We must not have any more debates

The republican nominee is settled.
We know who we are running against.All debates should be against John McCain.
Are we now at the desperation we must pull down our nominees head underwater to save the other who cannot swim.
It's time to move on. No more debates.

:eyes:

Just as there's nothing wrong with debates. They are a GOOD thing, and it's how we're supposed to learn about candidates. It's what candidates actually did before soundbites and TV and PR personnel. I enjoy watching them regardless of who the candidates are. They are interesting and sometimes (hopefully) informative.

Hillary running negative ads about not having another debate is pretty disingenuous. We have had more debates this year than any other year in election history. And look, there will be yet another one tonight.

The truth is Hillary wants as many more debate chances as she can get purely to hope for a slip up from Obama. It isn't that we haven't had plenty of debates. It isn't that the issues haven't been discussed. It's that she's BEHIND. That's it.

And of course, Obama doesn't want to agree to an endless string of more debates because it IS a chance for him to slip up - that's the honesty of it.

I don't have much patience for trying to pretend that its anything else.

If you want to make an abstract arguments about how good debates are, then there's going to be another one in Ohio. Yet another one, in a year that has had more debates than any other. No one can seriously argue that this election year has been short on them.

I believe both are before 3/4/08, which is the next big primary day. Why can't the voters watch those debates? And there has been at least one debate so far that featured only Obama and Clinton. And there a couple that had only Obama, Clinton and Edwards.

For several reasons. First, voters who are now turning their attention to the campaigns (because their primary dates are finally coming up) do deserve to hear the candidates speak to the issues.

Second, Obama is not a very fluid debater. He has not appeared comfortable and fluid during the debates, but it seems to me he does a little better with each outing. Since he is likely to be our nominee, we need to get him all the practice time in the hot seat we can before the debates of the general election. In that sense, Clinton is a good sparring partner. McCain ... an awkward speaker ... is actually pretty good in debates, and it is mistake to underestimate the opportunity debates during the GE campaign give him.

Sen. Obama can use the sharpening up and there is nothing wrong with continuing to go over fine points of policy where there may be important disagreements.

Anyone who wants to see the debates has done so. If Obama is not a very fluid debater are we going to let our local nich market puke frame our nomonee.

Also, at this point, if Obama retreats from debate, it gives ammunition to those who want to push the line that he has not achieved a thorough grasp of the issues. Which horn of the bull should he face? I think we (and he) are better served by walking the path of courage. Run straight at 'em.

But not lose in the GE. Same goes for Hillary. The election is on the next phase.

I don't think Obama has to give up anyone's vote. I think he is contending for any vote out there and capable of getting it. He is deepening and sharpening his message as he goes along. I think he was underprepared when he started ... but I like the general trend of how his positions have evolved over the past several months.

He doesn't have much "ring time" in the kind of pseudo-debate format held by the mass media outlets these days. That is a particular skill ... to use an analogy, Barack is a kick boxer who suddenly finds himself in a straight up sanctioned boxing match. Some of his weapons are now unavailable to him, and he must grow comfortable with the format in order to win.

Barack is going to win this nomination ... I feel gut level certain of that. How he wins it is important, not just because of appearances created but also because of experiences gained thereby.

That's just my take on it, and I have been wrong before. :)

I agree with you.

It just exaggerates miniscule policy differences between Clinton and Obama and makes us look more divided as the Republicans unite. This is especially true if it gets nasty like South Carolina, which it very well could, considering several articles I have read about Clinton advisers saying she needs to sharpen her attacks.

Every other debate before this last one allowed Clinton and Obama to "hide" behind other candidates.. Now it is just these 2!! They should have more between them so we can see and judge for ourselves with no others mudding the waters.. Or are some afraid of the glare of the spotlight focused on just them???

And hurt both Hillery and Obama in the GE. If Hillary wants to win the big one, she needs to stop giving away Nov. votes in exchange.

How may of those 20 have been between JUST Obama and Clinton???

or more.

were able to "hide" among the others ) OMG in the 1st several there were 6+ people in the debates!).. NOW we have just 2.. No place to run.. Welll unless ya avoid even showing up..

to make an impression in the two debates in Feb that they have agreed to. Why do you think one more debate will make a difference. Why not 5 more? If she is that weak maybe she will need 12.

Did not realize there will be 2 more debates between JUST Hillary and Obama.. Actually a total of 3 one on one debates between the two should be enough.. as there are only 3 in the fall between the republican and democratic nominees .. ok fine.. we good.. carry on .... :)

we should have more debates, this is when it gets interesting.

candidates so there was less time for Obama and Clinton to speak.

The news is focused. Every time they speak it's on the news. Our nominee whoever it is, will lose support from another debate. And we still refuse to see the forest.

She'll use it to make up some new outrageous claims!

I can hardly wait to see her fall down at the next one and claim "he pushed me! Barack shoved me down!"

He should be ready when he does debate her for her attacks, and deflect them with "there you go again, Hillary, making things up because your campaign has lost every race the past three weeks! You can't even run your own campaign without overspending, without wasteful spending, and without knowing what your own top people are doing."

He will need to remind the voters that Hillary can't even run her own campaign, muchless this country.

So, you've managed to slam the first female candidate, victims of domestic violence, & women in one post. Well done!

Yeah, there's no such thing as women who stalk men.

No such thing as Hillary lying and playing the victim.

This is why she's losing, because she, like you, can't discuss rationally the politics at hand.

Even for you.

:eyes:

But we must talk raw politics to dupe the 25% of sheep to be sheared, and win this country back.

The claims of some notwithstanding.

It's outrageous that some try to claim it like it's an issue that only applies to men attacking women. Domestic abuse is a two way street.

Obama would like to "move on" now & not have to debate Clinton again, because she does so much better in debates. But I'm glad he agreed to one in Ohio.

So they have debated each other 18 times, but they had only the one head to head match up.


2 more debates seems reasonable. The candidate who is trailing always wants more debates, nothing new there.

But that's why I said it that way - there have been a ton of debates, but only one w/just Obama & Clinton. When 3-6 other candidates were there, the questions were more diffuse & the contrast less stark between Clinton & Obama. But when it was one-on-one, Clinton's superior knowledge & debate skills became much more obvious. It's true that the losing candidate usually wants more debates, but it's also true that Clinton just does much better at debates than Obama does. That format really works for her, while Obama does better at rallies.

She can't manage money, can't pick good people, can't manage people, and has run the worst campaign in modern history. She's circling the toilet for a reason. She's a shitty candidate. Out of money, she needs free TV time.

The majority of primary voters don't start getting serious about who they'll vote for until it's primary time.

October, November debates are just freaking silly.