as speeches, rallies, town hall meetings etc.
It’s not a question of whether it would work, but whether it ever has. I can’t think of any examples, but that might just be because calling for more debates is almost always the calling card of the underdog.
if someone has done that research, i’m interested in seeing it too.
<
p>here is another honest question: why shouldn’t a candidate agree to continue debating? it is free advertising, isn’t it?
If the roles were reversed HRC wouldn’t go near a podium or a mike with opponent.She’s all done and everyone knows it. The end of the Clinton campaign is the 8000 Lbs elephant in the room at this very moment. The super delegates are heading for the lifeboats as we speak.
<
p>If Obama were smart he’d dispatch what’s left of her campaign as quickly and as aggressively as possible.
<
p>The Clinton attack machine is like a viper. It ain’t dead until you cut off it’s head.
<
p>My prediction: The Clinton campaign isn’t close to over. Watch for the NYTimes headline on March 5, “Hillary, Comeback Kid II”. She just has to weather this recent string of primary wins and Barackomania.
Polls out today show Hillary Clinton a 21-point lead in Ohio and a 16-point lead in Pennsylvania. And I’m pretty sure TExas is leaning her way as well. ( A late January poll had her up by 10).
<
p>This thing is not over. Not even close.
There are two links on the right side of BMG to entries indicating HRC got some good news today. She has won New Mexico with 14 out of 26 elected delegates. According to http://www.electoral-vote.com the most recent polls in WI, TX, OH, and PA all have her ahead. Wisconsin and Ohio polls are both since Super Tuesday and the other two are from January.
is because often candidates give in and have the debates. The very fact that they do, to me, suggests that it can sway polls.
just a note. i believe that the missouri primary already happened. obama won 49% to clinton’s 48%. they each got 36 pledged delagates.
but thanks for the numbers – facts are always welcome here.
I guess it depends what your definition of “worked” is. Did it pressure the other candidate to give in to debates? Did it hurt in the polls?
<
p>I know in ’92, GHW Bush refused to agree to the format recommendations of the Commission on Presidential Debates. He wanted to negotiate the details and Clinton wanted to accept the CPD recommendations without changes, resulting in a stalemate.
<
p>So the Clinton campaign began sending out folks in Chicken costumes to protest that Bush was “too chicken to debate.” Bush began to get all kinds of bad press about it and, on two occasions, even made the news debating the Chicken. “Leader of the Free World vs. Man in a Chicken Suit”
<
p>Bush ended up giving in and Clinton got his debates.
<
p>Link (Scroll down about halfway to a summary of the stories from ’92.)
<
p>(Disclosure: I was ‘Chicken George’ at a rally in PA.)
I remember this, but thought it was from a movie. The guy in the chicken soup gets belittled by an aide to the front runner, who then notices the TV cameras rolling, and asks them not to use that. I can’t remember what the movie was.
It was the West Wing, episode “Freedonia.” Want spoilers? Here you go.
You know, throw the media hounds out and just let Barack and Hillary debate one on one for an hour. I’d watch that.
Surpised at myself for forgetting that. Is the West Wing that far in the past. For some reason I remembered it as a scene from a Robert Redford “The Candidate” type movie. Aaron Sorkin, you may accept that as a compliment.
<
p>I think I had become an intermittent watcher at that point, and didn’t really follw the arc of the story that season, except to note that Alan Alda is very good at his chosen profession.
Please. We’ve had upwards of 17 or 18 debates, and both health care and foreclosures have been discussed plenty.
<
p>Here we are in CA debating health care and the mortgage crisis (1 minute in Sen. Clinton mentions it, 3 minutes in Obama responds):
<
p>
<
p>Here we are in South Carolina talking about health care:
<
p>
<
p>Here we are at a “YouTube Debate” where Obama discusses health care (Obama’s response at 1:58 min in):
<
p>Here’s Obama’s health care plan. And here’s his plan to protect homeownership and crack down on mortgage fraud.
<
p>The Clinton campaign is banking on a big win in Ohio and Texas, where media buys could amount to as much as $1million per day. Given the huge string of victories, she needs cheap exposure in these media markets quickly. That’s her motivation. It’s not out of a desire for better debates or getting a “real answer,” out of Obama. It isn’t “low politics,” or cynical politics to not debate these issues.
<
p>Now, if Clinton had come out and said that we haven’t heard great answers on Education (since that’s hardly been debated this cycle) or she wants more clarification on some other policy proposal not really well discussed, I’d say OK.
<
p>Oh, and by the way, there is a debate scheduled in Ohio on Feb. 27.
I meant to only put that second video in once…
Most of those other 18 were clogged up with the no-chance candidates.
What question on healthcare or foreclosures do you feel Obama has not answered? Perhaps we can do some digging to find out the answers to your question. But I’m pretty sure that he has answered the question posed by that Clinton blurb above.
they, like many (but not all!) elderly people, and people of slim means, do not have a computer, let alone internet access and will not be able to rummage through the youtube bins to re-visit former debates.
but my point wasn’t that they couldn’t, shouldn’t or wouldn’t say the same thing over again at a new debate. My point is only this:
<
p>1) Clinton’s campaign inferred Obama hasn’t answered the question of why, “Hillary Clinton has the only health care plan that covers every American, and the only economic plan that freezes foreclosures.” That is patently not true. At previous debates, he has answered just that question.
2) In fact the candidates will be debating again in Ohio.
3) There have already been something like 17 or 18 debates, and for people who have been paying attention, there’s not much new that comes out of these debates, most of the time, except for fighting of new one-liners. Certainly, we can agree there isn’t likely to be any new policy proposals that we haven’t heard before.
4) I provided links for Obama’s positions. If your parents don’t have a computer you can print them out and mail them. I bet they could even write or call the local office of the campaign for info. Not to mention the constant press (tv or otherwise) their positions have gotten.
5)…Therefore, it seems disingenuous to suggest that we need more debates because Obama hasn’t answered those specific questions. The motivation for more debates only comes because of Clinton’s position (which I think everybody can agree about). And see #2: they will be debating. There’s still another shot to hear their positions.
here is a partial reply:
1. you may be correct technically. but the question i was answering above was “will clinton’s ad work”. yes, i think it will because most people don’t watch all the debates until their own primary is breathing down their neck.
2. but apparently not WI. OH is too little too late for WI folks in need of a refresher.
3. see #1 above – most people don’t pay much attention until their own primary is upon them. i mean, who’s going to ski[p survivor for a debate 3 months ago? get real (or get tevo)!
4. well, that takes care of my parents. but what about all those oldies who don’t have an internet user/political junkie kid?
5. and so we disagree. respectfully of course.
I think we agree more than we disagree.
<
p>1) I wasn’t responding directly to you with my original comment. As for “will the ads work?” question I frankly have no idea. But I know I don’t really like Democrats attacking other Democrats when McCain is building his strength.
<
p>2) Okay, not in Wisconsin. I hope they will debate in Wisconsin. I just think that it’s not exactly a shame if they don’t, and the ad is disingenuous.
<
p>3) Fair enough, most of those debates included Biden, Dodd, Richardson, Kucinich and Gravel. But but Americans were paying attention a lot earlier than usual. Still, okay, why not more recent debates?
<
p>4) As I said, if there is a question they have there are three different Wisconsin offices they can call. Or ask their friends & family. Or pick up a newspaper. Or watch TV. Yes – many people don’t have internet. But there’s no shortage of alternative ways of finding out the answers to any burning questions one may have. And by the way, I’m not really sure a debate would exactly answer those questions.
<
p>5) Let me just say I’d like more debates. I’m not arguing that we shouldn’t have more debates. But it seems disingenuous to be using the arguments Clinton does in that ad.
seriously, why are you arguing so heavily for less debates? People unfortunately tune in when they want to tune in. For millions of Americans, that means just before they vote. For millions of Americans, their votes will be coming up shortly and they may like the chance to catch some or part of a 1v1 democratic primary debate.
<
p>I get that there can be debate overload. No one here is asking you, personally, to watch them. There doesn’t have to be a debate that benefits you to actually be a beneficial debate.
I never argued for fewer debates. I just argued that Clinton’s demands were disingenuous.
but that doesn’t mean what she’s calling for is any less valid.
The posts you made on the matter were really confusing if what you really think is that there should be more debates, after all, and that Hillary is right to think so (even if she’s being disingenuous to an extent).
More debates are a bad thing?
<
p>The fact of the matter is many debate answers are repetitive. I’ve seen that even in local elections. However, not all of the answers are. Furthermore, when debates are held in different locations, local or state issues can pop up and I think that an important thing in these kinds of elections. A POTUS ought to know the critical issues in a particular state.
Oh Ryan. No, I never said more debates are a bad thing. I said that making an attack ad against a fellow Democrat is a bad thing. I said that this particular line of reasoning for a debate is disingenuous. Find me where I said that more debates would be a “bad thing.”
and more power to her.
If someone proposed a debate focusing on the environment and climate change, that would be great. Those topics have been quite under-covered in the many many debates we’ve had so far.
That, education, competition with China/India, Latin America/South America foreign policy….I can think of a few more… all of those have been under-covered.
Those would be excellent subjects. Even if the candidates agreed, the discussion would be useful — and no doubt there would be some areas of disagreement anyway.
i think we must remember that debates have value beyond the campaign aims of the two candidates – they have value in getting the overall dem message out there. think of it as product saturation. of the next dozen opportunities for independents and disaffected republicans to see presidential candidates being substantive on the tellie, how many will be dems and how many goopers? i prefer the majority to be dems. but that’s just me.
Not to pick on afertig. But.
<
p>There seem to be a number of people who are saying, We’ve voted. Surely other people don’t need to vote.
<
p>We’ve heard debates. Surely we don’t need any more.
<
p>We’ve had the campaign. Can’t it be done now?
<
p>At the risk of being obvious: They do, we do, and no.
… a new kind of politics requires someone to completely forgo any sort of strategic thinking during an election? Does Obama have to do something that his campaign apparently thinks favors his opponent with nothing in return? Does “a new kind of politics” inherently require losing to “business as usual?” due to a strategic straightjacket?
<
p>I’m generally of the “more debates = better” camp. But I’m personally debated-out. Further, the policy differences between these candidates aren’t all that large, and all that relevant (how much of a Presidential candidate’s platform ever gets implemented verbatim?). The differences here are all about character, experience, etc. Debates illuminate these qualities somewhat, but they are mostly about debating skills, which are certainly relevant, but not the #1 determinant of presidential qualifications (giving effective speeches, for one, ranks higher). Plus, most national-level debate moderators are worse than useless in terms of producing a meaningful debate.
<
p>But, if you’re convinced Obama is unfairly ducking out, and thirst for more debates, let me propose a compromise to both camps: Obama agrees to some debates if HRC releases her tax records. Sunlight for everyone.
Wait, you don’t want to hear more about who Martin Luther King and Ronald Reagan would endorse?
<
p>MLK:
<
p>Reagan:
i think that we need some new debate subjects that turn the tables a bit. for example, obama should be asked if he prefers wing-tips with pin stripes or solids, and how that all effects the choice of tie. a follow-up might include how he coordinates sock color with the season. clinton should be asked, given that her husband was once declared our first black president, whether she is a white enough and whether people will be voting for her only because they want to get a black first gentleman into the white house.
…there has been only one debate between Clinton and Obama. The rest of the gatherings were multi-candidate forums, which cannot be called debates.
<
p>One of these two candidates is likely to become the next leader of the free world. I think they owe it to the American public to have as many debates as possible before the end of Primary season.
This is just another desperate ploy by Clinton – who in running for Senate reelect in 2006 wouldn’t debate her Democratic challenger once (smart politics of course) and hardly let her Republican challenger on stage with her.
<
p>He agreed to two debates with her – Ohio and Texas so enough of this shit…He does not have an obligation to have a debate with her everytime she asks for one.
So the reason Obama doesn’t have to debate more than twice is because Clinton refused to debate her Republican opponent in the 2006 NY Senate race.
<
p>So much for the politics of hope, or a different kind of politics, or whatever, I guess.
.. that the “Politics of Hope” is in reality the “Sound Bites of Hope…….
In Obama’s case, imo, the rhetoric never matched the substance. I bought it with Deval – and still buy it – because it’s just more genuine: with the exception of casinos, he’s been entirely consistent in his campaign and as governor, be it marriage equality or getting corporations to pay their fair share (even if he’s willing to compromise more on the matter than I am). With Obama, there’s been simply too many mixed messages coming from Obama for me to actually buy in, as if he was trying to spin the conversation one way with a certain group of people and another with everyone else: in favor of glbt rights, but then propping up anti-glbt reverends in his campaign to stump for him. Dissing SS, but under the guise of fixing it when it’s not in any real danger. Praising Ronald Reagan, but not really actually praising him. Supporting liquid coal, then not supporting it. Heck, being against the Iraq war before he decided to fund it 69/70 times. It’s just enough to tell the Ronald-Reagan loving, Global-Warming skeptics, homophobic voters that maybe he doesn’t really think those things, after all.
<
p>He can’t be all things to all people, sending the token, hidden messages to certain groups about one thing, but then adamantly denying the fact that that’s what he’s trying to do. If that’s the case, he shouldn’t be so damn confusing with these mixed messages. I’m sick of all these typically wonderful posters defending him over and over again – so I’m glad to see you, Bob, finally realizing what Obama really is: a phony. He’s a politician running for POTUS saying and doing a lot of things that contradict each other. Unfortunately, we could ask for a whole lot more out of him, because he really hasn’t delivered.
<
p>These were all very real concerns that so many people been willing to ignore in the quest for this positive spin of his campaign. I just never chose to drink the kool-aid this time around, because I have a newsflash: on the issues, there’s very little difference between the candidates in this race. Obama isn’t all about hope, he simply has Deval’s best message guy on his campaign and knows that people like to paint in just what their belief of “hope” actually is. I’m sorry, but I know too damn much about politics and political messaging to actually buy into the fake crap at this point. There needs to be something genuine behind that message of hope – and all these mixed messages ruined it for me in terms of being able to buy in to Obama.
<
p>It all comes down to who we trust most in office. In the grand scheme of things, I can’t trust the mixed signals, especially when there’s another candidate with a much longer record – not anywhere near a perfect one, but one where we’re at least guaranteed incremental progress and competence, if nothing else. That candidate has a damn good energy and health care plan, as well as many other good plans as well, many of which are better than what Obama has to offer IMO. Will she succeed in passing those plans? Who knows, but she’s got just as good a shot as Obama and – given the mixed signals he sends – I trust her a helluva lot more to actually follow through on them.
You have for some reason decided that because Obama talks about unity (not bipartisanship mind you) that he is sending mixed signals. You just have a script about the guy and despite all evidence to the contrary you just can’t let it go that Obama is some conciliator and would-be betrayer of the progressive cause. You are seriously deluded.
<
p>National Journal said he was the most liberal Senator this term. He is a stalwart progressive in deed and action. Always has been. And the great thing about it is despite this he actually gets independents to be excited about his candidacy. Clinton is actually someone who will triangulate her own party to win and yet Republicans and independents hate her. Who would you rather have – a centrist hated by the other side or a progressive the other side actually kinda likes.
<
p>You just want candidates to get up there and tell you exactly what you want to hear – that Republicans suck and that they are the problem. The thing is, he has to talk to a country that is not BMG liberals like you and he does a damn good job pursuing progressive goals while bringing a broad coalition of folks together. That is the key to progressive politics – building coalitions around a new direction and it ain’t gonna happen if he just goes out with a spate of negativity and bluster as you’d prescribe.
<
p>If you want someone to tell you exactly what you want to hear you should just talk to yourself. Obama is not trying to be all things to all people – he is trying to be all things to enough people to actually change the country. Why a progressive would not respect his success so far in doing that is beyond me. No one in decades has been able to do that.
As far as I’m concerned, he’s not even in the cause. He’s not for gay equality, he’s not for universal insurance and he’s continually funded the war in Iraq. I’m trying to say that he’s trying to play as if he’s in the cause to people that want him in there, while he’s trying to show the non-progressive Dems that he isn’t in the cause at all, because that’s what they want.
<
p>Call me deluded or anything you want, but the fact of the matter is he does a lot of things that should concern everyone here. For same insane reason, a lot of intelligent people are willing to ignore it, but I just can’t. I could never vote for someone who props up homophobic reverends, or supports liquid coal, or pretends to be an anti-war candidate when he’s funded the war all along. I’m just not buying. There was not one iota of Senatorial leadership in his regime to indicate that he’s – as of yet – worthy for POTUS. He needs a few more years in that office to season his skills, get more accomplishments under his belt and learn to not be afraid of the liberal and/or progressive tag, because it’s what our country most desperately needs – and will vote for, if we get a strong one up there. That could be Obama, but not in the ’08 incarnation.
Again, he was named the most liberal Senator this year.
<
p>I’m all for gay marriage and he is not – but he is for civil unions and I don’t think being fully for gay marriage is the sole determinant for being a progressive.
<
p>On the war, he was against it when it mattered. Once our troops are in there it is just not easy to leave or to cut off their funds. But he is for ending it. He voted repeatedly to end it. If you want him to take a vote against the funds for 150,000 soldiers in the field, then you are basically asking he and other Democratic candidates to lose the next election. And, I also question whether it really is the right thing to do in policy terms. We should never have gone into Iraq but we messed that place up and to just leave it as so many fellow progressives want seems to be a really stupid policy and irresponsible to values we hold dear – like not destroying a country and then walking away from the damage we did there.
<
p>On the Senatorial leadership front – the idea he has done nothing is plain hokum. I’m not saying he has been a dynamo but getting a few bills passed is not necessarily the skills needed for a president. There is a reason no sitting US Senator has won the presidency since Kennedy. Being a Senator is not necessarily what you need to be president.
<
p>Did you listen to his speech in Madison the other night? he praised the progressive tradition of Wisconsin. The LaFolletes (who mind you were progressive Republicans when there was such a thing) and other leaders in passing foremost labor legislation at the time.
<
p>And the liquid coal thing. Yeah – I thought that kinda sucked to, but he backed off that position and in the end it had been largely dictated by the coal interests in his home state. Illinois is sitting on oceans of coal, as much or more than the oil in Arabia and Obama was trying to represent the downstate voters who are suffering economically there and not just the lilly suburbs and high rises of Chicago’s North Side. Its not easy for a Senator from a coal state to say coal sucks. There a progressive reps and Senators from Michigan – good on every issue, but crappy on fuel efficiency standards. Why? Because the UAW and unions fear they cost jobs and that is a core vote for dems in the rust belt. Be real. A lot of people acuse Obama of naivete and then when he shows balance on some difficult issues they acuse him of selling out. By your standards very few candidates would ever meet the bar and get elected nationally.
<
p>For some reason you seem to be picking out every little reason not to support Obama. I know he doesn’t agree with me on everything – but he agrees on the direction of travel I’d like to see our country head in and he is the best candidate our party has had for a long time. If you want to a 100% “liberal” candidate support Kucinich.
You can say he was named the most liberal… but lots of organizations make lots of pronouncments… and, honestly, I don’t give a frack. He’s still not for marriage equality, he’s still propping up homophobic ministers, he’s still stumping on SS reform… he’s still doing a lot of things that no progressive, or liberal, would be doing in their right mind. Hence mixed messages. He’s certainly being smart about it, trying to play both camps, but as I’ve said over and over again… I’m just not buying.
<
p>Under no circumstances am I looking for someone who’s 100% liberal. I didn’t vote for Kucinich because I couldn’t have, given his general incompetence. But is it too much to ask for a candidate that’s at least consistent? For a candidate who calls for universal healthcare – and actually has a package that delivers it, to boot?
<
p>Pray, then, tell – what does Obama have to run on? Hope? Mixed messages? His tenure in the state legislature? His candidacy is, at this point, a joke. I just find it hard to believe there aren’t 300 million Americans, in unison, laughing.
<
p>So the 69 out of 70 times he voted to fund it the same way as Hillary was when it didn’t matter? You aren’t helping your argument one iota.
<
p>
<
p>I see no reason to vote for him, that’s the problem. I love the hope and change message as much as the rest of them, but hope and change without the sort of context and genuineness that comes with it isn’t a candidate I’m willing to buy into, especially when the opponent has important domestic plans that are actually better for America. Please keep in mind that I’m not some Hillary-loving voter, either. A year ago, the thought of voting for Hillary would have been hilarious… it just goes to show you how bad our choices actually are, even if people think them fantastic or something.
Funny how they said that about John Kerry in 2004, just in time to hurt his Presidential bid, even though it wasn’t really true by any reasonable measure because it simply ignored votes he wasn’t there for, and how now suddenly it comes out that they’re making the same, probably still dubious, claim about the apparent Democratic front-runner this time.
For one, I feel like debates tell us nothing about how well a candidate will do once elected. I posted that some time ago on this site and most people agreed with me. They are good theatre and good for the media, but just because you score a few wins on the soundbite front does not mean shit. Hillary is good at arguing – better than Obama so she has usually bested him at debates. But, still I think he will make a far better president.
<
p>Let’s also remember Al Gore tanked his candidacy because he sighed too much at one debate, then was too docile and that was the Bush-fed media spin on it and it hurt. So because of debates that made Gore look like an ass it helped Dubya get elected. So much for the value of debates. Nixon lost to JFK in debates because he was too sweaty – important factor that.
<
p>Obama really has little to gain from too many debates – as an Obama supporter I would think you’d recognise that. They don’t play to his strengths so why should he put himself through them weekly in every state because Clinton demands it.
<
p>Two, the point about Clinton is that she doesn’t believe in debates as adding to the democratic process – she didn’t in her previous runs for office. She only wants em because she is desperate to get some free media hits on Obama.
<
p>And I tend to think the politics of hope, where you go out and talk to people directly and get them to come together around common issues and build a grass roots organisation is more important than standing on a stage arguing with your opponent.
<
p>Debates are overrated and usually the winner is determined on some minor point and not on anything substantive. Clinton is a hypocrit on this and Obama should not be baited into doing something that is unhelpful to his candidacy. The politics of hope will not be fulfilled by the politics of stupidity.
<
p>
Hillary and Bill Clinton make the US Marine’s invasion of Iwo Jima and Okinawa look like a Sunday school outing. They will cut his throat, and throw hime down the stairs before he knows what is happening. The type of human beings they are and will always will be is why over half of America will not vote for her no matter who her opponent is. The Clinton’s are unethical, innoral, dishonest, corrupt and a host of other adverse adjectives that woulkd be redundant; however, accurate.
But the point that the Clintons would have something up their sleeve is a good one. Their “win at all costs” mentality shouldn’t be rewarded.
are playing the win-at-all-costs game, the Clintons are just the ones who are getting the negative press about it.
…Clinton releases her tax returns.
just go ahead and accuse her with a crime. Why dance around the implication?
Who knows? Why hide it?
know all your medical issues, see the list of books you read at the library or buy from amazon…unless you have something to hide.
<
p>congratulations for using bush’s a#1 talking point.
… releasing tax returns is standard practice for candidates, isn’t it? Bringing in Bush’s surveillance state into the conversation is completely specious.
<
p>I made a similar suggestion like this earlier. If you’re going to cluck about Obama’s strategic decision to not debate on HRC’s terms, I’m going to cluck about Hillary’s strategic decision to not release her records, which is, again, pretty standard practice for public candidates.
<
p>It would be great if the major candidates had planned in advance that after Super Tuesday that any candidate with X or more delegates should debate, say, weekly. But they didn’t, so now any decision to debate or not debate is all about strategy. I can’t blame a guy for making choices that he thinks will help his chances of winning.
<
p>–
<
p>By the way, Stanford Law Prof. had this to say about Hillary earlier; she hasn’t always been so high and mighty about debates:
<
p>
i’m objecting to the obnoxious
anyone who writes such crap is drooling for there to be dirt on the 1040. candidates release personal information at a time they feel it is in the best interest of their campaign to do so. i think you understand that, but really don’t want to.
Clinton has no obligation to release her returns.
<
p>Obama has no obligation to debate.
<
p>You seem to feel that Obama cannot request a favor in return for a favor.
…then maybe she should campaign there as well. She’s not due to appear in WI before Saturday.
<
p>http://www.hillaryclinton.com/…
A debate for WI voters would be good for WI voters. Many WI voters would tune in. It would address issues that WI voters care about, which aren’t necessarily issues that have been covered in every debate – or any, for that matter. This whole question really isn’t about Hillary Clinton and everyone – including you – who tries to make it so is losing the BMG debate, quite handily.
then somehow its a good thing for the democratic process? What are these Wisconsin issues that are so demanding of a public debate? In Iowa we had too much of that ethanol junk to talk about. Obama just unveiled a comprehensive jobs plan at a GM plant in Wisconsin – I think that was plenty to offer the voters of the Badger State.
<
p>And I like watching debates as much as the next guy but I don’t think Obama has been shy of debating or is shy now. But why shouldn’t he play to his strengths in building a movement for progressive change. Playing to 20,000 in Madison was a far better use of his time than playing one liners with Clinton.
<
p>There is no obligation for Obama to debate wherever Clinton says he should just because she now thinks she is losing and is good at arguing in front of the camera.
For voters to vote for Obama, either.
<
p>
<
p>That’s a good question, but unfortunately I don’t have an answer because, guess what, I’m from the other side of the freaking country.
<
p>I repeat a claim I made to Afertig: just because a debate isn’t beneficial to you, doesn’t mean it won’t be a beneficial debate. Take a chill pill and calm down.
didn’t debate here in Boston. Were we cheated out of an airing of our special issues?
<
p>I guess you think there should be 50 debates in each state every election. Then every state could have their day in the sun. So we could talk about struggling cod fishermen, Floridians could talk about disaster insurance, Arizonans could talk about endangered lizards, and on and on. Then every state could be effectively pandered to.
I personally was very disappointed the Kennedy library debate in December got canceled. I think a lot of people would like a local debate where ever they are.
<
p>Though I think the Clinton attack ad is extremely disingenuous, I think Obama should do the debate because George Stephanopoulos is far better than the moderators we’ve had at recent debates or at the upcoming debates (Wolf Blitzer and Tim Russert come to mind immediately) and because Obama shouldn’t give any indication he’s taking Wisconsin for granted: he needs to run up the score there as well as tighten the gaps in Ohio and Texas to stay well ahead.
<
p>Personally, I love multi-candidate forums, and at this point think we should have all 5 candidates still running (Obama, Clinton, McCain, Huckabee, and Paul – Gravel and Keyes don’t count) on stage together now that each side is down to a level to combine them. Wider discourse will increase party unity and also find real strong differences with the opposite party, instead of focusing on increasingly minor and trivial policy differences.
<
p>2. Massachusetts held its primary on Super Duper Tuesday, which means its ability to be important flew out the window. If we held it on a Tuesday that few states had a primary on, you bet we’d have probably had a debate. It’s simply unrealistic to expect there to be 20 or so debates right before an election like that. It’s not so unrealistic to expect Ohio, Texas and Wisconsin to have debates for their scheduled primaries.
<
p>While you may scoff at the importance of state issues coming up in debates, imagine if NY or California held its primaries first in the nation. That would mean candidates would have to address urban issues, as opposed to ethanol and corn. I’ve met a lot of people who are more intelligent than you or I who think our cities would be far better off if a few states with large cities primaries of paramount importance every 4 years – becuase then poverty, public transportation and affordable housing would be hugely serious issues in the race, like they are in the country over all.
<
p>But keep on arguing for less debates for less people. It’s really a good, winning strategy.
at debates in individual states but I think it is a massive pile of hypocrisy for Clinton to say that Obama is ducking her when he has just agreed two debates with her.
<
p>And beyond that, I also think debates are massively overrated as means of judging the candidates. Debates usually are judged on style and not substance, soundbites and not judgement. Let’s not overemphasise how important they are in determining who is the best candidate. A good debater is not always the right nominee.
<
p>I’m not arguing for fewer debates, but I just don’t think that more of em is alwats a good thing as well. And certainly for Obama’s sake it definitely isn’t a good thing – he does better talking directly to voters and meeting them and feeding off the crowd. Debates don’t offer that so why should he rush headlong into doing something that is not to his advantage. Because its good for democracy?
<
p>I have yet to be convinced that more debates ensures a better democracy.
<
p>From what I can tell, the excitement Obama has generated, the new people he has interested in politics, the numbers of Democrats turning out because he made this is a competitive race and not a Clinton coronation, the grassroots organisations he leaves behind in state after state, many of which have been long neglected by national dems (particularly the Clintons)is what has been the most positive thing that has happened in American politics in a long time.
<
p>To be sucked in by more BS Clinton campaign tactics and hypocrisy on this debate point is ridiculous. They give nothing for the democratic process (see trying to disenfranchise Las Vegas union voters)- only what the democratic process gives to them.
the media will judge it how they want to judge it, but the people watching will do the same… independently of the media.
<
p>
<
p>I’m not, nor do I suggest anyone else be sucked in. The important question is irregardless of Clinton and Obama’s campaign tactics, would a WI debate be good for the WI voters? That answer is yes. There’s a second important question: is a WI debate feasible in this election? The answer to that question is yes. Therefore, I submit it would be good of both candidates to agree to that particular debate, where WI issues could come up and WI voters would have a chance to judge the candidates themselves.
Much to my surprise, we mattered this time.
<
p>Imagine where things would be right now had Obama won Massachusetts by as wide a margin as Clinton did.
<
p>Maybe we’d have mattered more if we hadn’t been jumbled in with the rest of the Legion of Super Tuesdays. But I saw energized energized volunteers holding signs for both candidates.
<
p>We were in play and what we did made a strategic difference to the campaigns, and unless you’re from Iowa or New Hampshire you don’t get more relevant than that.
Obama was never able to get in play in this state, because he didn’t have the time to truly campaign here. Why? Because we had our primary the same day as about 20 other states. If it were a week or so after, who knows what would have happened in the Bay State. At least, it may not have been a blowout for Hillary.
This whole question certainly is about Hillary Clinton. And what she believes. It’s about what Both candidates believe. What good would a debate do anyone if that weren’t the case?
Also, why would you presume to know what the debate questions would be about? You have no idea what would be covered. Did they debate FISA and other IT issues at the YouTube debates?
Location does not always dictate content, relevance or viewrship. Sure there might be a few cheese related Q’s, but the overall goal of the debate would be about national issues, just like the rest of them.
and stop dropping Zeros on my posts that don’t warrant them.
<
p>Zeros are meant for offensive posts or posts that break board rules. If you don’t agree with my point and don’t think I backed it up, a “4” would be appropriate. But you’d be wrong and I’d let you know the reasons why.
<
p>Now, to tackle your points: either having more debates is a good thing, or it isn’t. WI voters, I’m sure, would like a WI debate. Hillary of course may want more debates because she tends to perform well in them, but the fact of the matter is they benefit voters. Voters deserve them when there’s an opportunity to have them. The WI debate is one of those opportunities.
<
p>
<
p>I don’t, that’s the whole point. State-specific questions often come up in forums that happen in a particular state. For example, a lot of questions surrounding agriculture, ethanol, etc. can come up in Iowa… because those questions are important to Iowan voters. In the SC debate, a lot of questions that are important to African Americans came up, which makes a lot of sense given that half the primary vote in SC is made up of African American voters. If there were a debate in a state with big cities, I guarantee you that at least one or two urban-related questions will come up that weren’t asked in most debates that preceded them. Do I know what those questions will be? No, because I’m not from those freaking states. Thanks for making my point for me!
<
p>
<
p>That’s fundamentally wrong. I can give at least 3-4 examples of forums that were issue specific and either online or on national tv. Furthermore, I could probably come up with a lengthy list of issues that came up in debates precisely because they’re important to that state’s voters. That said, I’m not going to waste my time on someone who leaves zeros on comments merely because they disagree with them – which is a complete and fundamental violation of this blog’s rules.
is not to show what she believes, but to point out how disingenuous she sounds. Whether they should debate is a separate point, but she has little standing to demand one when she doesn’t even to bother showing up in Wisconsin until 3 days before the election.
Obama has already debated HRC and has already agreed to do so again.
since you have the power of clairvoyance, i’m hoping you can tell me the big numbers for thursday.
what Hillary thinks or wants, what mattes is what’s good for WI voters and Democracy. Hell, I’m just going to copy and paste this:
<
p>A debate for WI voters would be good for WI voters. Many WI voters would tune in. It would address issues that WI voters care about, which aren’t necessarily issues that have been covered in every debate – or any, for that matter. This whole question really isn’t about Hillary Clinton, everyone who tries to make it so – including you – is losing the BMG debate, quite handily.
then somehow its a good thing for the democratic process? What are these Wisconsin issues that are so demanding of a public debate? In Iowa we had too much of that ethanol junk to talk about. Obama just unveiled a comprehensive jobs plan at a GM plant in Wisconsin – I think that was plenty to offer the voters of the Badger State.
And I like watching debates as much as the next guy but I don’t think Obama has been shy of debating or is shy now. But why shouldn’t he play to his strengths in building a movement for progressive change. Playing to 20,000 in Madison was a far better use of his time than playing one liners with Clinton.
<
p>There is no obligation for Obama to debate wherever Clinton says he should just because she now thinks she is losing and is good at arguing in front of the camera.
I think you’d be singing a different tune if the situation were reversed. No, he has no obligation to agree to the debates, but neither do voters have an obligation to vote for a candidate who’s too afraid to stand up to his opponent on the issues. Disaster insurance in Florida – an example you used in a different post – is a perfect example of why state issue debates are important. It’s an imperative issue in Florida… and it actually has important meaning for the east and west coasts. Most of these issues do spill over into other states, which is why having a debate in a state that has its own, unique primary or is only one of two or three on a particular day is important. Obviously, there can’t be 50 debates for every 50 states, but as long as there aren’t 4-5 primaries, or more, going on in a particular week, there’s no reason why candidates shouldn’t agree to a debate in a state. The fact of the matter is people only tend to tune in at the last minute – it’s a fact of life – so trying to work with the human condition as we try to educate voters and give them the information they need to make a good choice isn’t a bad idea.
He’s not rushing to debate her because: 1. He doesn’t need to and 2. it doesn’t help him.
<
p>It’s not rocket science. This is one of those issues that only resonates with the True Believers on the blogs. “More democracy, RAH, RAH, RAH…” Whatever that means.
<
p>He’s afraid a debate could potentially hurt him, which is why he won’t agree to do the WI one.
<
p>WI voters deserve the debate since it’s perfectly reasonable to have it, given the time constraints and the issues that could pop up in a WI debate – which is a unique state that’s different from many of the areas where debates have been held in the past.
<
p>Seriously, arguing for less debates and less democracy is neither a winning argument, nor good for the progressive movement. But keep on arguing to let the moneyed interests, ads and lobbyists keep on having the power. That’ll REALLY help improve the democratic condition.
How is having not as many debates as Clinton supporters would like “less democratic?” Is there voting going on at these debates that I don’t know about?
<
p>And no… saying “it doesn’t help him” is not the same as “he’s afraid of her.” Nice try though.
<
p>Does that help answer your question? Arguing for less debates, when there’s an opportunity for more, is arguing for less democracy. I’m sorry, but that’s just a fact. Too much about elections depends on money and friends. A debate requires neither and will get free press. I’m arguing for more democracy, not less… I just wish people could separate Clinton from this matter, think clearly and actually see how very wrong they are.
That’s not a 0 comment. Sorry.
joined today. I’m guessing he thinks that one gives zeros to comments that one really, really disagrees with (a fair misunderstanding). That’s what one gives a 3 to (but a response is better). A zero is for things that are out of bounds, like personal attacks.
a 3 should be given to a comment that isn’t well thought, written or backed up – either through logic, facts or links.
If you go to my Ratings Given page, you will see that I give sixes and almost nothing else. I have given out more zeros than threes.
• Don’t even try to run from me. I found most of my husband’s girlfriends, and I’ll find you.
<
p>• Nice campaign headquarters you have here. It’d be a shame if it were ever triangulated.
<
p>• You’re worried about Bill? Wait you see what we have planned for Roger.
so constantly bringing up the multi candidate debates does not exactly answer the question. And why are Obama supporters so sensitive that evry time Hillary does some standard campaign practice, she’s somehow being less than honest? She does better in debates, so she wants more debates. What’s wrong with that? Obama does better in controlled environments, where he can employ his soaring rhetoric and not take questions, kind of like GWB, minus the soaring rhetoric. I think what Hillary is doing is much less disingenuous than Obama claiming to run a race-free campaign, then playing the race card every chance he gets. Of course, we can always take aftertig’s suggestion: print out pages from the candidates’ web sites and mail them to your parents. Wow. That’s democracy in action.
<
p>I think Obama has run a great campaign but amid all the plaudits, I hope people will realize that a lot of his success stems from the fact that the press is in love with him, and takes everything he says as gospel. Every move Hillary has made has been scrutinized to a ridiculous degree. Meanwhile, his surrogates have been painting the Clintons as racists since New Hampshire, and I think he should be ashamed. But whatever it takes to win, I guess.
<
p>And by the way, the analogy between the inferences about tax returns and the surveillance stae are apt. Whenever anyone wants to protect their right to privacy, there’s someone ready to say “what have you got to hide?” It’s specious and demagogic.
1, The Clintons need a way to close the fundraising gap by cheaply keeping Hill on the television. She just wants a platform for her rhetoric that doesn’t cost $1mil per week. Simple as that.
<
p>2, They just can’t help themselves. The Clintons’ devide and conquer campaign strategy is well known. This comes as no surprise, as she has always been willing to sacrifice party unity for a win. It’s about her, not us.
you come here and throw anti-clinton mud and talk about party unity? what a riot! i’ve seen several of your comments pop up so far today, and not one has anything positive to say about anyone, your preferred candidate (huckabee? paul?) included. such cheap shots get very little traction around here. ta ta for now.
I guess I should try to figure this out myself, but I’m being lazy and just asking the question.
<
p>Has Obama said he won’t debate? Has he given a reason why? IF this is the FAUX NEWS debate that Hillary has agreed to do, perhaps he does not want to participate in their facade, which was a position of the Democrats, the netroots, and many other progressive activists earlier in this season.
I’m wondering when this Wisconsin ABC debate was going to be. Yesterday being Valentine’s day and the rest of the time til the primary being President’s day weekend, none of the time between this ad coming out and the primary would have been ideal for a debate. Thursday night no one would’ve paid attention, and during the long holiday weekend, it’s clearly beneficial for both campaigns to be doing ground level campaigning.
<
p>I again haven’t found out when it was scheduled to be, and if there’s a realistic timeslot for it before the election, they should try and do it. But they have two debates between now and the Tuesday That Used To Be Super, so the complaint is at least somewhat disingenuous, and probably too late if the Clinton campaign were seriously interested in shaming Obama into a Wisconsin debate.