I’m not sure how many Democratic debates there have been. Twenty-one, twenty-two? Clinton wants another one against Obama. The last debate featured questions about lapel pins. What’s on deck for this one? Cola preferences?
Actually, Jonathan Singer at MyDD discusses the latest proposal in some detail. Apparently the Clinton campaign is characterizing the latest proposal as sort of like the Lincoln-Douglas debates. But, Singer describes the Lincoln-Douglas format, and Clinton doesn’t seem to have that in mind. When Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas slugged it out for the Illinois Senate seat, they used a debate format wherein the first candidate would have an hour, the second candidate would speak for an hour and a half, and the first candidate would then have a half-hour rebuttal. They had seven such debates. Clinton is proposing alternating two minute segments for each candidate. More sound bite politics. No thanks.
Who knows, but I think the hour long format would favor Obama since, comparatively speaking, Clinton isn’t as much into the whole “vision thing.”
Even if she were proposing, say, five minute segments, and even if he weren’t 99 percent likely to be the nominee, this would be a bad idea. Such a format requires some sort of trust and bad faith between the candidates. I can’t think of any politician I would less want to face in an unmoderated debate than HRC. She’ll say anything to ruin him.
Considering there are basically no policy differences between them, what is there left to debate? If there were truly some big disagreements on ANY of the issues (Iraq, Healthcare, Economy, Taxes) then I would think the Dems would want them to debate, but since there aren’t, what’s left except character assasination of each other? I would think they’d both be better off to just keep on campaigning wouldn’t they??
I think maybe the long form might give them a chance to explain how all of the pieces fit together. But, I think this puts Hillary at a disadvantage. Maybe I’m wrong, but I see her as more of a technician whereas I see Obama as more of a leader. So, I see Obama as potentially better able to put the individual policy pieces together under a unifying vision whereas I see Hillary as picking the best thing from Column A, the best thing from Column B, etc. without maybe a great instinct for how all of those things blend together.
Hello,
I’m new to your blog but I was wondering what do you think of Obama’s chances in Indiana? His spreadsheet(which has been right since the beginning) has him winning Indiana by seven points. What do you think?
I would say they are dead even. The local IN pollsters are giving him a 1-2 pt spread within the MOE. The national ones like ARG- today’s poll says 50-45 Clinton. All within the margins.
Get out and work those doors! Make some calls people!
Actually a very smart move by Senator Clinton. She could almost count 100% on Senator Obama saying NO, so why not ask for a real debate and come off looking like a real statesman (person)? Clinton comes off looking like the person who REALLY wants to discuss the serious issues of the campaign. Obama comes off as looking like the person who wants to avoid discussing the serious issues of the campaign.
I never said Senator Clinton wasn’t very smart. If she only turned that sly intellect into more positive channels she might outshine several recent Presidents. But, then she’d never see the profit in that.
I think the fact that they’ve debated 20+ times before already puts Obama in a good spot on this issue.