Primary Season has been Extended; Debate Season should be also
Submitted by Tom Rinaldo on February 7, 2008 - 1:25pm.
Democratic politics
Originally the final debate was scheduled to take place right before Super Tuesday. Many months ago, when that was arranged, almost no political observers, let alone the candidates themselves, believed that there could still be a hotly contested Democratic race going on after Super Tuesday. Guess what? Everyone was wrong. There are still important decisions to be made.
Why would anyone sneer at the prospect of further debates? Sometimes debates favor one candidate, sometimes debates favor another candidate, but Democrats have always agreed that candidate debates during an important contested race serve the public interest.
I know the political dance, you know the political dance also. The candidate who feels they have the most to gain from them favors the maximum number of debates. The candidate who feels they have the most to lose from them favors the minimum number of debates. That is politics and I can't fault any politician from playing politics in the middle of a political race, from either side. But the public interest is served by having the candidates debate the issues in public. Especially when a race is hotly contested. Does anyone disagree with that point?
I would not fault Barack Obama for not agreeing to the amount of debates that Hillary Clinton wants to have. Her opening position is wanting a debate every week. His opening position was there's no need for more debates. Her initial position is unrealistic and his initial position was wrong. I accept that both of them right now are still in negotiating stances.
The question of debates is about more than the shifting political needs of various candidates facing a specific contest however. This is about the constant political need of voters to be informed. Politicians will naturally lean for or against holding debates based on their calculatons of what will most likely help them get elected. That is a given. I however am a voter, and much like the League of Women Voters, I hold that public debates between candidates for President serve the public interest.
It is no different than the battles that once were fought over national Presidential debates between the Republicans and the Democrats. Now we have pretty much settled into an accepted pattern where the public fully expects three Presidential debates and one Vice Presidential debate every four year cycle.
That was not always safe to assume. Televised presidential debates weren't part of American's lives until 1960 with Kennedy and Nixon. For many years there was a real struggle to force incumbent Presidents who felt secure in power to debate at all, and certainly holding more than one Presidential debate was not guarenteed heading into some election cycles. But Americans united to demand those debates, because more was at stake than shifting partisan advantages. Voters in a democracy want to see those who seek our votes defend their policies in direct debate encounters with their leading opponent(s). We want to see how they stand up.
Fortunately the public seems to have won the fight over Presidential debates, for now. But it is a democratic "right" that we risk losing in the future if we are not firm that participating in policy debates at the Presidential level, for the primaries and the general election, is not a choice arrived at after political calculations. They are an essential rite of passage for those who seek our votes. They are the single most informative exercise that voters have to reach an informed choice.
This year Democrats are closely divided and a lot is riding on choosing our best candidate. This is no time not to face the voters, and there is no substitute for reaching ten million voters than public debates between the two people who seek to represent the Democratic party in an election for President.
The race for the Democratic nomination is not over. The debates shouldn't be either. I expect both candidates to agree to at least two more head to head debates; now that the field is narrowed, now that the public is actually paying attention, and now that the nomination outcome is increasingly uncertain. Less than that is unacceptable from candidates seeking to represent the values of the Democratic Party.
And if the networks were not totally biased they would broadcast it with the empty debate chair next to her format. Obama is avoiding them now as well as Hillary.
where he might have to talk off the cuff and be compared to Hillary. And with good reason. He stinks at it!
If it's only about ringing rhetoric, let speechwriters run. -- Robin Morgan
He will agree to a debate with conditions.
He must be allowed to be flanked by 100 screaming teenagers waving Change placards shouting YES WE CAN! on cue at predesignated debate moments. (like when they discuss health care, energy, social security, nuclear, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Rezko, and abortion rights)
And only if Bill Clinton will agree to wearing a soft leather muzzle for the rest of the primary season.
Sounds reasonable?
With my mother's group of friends here who are all democrats. I hear one of them say, "Obama would have better chance running against McCain." (because of his military experience) I asked them what they'd think if Hillary ran with Wes Clark? Well then that would be ok! They all seemed to agree Obama would have to run with Joe Biden or Richardson, because he needs a "Dick Cheney." They recognize he doesn't have the experience. But they love being "inspired."
Have people ask questions with her behind one podium and an empty one next to it.
Answering specific questions is not Obama's strong suit!
If Obama refuses to debate, I think people are gonna wonder why. And they'll answer their own question by thinking he's afraid to.
Now, if we had a half-way fair media, he'd be beat up in a major way for refusing to debate. I'm guessing they won't even mention that Hillary is asking him to. Or if they do, they'll spin it as desperation on her part. Which isn't totally untrue -- maybe not desperate, but the leader in a race seldom wants to debate the underdog.
Problem is, Obama keeps calling himself the underdog. So even without a fair media, it may come back to haunt him.
I really like the idea of a townhall meeting, but with an empty chair on-stage. The media should carry it, but she may have to pay and I wonder if she has enough money.
and I would add that ESPECIALLY when one of the candidates remains so clouded in vagueness and lacking in definition - debates become critical to the public.
The last debate was so issue-centric, for a change, and so informative from an electorate perspective. If we could have one or two more like that it would be such a service to the people.
I wonder - if the repubs have more scheduled? Won't it look really bad if the republicans continue to debate and we just (screeeeeech) stop?
Obama may just find himself cornered into having to concede to at least one debate, otherwise he risks looking intimidated by the big bad Clinton Machine. Leaving Hillary standing as the one wearing the Pants Suit.
;)
That's what he wants.
The vaguer the better for him
"The Right always knows who its enemy is" Lance Mannion
Might be interesting to see mccand huckleberry debate! Saw bios on msnbc last night of hrc and mccand, looks like he really has little to lend itself to anyone's grand support; hasn't done much except endure torture.
Don't mean to diminish that, but really nothing much more. COULD be Dem approach.
In Fla now, and kind of out of sync; driving north Sunday >>>
He said they will have more debates. He's just trying to see when he can fit it into his schedule. Ok were waiting.......
yet. They are just waking up to the fact that there is a campaign going on. Usually the vast majority of people don't get engaged in the campaign until the general election.
I agree completely as usual with Tom Rinaldo that we need more debates, the more, the better.
First I agree, Obama ought to do some more debates with Clinton. I'm all for openness and putting the information out there and letting the public decide. Clarkies can agree on that right?
How about Obama agrees to more debates and Clinton releases her tax records like Clark did when he ran in 2004?
Debates aren't the only way the public can find out information about the candidates.
Here's a cached version from the Chicago Trib about Obama releasing his returns.
The story hit again after the campaign loan story earlier this week. I'm trying to find the source that Clinton will release her tax returns if she is nominated. I ought not have added that part.
No flames. Public information is always good!
Open Secrets Campaign Financial Disclosure reports.
Scroll to bottom of each page to see the current disclosure ratings of the Dem presidential candidates.
Clinton scores a 90 of Financial Disclosure.(100 being best)
Obama scores an 82 on Financial Disclosure.
CLINTON
http://opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.asp?id=N00000019&cycle=2008
OBAMA
http://opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.asp?id=N00009638&cycle=2008
As a member of this "public"... I'd also very much like to hear about those campaign donors of that additional $16 million dollars that Obama has not yet disclosed. :)
This seems to be a touchy area for both camps.
Obama has disclosed few of his records from his tenure as an Illinois state senator, the Clinton campaign charged, citing efforts by both the Tribune and the Sun-Times to obtain them. The records from Obama's office -- if he kept them -- would potentially show appointments with lobbyists, policy memos, meetings, etc.
Obama's statements on these documents:
First:
"The problem is whatever remaining documents I have are inevitably incomplete. And then the question's going to be, where's this or where's that. Once I start heading down that road, then it puts me in a position that could end up being misleading. I don't want to mislead people. I don't know the extent of the records that I have as a state senator."
Then:
"I don't have — I don't maintain — a file of eight years of work in the state Senate because I didn't have the resources available to maintain those kinds of records," he said at a recent campaign stop in Iowa. He said he wasn't sure where any cache of records might have gone, adding, "It could have been thrown out. I haven't been in the state Senate now for quite some time."
More info on the missing documents at links:
http://www.suntimes.com/news/sweet/635462,CST-NWS-sweet05.article
http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2007/11/clinton_camp_turns_the_records.html
another rabbit trail of all public records including appointment schedules, memos and phone logs - I have to ask ms, if it is important for Obama to provide all documents, is it equally important for Sen. Clinton to provide the same?
however, I would like to see Obama's records and notes of his meetings with Rezko and other Chicago "developers" that seem to be less than reputable. Rezko is by no means the only one. I wouldn't mind also seeing his dealings with the Chicago hospital that has been at the crux of his health-care "plan," and other incidents that have to do with his wife and the Wal-Mart subsidiary. Speaking of women, I would also like to see how he explains his accompanying his wife on some of her job interviews. For protection or to throw his legislative weight around?
IMHO, on His Messiahship, "There's no there there." Thanks to Gertrude Stein.
but if you're asking just for my purposes as one voter, it would be important for all candidates to release the documents that would most likely reveal information that I would consider relevant and important to show their qualifications or lack thereof to be president and commander in chief.
That's highly subjective I know, so what would satisfy my needs would not be what another voter might want to see.
Then again, we may want to see any documents that directly pertain to what that candidate has used as part of their case for being the one most qualified. If they are running on transparency issues- they should reveal all. If they are running on being clean and clear of lobbyist and / or corporate donations, they should open all records that would reveal contributions and contacts with same. If we had someone ex-military, running heavy on a national security ticket, and using their war records as evidence to favor them (ie a Kerry or General Clark) those former military doc's should be made available.
Hope that made sense.... I am starving and need to eat something now before trying to type another word! :)
to come up with objective standards of disclosure.
I don't want fishing expeditions like what the Clinton's went through in the 90's. When every piece of paper you or anyone you ever worked with needs to be released, something will be spun out of nothing- literally. Just imagine "This document has fewer pages than others. What is missing? What are you hiding?!
Even going by basing the standard on what the candidate is claiming their qualifications are is problematic. If someone says they're completely vetted, it sounds like they have nothing to hide, so why not release medical records, credit reports and personal telephone logs (I'm not seriously suggesting any of those be released)
In general, I'm for more disclosure rather than less and for standards to apply across the board. I don't think it's unreasonable to disclose IRS returns and I think it's hypocritical to demand Obama to release more information to prove he doesn't have unethical ties to anyone without asking Clinton to release as much info. We applauded when Clark opened his books to the public, wouldn't it be good for Clinton to do the same?
As it is we've strayed far from the topic of having more debates.
Thanks for keeping everything civil.
:)
I can't tell you how refreshing it is to have an Obama supporter come here to actually discuss things in a level headed, fair fashion. Without snark or mean spirited jabs. You represent your candidate extremely well! Now can you please go teach the rest of them a thing or two about civility? Heh. ;)
I'll do my part reminding Obama supporters that Clinton and Obama in the end are on the same side- if you can do the same over here.
It's human nature to snap at people when they feel like the things they care about are being attacked.
Better angels and all that.
and glad we can all agree that more disclosure is good.
Both Obama & Clinton had raised approximately 100 million dollars in contributions by the last reporting cycle.
In Obama's campaign nearly 16 million (18%) had incomplete records for employer and or occupation.
For Clinton's campaign slightly less than 10 million (10%) had incomplete records.
Not trying to spin this, honest question, can those numbers be explained by donations of less than $200 that don't require employer/occupation information?
But I believe those would come under their own kind of "disclosed" category-- in that they are the under 200's that don't require disclosure. It wouldn't make sense to throw those donations into an undisclosed grouping. Suppose anything is possible, but Open Secrets would need to seriously reexamine their reporting mode and their labeling methods if so. Because that would seem borderline misleading.
Of course, the one winning the election rarely wants more debates. It is the underdog, the one currently losing that asks for additional debates.
That is all that is happening, now. Don't read more into it.
---
"You will determine whether rage or reason guides the United States in the struggle to come. You will choose whether we are known for revenge or compassion. You will choose whether we, too, will kill in the name of God, or whether in His name, we can find a higher civilization and a better means of settling our differences"
Wes Clark
I've always found it's the one who has the best grasp of the issues and excels at debating that wants more debates. And vica versa for the one who rejects the idea.
OTOH, somebody better notify the DNC and the delegates right away that Obama is "winning". They seem to have counted the delegates differently. Contact information is at the site if you wish to correct them and alert them of your findings.
Then you haven't been paying attention. Challengers always want lots of debates against incumbents while incumbents resist to the degree they can get away with. There will be more debates, but not as many as Clinton wants.
Obviously, it helps to be a better debater as well, but that isn't the most important point. Winning debates doesn't really matter, but the risk of major mistakes does. Edwards was easily the best debater before he dropped out, as expected from a trial lawyer, but it didn't help him much. Clinton is better than Obama, but Obama has improved over the past several months and isn't too far behind at this point.
And yes, Obama is now more likely to win than Clinton, but only by a small amount.
to be the person to tell ms that she hasn't been paying attention- heh.
It's all a matter of opinion, isn't it? Edwards in my opinion was not a very good debater at all. I especially recall him being a shrinking violet at the Cheney VP debate where he was more than a little kittenish.
Perhaps my taste for substantial policy discussion from NCLB to infrastructure to jobs programs & the economy & housing bubble over hope, inspiration, change & assorted smoke being blown up my arse is showing, but - Kerry also chased Bush around asking for more debates - which were rebuffed. And Kerry had the Dem establishment unified & the wind at his back.
O! is best suited to venues where he can get up & profess & profess & preach & preach. He's gotten better at debates, but he is having to have a crash course in everything & it frankly shows. He also often depends on humor to deflect attention from his considerable deficits- like when asked about the fact that he's never really had outside business experience that can easily translate into economic matters, he just cracked a joke about Romney & didn't answer.
So really, it is a matter of opinion, apparently, as to who has won the day with these debates. I would give Hillary very high marks, and I think Edwards had a few good moments- usually playing ref, though, and Edwards was terribly prone to getting lost in a sensational, emotional story & wandering way off message.
Again, just my opinion. Hillary doesn't emote as well as Barack.
to be the person to tell ms that she hasn't been paying attention- heh.
I'll keep that in mind. The snark got the best of me.
I agree with you completely on Edwards versus Cheney. For some reason, Edwards completely stinks in the sit-down, discussion format, but is great standing at the podium. I think Obama is better in the sit-down format at well.
And, of course, people's favorite candidate always does at least a bit better than the others. Strange point about the outside experience, though, as both Clinton and Obama answered that with a joke.
If you want to see a good case for Obama on substance, look here.
Imagine my surprise, then, when I heard people saying that Obama wasn't "substantive". It was exactly like my experience in 2004 when, after hearing Wes Clark for the first time, I went and looked up his positions on a whole host of issues of concern to me, and only then started reading media accounts of him in which I "learned" that no one knew what his positions were.
As some of my students would say: I was like, wtf?
I'm still at wtf with Obama. :)
Clinton may have joked but she was absolutely at the ready with her COO & the running of the government as a trust- she's been hitting those out of the park.
I can't point you to a youtube video specifically, because I think I've seen what I'm about to relate on a news channel rather than online. But he kind of (and they all have schtick) tends to say a lot of things that strike me as odd. Things that just are floating somewhere, like:
They said it couldn't be done
and the like. And when I've seen him on his feet at some of the rallies I've heard him say (I wish I could give you this verbatim) something like: They say I need seasoning. They want me to cook for awhile longer so I become like them.
?
Like- uh. Railing against politicians when you ARE one and you've BEEN one only gets you so far. It's just silly, to me. The Mr. Smith goes to Washington routine would be a better fit had he bothered to say, finish a first term & really produce. So overall, I just don't get the change for change's sake. We're going to get change, that's not even up for debate, it's built into our system. Again, just my opinon.
And are having a forum with Hillary on Monday night, since Obama refused to participate. I'd like to watch this forum myself.
She should come alone and do a townhall format. The networks should let her do it.