Putting up two podiums and showing Obama's empty podium on television would be a very effective tool to get him to debate in my opinion!

People have to ask that if Obama cannot stand up to Hillary in four debates right now, then how in the world will he ever be able to stand up to a very experienced John McCain in the general election debates?

That is a very fair question which I think we have every right to know the answer to before this primary is over!

If his big concern is getting known, then how can he turn down free TV time in those key places? Each of the candidates needs to show they can run a campaign during a recession that sets an example of making every dollar do the work of three or ten dollars. Why keep pushing people to donate so much money when this is how campaigns should be done anyhow?

He's getting tired, which brings out his petulance even more. I love the idea of a Hillary town hall.

so he can say........ "present"

The main reason I can think of is that voters tend only to pay attention when their election is looming. People in the later states may have not watched very many of the earlier debates, thinking that it would be a done deal by the time their election rolled around.

Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark -- Make America All It Can Be!

This sort of 'spin' from you is disconcerting.

Do you need someone to stop by with coffee or OJ or something?

Hi Gordon:

I cannot speak for Hillary BUT I can certainly speak for myself. Here is why I definitely think that there need to be more head to head debates between Hillary and Obama:

1) Barack Obama has NOT been very specific about his policies so far and we as primary voters have every right to know the details regarding the issues that he plans to run on in the general election IF he is the nominee:

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/14435

David Gergen on the Dem Debate: Hillary won on substance and Obama won on style

Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on January 16, 2008 - 10:38am.

2) Obama as I have credibly and very thoroughly documented has received a near free ride in the media so far where he has NOT received the scrutiny on his record and on his past that is needed:

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/14623#comment-278450

There is NO question in my opinion of anti-Hillary media bias and that Barack Obama has received a free ride from many pundits in the media as I have very credibly and thoroughly documented

Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on February 5, 2008 - 6:35pm.

We definitely need to know about this IF he is going to be the nominee!

3) Hillary needs to be able to clear up Obama's blatant distortions of her record which are not getting enough media coverage right now such as this blatant lie from Obama that Hillary is "embracing the Bush-Cheney policy of not talking to leaders we don‘t like" which Dan Abrams refuted:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23011366/

'Live with Dan Abrams' for Feb. 4
Read the transcript to the Monday show

Guests: Roy Sekoff, Michelle Cottle, Peter Beinart, Stephanie Miller, Tony Blankley

ABRAMS: "Moving on to number two tonight. Barack Obama - this one gets me continues to hammer home what has fast become a staple of his stump speech. The problem? It‘s not accurate.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: The way to win a debate with John McCain or any Republican who is nominated is not by having the Democrats nominate someone who agrees with him in embracing the Bush-Cheney policy of not talking to leaders we don‘t like.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ABRAMS: Clear misstatement by Obama. He is enjoying a lot of applause on the campaign trail for what in view is twisting Hillary Clinton‘s words from this debate in July where Clinton said this about meeting with foreign leaders if elected president.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

H. CLINTON: I will not promise to meet with the leaders of these countries during my first year. I will promise a vigorous diplomatic effort. Because I think it is that not you promise a meeting at that high a level before you know what the intentions are. I don‘t want to be used for propaganda purposes. I don‘t want make a situation even worse. But I certainly agree that we need to get back to diplomacy, which has been turned into a bad word by this administration. And I will pursue very vigorous diplomacy and I will use a lot of high level presidential envoys to test the waters, to feel the way.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ABRAMS: All right. So, Stephanie, look. This seems to many me, and I‘ve said this before and I‘m going to do this one again, that what Obama is trying to do is use his own misstep early in the campaign where he started talking about how one of the first things he is going to do in his first year, is meet with the leaders of North Korea, Iran, et cetera. And he‘s trying to twist it to make it seem like Hillary Clinton is saying, “I won‘t meet with any of these people.”

You should know as well as I do Gordon that Obama is lying through his teeth when he accused Hillary of "embracing the Bush-Cheney policy of not talking to leaders we don‘t like."

Gen. Clark knows that Obama is lying through his teeth about this false accusation distorting Hillary's record when he directly contradicted Obama with these comments about Hillary when it comes to "the Bush-Cheney policy of not talking to leaders we don‘t like:"

http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?articleId=0245c84d-6a83-4f93-af98-faa465770b4e&headline=Gen.+Wesley+Clark%3A+Clinton's+approach+deters+a+rush+to+war

Gen. Wesley Clark: Clinton's approach deters a rush to war
By GEN. WESLEY CLARK

Sunday, Oct. 14, 2007

"I have supported Senator Clinton in both these votes. She is committed to ending the unilateralism of the Bush-Cheney administration. She is a strong supporter of direct nuclear talks with Iran because she believes that direct dialogue with our adversaries is a sign of strength and confidence, and a prerequisite to achieving America's goals and objectives.

That is why I am so dismayed and disappointed about political attacks that misrepresent the senator's positions and betray a fundamental misunderstanding about how to conduct effective diplomacy in the 21st century.

In supporting legislation that seeks to exert diplomatic pressure on Iran, Senator Clinton is standing up to the Bush administration, which has recklessly refused to talk to Iran about its clandestine nuclear program..."

4) Roland Martin, who is an African-American commentator and seems to me to be very Obama-friendly when he talks about him, said that "Obama dislikes debates" and that "Obama admitted that he is not enamored with debates:"

http://www.rolandsmartin.com/blog/?p=80

Obama Blows Another Debate Opportunity

Friday, June 29th, 2007 at 11:36 am

"Most of it lies in the fact that Obama dislikes debates. During my interview with him to air on Monday at 10 p.m. EST on TV One Cable Network, Obama admitted that he is not enamored with debates, saying they provide little time to speak on issues. He prefers to use his time to “inform...”

If Roland Martin is right about those claims, then we as primary voters definitely need to know about that RIGHT NOW before this primary is over because if Obama cannot stand up to McCain in the debates, then that would make him even more unelectable than I already think that he is right now!

Whether it is right now during the primary or when it gets to the general election when Obama's free ride in the media is finally over, then Obama is going to have to show some actual substance on the issues that he is NOT showing right now. If Obama is all talk and little substance and if he does not like debates, then I would rather know that right now during the primary rather than during the general election when McCain will kick his butt on the issues and when it will be too late to change nominees without an awful lot of embarrassment!

David Plouffe of the Obama campaign's excuse that "We've done 18 debates" in the Washington Post article below does NOT hold any water as far as I am concerned because 17 of those 18 debates included other candidates who have dropped out so not nearly as much time and attention was focused on Obama than what would be in four new head to head debates with Hillary right now. Also, I have NOT heard Obama get very specific on key issues in these debates when he will be forced to do that if he agreed to debate Hillary head to head four times!

If Obama agreed to debate and if he is right on the issues, then what does he have to fear? The answer to that is absolutely nothing in my opinion!

Did you see where The American Conservative magazine (from the Pat Buchanan wing of the Republican Party which is more honorable than the Neocon GOP activist base who are rooting for Obama) was honest enough to admit about what will happen to Obama IF he is the nominee?

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/14599

TRANSCRIPT: Sen. Robert Menendez got it right about Obama's lack of electability

Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on February 4, 2008 - 6:36am.

http://www.amconmag.com/2008/2008_01_28/article.html

January 28, 2008 Issue
The American Conservative

Untested Savior

Barack Obama answers Democrats’ longing for a candidate who is above politics, but he would probably lead them to disaster in November.

by Scott McConnell

"As the Democratic presidential nominee, Obama could quickly become known as Barack Hussein Obama. Republican commercials and talk radio would guarantee it. Negative TV spots could be relatively banal, pointing to some liberal highlights from Obama’s state legislature record—one very strong pro-abortion vote and another against people who used unregistered guns to protect their homes against intruders would do the trick. And then, a voiceover, intoning something like “Barack Hussein Obama—Right for America?”...

Compared to primary voters, November voters are lower on the political awareness scale, less educated, less prosperous, less tuned in. Many will be forming an opinion about Barack Obama for the first time during and after the conventions, and branding him could be done comparatively quickly. Democrats in 1988 were astonished at how rapidly Michael Dukakis was “defined” by Willie Horton and how fast the Duke’s double-digit lead in national polls evaporated. They of course knew that Dukakis was a competent and tested governor, a proven debater, no slouch on law and order. How could blue-collar voters not see this? Similarly, John Kerry’s team found the Swiftboat charges so ludicrous they didn’t deign to answer them. But, to the campaign’s remorse, many voters found them believable enough. On what basis should we assume that white working-class voters (precisely those most resistant to Obama’s electoral appeal thus far) would be completely unmoved by a campaign geared to question Obama’s “American-ness”?..."

This is more likely to come out in head to head debates and we as primary voters have every right to know Obama's answer to this when the stakes in this election are very high:

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/14527

The high cost of another Neocon winning this election is war and much more war!

Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on January 28, 2008 - 2:26pm.

People already know nearly everything that there is to know about both Bill and Hillary Clinton so their past is NOT likely to drive up their negative numbers in the general election. That is NOT true about Barack Obama which is exactly why "Hillary's high negatives are an illusion compared to Obama or any other Democrat:"

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/13992

Hillary's high negatives are an illusion compared to Obama or any other Democrat

Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on November 28, 2007 - 4:49pm.

I think that this comment should bluntly yet thoroughly answer your question of "And exactly why is Hillary calling for four more debates?"

Mitch

No, I hope that they do not hold do-over caucuses in those states.

The democrats in both states have already voted. I think those results should be applied.

Do overs, imo, defeat purpose of the democratic process. One person, one vote.