Debate without moderator? Obama declines

Source: AP/MSNBC


'I'm not ducking. We've had 21 debates' already, he says of Clinton idea

updated 12:10 p.m. ET, Sun., April. 27, 2008
MARION, Ind. - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama on Sunday brushed aside a challenge from Hillary Rodham Clinton to debate before the May 6 primaries in Indiana and North Carolina.

On Saturday, Clinton said she wants Obama to face off with her in a debate without a moderator, Lincoln-Douglas style.

“I’m not ducking. We’ve had 21” debates, Obama said on “Fox News Sunday.”

skip

Dean: 'Close to a tie here'
Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean said superdelegates should make known their choices on the Democratic nominee for president by the end of June. Ultimately, he said he believes their decisions will be based on who is more electable, rather than necessarily who has the most pledged delegates, because that is what party rules stipulate.





Read more: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24327554

---

Got time to kiss FOX News and Chris Wallace's neo-con ass but not to engage in a REAL debate. BO is a chicken-shit dissimulator and a sure loser if he is on the ballot in November. I agree with Dean, whoever is most likely to be elected in the general is the predicating factor for our nominee, not January caucus numbers.

Personally, I would like to see them have a real debate. These things we call debates are not debates at all. I would like to see them really take on the hard issues and make their case. I think that the remaining voters and the SD's would like to see that as well.

It is a strategic decision for him and I will respect his decision.

Judith Swallow, and Bill Moyers were the question-askers.

Hell, I'd PAY to hear that debate.

The candidates would be in trouble.

see Amy Goodman interiew Vladmir Putin.

What do you bet she'd have him in a pool of his own tears inside five minutes?

They won't get within a mile of her.

That's why I was so shocked to see Greenspan on her show. The guy's got guts to get on that show, even if he was promoting his book.

there at all is a point in his favor.

politicians were consistently required to as and answer questions by reporters of Goodmans quality.

Unfortunately, more likely, we'd get bolder liars.

What the hell is wrong with this system?

Give me a heads up when the dancing girls get to your house.

She obviously saw through his blustering bullshit from the word 'go' and never looked back.

Wait -- cars in the driveway -- the dancers are here.

Over & out!

But Clinton showed in last week's debate that she's no more likely to focus on the real issues concerning Americans than the sensationalist TV hosts.

It's all issues, issues, issues. And, probably because it's so early in the process (and in Iowa), the candidates are on their best behavior. Whatever the reasons, it's too bad we only get one of them.

He was shown for who he is without the pre-canned speech and handlers telling him what to say.

Good for him.

would he do that...he is the nominee and why pretend anything else..

:kick:

Hillary was so disingenuous as to make me squirm. I was on the fence until not too long ago and the debate sealed it for me. Obama was the only one speaking to issues. Hillary was making stuff up. She characterized the Weather Underground as a group that "killed people" in order to damage Obama (who has almost no connection to the already pardoned members in question). Never mind that the Weather Underground never killed anyone but their own, and by accident. She's such a liar (and a bad one), and I don't want a liar in office.

From where I was sitting, Hillary seemed petty, angry, bitter, conniving and brutish. I don't want any of those qualities in a president sitting across the table from Iran... Oh wait, she is threatening to obliterate them in a nuclear mushroom cloud. Great! That's the kind of leadership I was looking for. --sarcasm---

And she has a set of hairy testicles dangling between her legs to prove it! Billary is proving her desperation with this maneuver.

time to focus on mccain.

her "debate" proposal is simply flamebait and, as per usual, an attempt obfuscate whatever argument he makes.

I see what Clinton has to gain - another opportunity to try to get Obama to make a fatal mistake, and step up as the default alternative... but what's in it for Obama?

you had it right at the title.

he has the nomination. there is no possible way for her to win it now.. she's like the concern troll the mods hesitate to delete because she's a long-time poster.

I seem to remember when *she* was ahead, and didn't care to bother with debating.

There's no reason he should do this. There's nothing in it for him. He ought to choose how best to spend his time, not allow the Clinton campaign to dictate it to him.

I think he ought to debate as often as possible. First of all it's free air time. Secondly, there just might be more undecided voters left in the country. And lastly, it's a chance for him to clear up all the misconceptions about his gravitas and depth by finally telling us HOW he's going to make the CHANGE he's calling for, and WHAT that CHANGE will entail.

I would welcome a debate if I were him, unless, of course, all is not as it seems.

That and appearances. I think those efforts are far more likely to influence any undecided voters than the gazillionth televised debate.

Who do you think watches those, anyway? People like us, who probably aren't undecided.

So I guess it's more politics as usual. hahaha... I don't fault him for it, but he has to work on getting more weight behind him, so I would like to see him do that, particularly because he is the front-runner and I want to know he's not a pig in a poke.

The both have strong arguments and I think for the job they both have enough experience, after all the president whoever they might be will have a cabinet to advise them as well as the congress and the senate so to try to use "experience" or a lack there of is just bogus in my opinion.

Clinton Q2: Why do you hate America?
Clinton Q3: Tell me why you agree with everything your pastor says.
Clinton Q4: I like Crown Royal, why don't you-you elitist?

We don't need any more of that bullshit.

she wants to ask him again about wright, ayers, wearing a flag pin. she wants to bite his nuts off. sorry hillary, he knows what you're up to.

"The MOST delegates wins."

There will be no goalpost moving to satisfy Hillary's ego.

The simple fact is that Obama has places to go, people to meet, in order to get his message out to the voters. Why should he waste that valuable time "debating" Hillary - yet again!

Just because she's broke, that doesn't mean Obama has to stop campaigning so she can have free air-time.

If only she hadn't blown her financial wad (which was substantial) in January, based on her own assumption that she'd have the nomination all wrapped-up by Super Tuesday, she might not have to go begging for free air-time now.

Debates are for the people... the voters! Debates are designed to help the voters decide who they will vote for. Obama's refusal to debate is emblematic of his condescending attitude toward the voters, also illustrated by he desire to deny the FL and MI voters their franchise.

1 or 2 hours of Obama's precious time is not too much for the people of America. They have earned the right to know who the candidates are and what they stand for by their blood, sweat, and tears in fighting and building this nation.

Apparently Obama wants to have the voting populace less educated and informed than we ever thought. And apparently Obama's supporters blindly and faithfully go along with this idea of less is more.

.. in twenty-plus debates, one more isn't going to help.

In the great scheme of things, she is now officially irrelevant.

Why on earth would a person fully involved in a GE push and strategy
want to engage Donna Rickles in another show.

Hillary should debate Karl Rove instead. Let's see who really
has the most dirt to throw, her or her rival slimester.

Another suggestion would be to have a Hillary and Bill vs.
James Carville and Mary Matalin tag team match for the
Heavyweight Slimester Title. Now I would tune in for that.

If he could keep from wetting his britches, I say Wolf
Blitzer would be the ideal ring announcer.

If these people can't be constructive for real political
discourse, at least we should get some jollies, ya think?

I didn't hear about an apology so I don't plan to watch ABCNEWS...

back to issues during the ABC debate. She wouldn't even make eye contact with Obama when she was attacking him, so why would she want to debate him one-on-one?

Hillary had plenty of times to debate whatever topics she wanted voiced.

This is a total bullshit whining issue from the Clinton camp. Her campaign is currently in a coma and the plug will finally be pulled in the weeks to come.

And good for him re the 22nd debate ---

they've all been BS since Edwards and Kucinich were pushed out ---

over their treatment of Obama - plust Mr. Wallace has been trying for some time to get Obama - it's not like some kind of whim thing on the part of either of them:

http://www.contactmusic.com/news.nsf/article/chris%20wallaces%20obama%20watch%20pays%20off_1066877

as a guest?

The best way to deal with a psychic vampire is to starve them.

No more free attention for HRC.

well, put a skirt on him and give the whining little girl some lipstick.

Most of the debates were hosted in a large forums before the contenders drooped out. Only a few moderated debates and then canned issues and not much depth. So far very little TV air time for an in depth debate, one on one, on the important problems and issues that grip the nation has taken place.

I am curious and staved for more substance from our future presidents.

What an incredibly sexist and stupid comment........

...Obama should not have rambled so much in the last debate. He was boring and not well informed. Ten million people were watching.

His little fib about Ayers has been fact checked. We will hear more.

In the S.C. debate, he claimed that his association with Rezko was limited to an indirect one while working on some law cases. NOT.

He didn't have a chance to deny his 20-year-relationship to Wright.

Hillary is broke and a debate would get her free airtime and other opportunities to undermine his candidacy. Free airtime is what she wants in the biz they call it Oxygen. Why would he think of jeapordizing his lead? If the roles were reverse she wouldn't give Him a second thought. Also quite frankly the MSM isnt upto the task as have been evidenced by previous debates. The only concern with the media these days is Ad space. Nothing more.

They've already debated more than I've ever seen any two people do. Doesn't the ABC debate count as "without moderation?" LOL

The primary race is almost over. And Hillary's disingenuousness as demonstrated by the quip about the Weather underground being a group that "killed people" is something he shouldn't have to entertain. She has time and again proved that she is more interested in hit tactics than speaking to issues. Let her wallow in it.

what about a debate with that as a GROUND RULE? I think that is what Obama should offer (mediated or unmediated, either way, the ISSUE requirement would itself be good for the campaign, and the debate)

OJ and other pertinent stories.

Throughout some of the debates this year you got the impression that at any time the moderators felt the impulse to swerve into serious questions on the issues.

Fortunately few of them gave in to the impulse, but still.

It's a concern.

of trash in GDP? can't GDP have their own late breaking news?

This is such a colossal puff piece of putrid distraction.

it's a shame he declined. I was hoping to see them go at it without some hideous neocon framing their debate.

Now we'll never know. I'd love to see a debate like the one in "The West Wing" where Smits and Alda went at it head to head with no 3rd party asking stupid questions. Real life rarely offers those types of enlightening debates on the issues..

Hillary would only ask him loaded questions anyway.

did you mean 'dissembler'?

love, the word nazi

The two of them with no moderators. Questions written down and submitted. No one minute time limits. The two of them can talk back and forth about the same question. There would be none of these leading questions that start with the phrase "This one is for Sen. Obama" or " This question is for Sen. Clinton." They both answer and debate about the same questions. I see this would be a good format. If I was a campaign adviser though I would tell Sen Obama to decline. When one is ahead in the polls why risk anything. I still think it would be interesting to see though.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.