I think at least some of the debates should be done this way, giving more opportunity for real policy discussions. The fact that any candidate would turn down such an offer is awfully revealing.

obama already said no...

Obama may be afraid of some awkward gaffe where he claims that people in Indiana cling to their basketballs during rough financial and emotional times, like when he isn't President.

naw....

Great laugh, Novastiv. Thanks.

Now that it has become clear that you've won the nomination. I'd like just one more chance to just possibly, hopefully, miraculously, land some kind of sucker punch when your back is turned.
Whata say Barrack?

Hillary Clinton

TigerBalm You fucking A Right. Hellary is fucking dsperate for anything. How many damned debates does one need before voters know what the candidates say they wil do??

Larry Mohr

Damn, I really get a laugh out of corky now a days.

I know the guy is getting old because his posts are getting more and more outthere everyday. Time to see the doc and get something to slow down the dementia.

Obama doesn't need to debate with hillary anymore. It would be just stupid to do so.

What's the biggest state Obama's won? Georgia maybe?

What's the biggest state Obama's won? Georgia maybe?

Posted by rightisright at 2008-04-27 06:14 PM | Reply

Try Texas You have heard of Texas right???? You know where everything is bigger including hooters knockers.

Larry Mohr

Another debate?

Yeah there hasn't been enough debates.

Yup, I'm voting Nader for sure.

Just on strategy, its a no-win for Obama; I would not do it.

Obama ruled out debating anymore with Hillary at least not before the next primary. I for one would not debate Hillary again after being broadsided in the last debate. He was set up big time and someone should have known. Obama has nothing to gain by debating her and more to lose. If people don't know who Obama is and what his position is then they don't want to know.

I for one would not debate Hillary again after being broadsided in the last debate.


Broadsided?

How?

"Broadsided?

How?"

Posted by JeffJ

It's like this ... Thunderthighs gets up a running head of steam ...

Obama cannot afford to look stupid again.

Obama is just taking a page from the Clinton playbook.

It was Hillary who refused to debate Jonathan Tasini in the 06 senate race.

Of course Hillary wouldn't even debate him once. How many times has it Hillary and Obama have debated? 20 something now?

90 minutes is more than either could stand each other ~ maybe? Obama watching this decision like a ticking bomb, I'm sure:>)

How many debates did Dumbya ever win ?

My point being that winning debates normally doesn't mean squat, but if Billary could make Obama look bad again ! Lookee here super delegates !

just like you talked about when she was running for senate..
if you are ahead, why another debate?
and as obama said this morning to chris wallace....isnt 21 debates enough to know where people stand on issues
AH BUT THE KICKER.....another fubar comes out about barrywaynehussein and then what??????????

Can we REALLY stand one more debate between these two?

Obama is a fucking PUSSY.........

Clinton has him where she wants him. If he declines he confirms himself to be the wimp he appears to be. If he accepts he puts himself open to putting his foot in his mouth.
The guy seems able to speak only from cue cards and written speeches.

Instead of "Bushisms" we are looking at a new list of "Obamaism".

As Obama said they have had 21 Debates. What more need be said??

Hellary wants a debate
cause She is a reprobate.

Larry Mohr

As Obama said they have had 21 Debates. What more need be said??

Hellary wants a debate
cause She is a reprobate.

Larry Mohr

Posted by LarryMohr at 2008-04-27 11:31 PM


They have not had 21 head to head debates, and have had no debates head to head with no moderator. What more needs to be said? I guess you know all you need to know. Not me.

I'd like to see how each candidate handles themselves in such a situation. It would be much different than the previous debates and should offer some insights not yet shown. I think more people would watch this debate more than any of the others, and that would be a good thing too.

I think it is a valid option and deserving of consideration. I think that Obama declining the challenge is telling. He had several bad moments in the last debate, and seemed unsure on several issues. Being able to think accurately on your feet is a good attribute for a President, and this debate would highlight that talent.

Buffalo Bob-
Limbaugh is with you, dude.

"I think that Obama declining the challenge is telling."

Yeah, it tells us he's in the lead, and is smart. Two things you want in the nominee.

You would be 100% correct Buffalo Bob. I know all I need to know. If You don't know enough by now well that is telling of You.

Larry Mohr

And maybe an explanation from the McBushie's their rabid interest as to who the Dem nominee is ?
(as in www.timesonline.co.uk

Posted by YoMeLIB
* * *

Um, why shouldn't I have an interest? I was just asking, because I didn't feel like re-learning the abortion that is the Democratic primary system, and was hoping somebody could just tell me. I know Obama lost Texas but somehow won Texas. I was just wondering what the biggest state is that he's won.

I'll take it that nobody on here really knows, 12 hours later.

You would be 100% correct Buffalo Bob. I know all I need to know. If You don't know enough by now well that is telling of You.

Larry Mohr

Posted by LarryMohr at 2008-04-28 01:59 AM


It is pretty much telling of both of us.

;-)

RIR

If only there were some way you could find out by yourself that was right at your fingertips.

Crickey Buffalo Bob how much more do You need to know?? My God dude.

Larry Mohr

Crickey Buffalo Bob how much more do You need to know?? My God dude.

Larry Mohr

Posted by LarryMohr at 2008-04-28 03:29 AM | Reply

I'd like to see how each candidate handles themselves in such a situation. It would be much different than the previous debates and should offer some insights not yet shown. I think more people would watch this debate more than any of the others, and that would be a good thing too.

I think it is a valid option and deserving of consideration. I think that Obama declining the challenge is telling. He had several bad moments in the last debate, and seemed unsure on several issues. Being able to think accurately on your feet is a good attribute for a President, and this debate would highlight that talent.

BBob,


Re: your 7:11AM post....

Very well-stated.

This is a very shrewd move on Hillary's part - by substantially changing the format of the debate, it's not at all like the 20+ debates they've had thus far. Obama supporters lambasted the last debate in particular as a "hit-job" and pined for substantive policy questions. Well, Hillary is offering just such a venue and Obama is declining.

Political manuevering aside, I think what Hillary is proposing just makes sense. The Democratic Party is very divided right now and is having a difficult time deciding which candidate is best. Clinton is proposing a significant change in venue to provide the Dem party supporters more substance in which to better evaluate their 2 remaining candidates.

Obama is doing his party and its voters a dis-service by declining this challenge IMO.

Why get ones hands dirty if they don't have to??

Larry Mohr

Obama should jump at the chance to debate Clinton in a no-moderator format. I can understand the logic of reducing the number of debates, given the fact that he's the frontrunner and will get hammered, but seeing them square off without moderators would be educational.

Yeah a "Good" way for Hellary to trash upon Obama wouldn't You say??

Larry Mohr

Why get ones hands dirty if they don't have to??


That's a fair question.

If Hillary was suggesting 'more of the same' - more moderated debates, your question would be extremely valid. However, she is proposing a radical change in format. She is proposing a venue in which Democratic voters can see the 2 front-runners more directly competing with eachother.

This is not only a stroke of brilliance on Hillary's part, but it's also a fair and logical suggestion.

For once in my life, I actually agree with BBob:

I think that Obama declining the challenge is telling.

seeing them square off without moderators would be educational.

Posted by rcade


Precisely.


Given the challenge, I think that his refusal to debate hurts him more than debating honestly and losing.

Why would the winner chose to have a game on with no referee?

Tell hillary to jump in the lake, Obama has already won. Obama should just stop dealing with hillary all together, just wasting money for nothin.

Think about it this way JeffJ. I am trailing You in delegates and I offer up to You a nonmoderated debate, You jump at it and we have this debate. I then instead of debating You I launch into a 90 minute tirade about How wrong You are JeffJ How lousy a person You are and how You don't support Your friends when the heats on. Then I bring up Your muslim upbringing even though I know it's bullshit and then I inject that You attended madrasses and are in bed with terrorist simply because of Your middle name. Why take that chance JeffJ??

Larry Mohr

I think the concept is an interesting one. The so-called "debates" both parties conduct are nothing of the sort. For the most part they are simply sound bite generators. I've always thought something more in the true debate format would be preferable.

That being said, it is true that it is generally the candidate who is behind and trying to make up ground who wants to have more debates because they have little to lose and everything to gain. That is especially true for Hillary right now.

As much as I would enjoy a debate like this, strategically it would be silly for Obama to agree. And I absolutely guarantee you if the situation were reversed there is no way Clinton would agree. Plus I'm really not sure how much more we're gonna learn about their policies and positions after 21 prior debates. Would this ultimately be much more than a "gotcha" fest for both sides?

I think that Obama declining the challenge is telling.

Yes, I think it is telling too. The telling me that he is the smarter person.

It would be like the new world champion heavy weight boxer taking on the loser again but this time agreeing to no referee....stupid is what it would be.

Obama should now be only focusing on baghdad bob mccain. hillary should be treated as old news.

"Given the challenge, I think that his refusal to debate hurts him more than debating honestly and losing."

After 21 debates he can legitimately refuse without being seriously hurt. All this really shows is Hillary's desperation.danni

Have they really had 21 debates?

If this is true; then screw it, thats enough.

If I'm Obama I don't do the debate either for any or all of the reasons others have cited.

By avoiding a debate Obama gets to, instead, focus his message the way he wants it instead of sitting through a debate which'll largely be about his bumpy last few weeks.

Clinton will try to make political hay from Obama's refusal. Still, I don't know how many votes she'll garner with that tactic vs the number of votes Obama risks losing by pissing down his leg in a debate.

To those of you who argue that Obama should avoid the debate for political reasons - I agree, strategically it's wise for him to avoid further confrontation with Hillary. However, I mitigate that with her proposed change in format - what she is suggesting is completely different from all of the other "debates" they've had. She's actually suggesting a format that is substantive (probably) and a format that is far more revealing than the carefully scripted answers given during a moderated debate.

There are 2 sides to this coin. On the one side, Obama-supporters are thinking strategically - Hillary has nothing to lose and Obama has much to lose so he should shun this challenge. On the other side, what Hillary is suggesting IS a substantial change in venue and WOULD likely give a real indication as to how both candidates would perform under pressure and on-the-fly.

If Obama were to accept and embrace Hillary's challenge and THEN whip Ole Thunder thighs in a genuine debate, he would likely seal-up his nomination early and thus strengthen his chances at winning the general.


Hillary is proposing an un-moderated debate. If he's as brilliant as he's made out to be, why in the heck is he afraid?


I can't wait for Corky to weigh-in!

As I sit and think about this I am slowly coming to a conclusion that if Obama does this debate he will lose my vote.

If he is this stupid as to put himself in such a stupid position than he is not worthy to be president and make decisions for this country.

Doing the debate would clearly show he doesn't have an ounce of conservative thoughts at all.

"As I sit and think about this I am slowly coming to a conclusion that if Obama does this debate he will lose my vote." - MONEY

That surprised me a bit, MONEY. If he does the debate... and you don't vote Obama, where does your vote go?

As of right now, Obama has the presidency.

Taking a stupid risk at hillary, who he has already beaten would show all his lack of common sense and is that what we would want in the white house.

I know you would like to see this JJ but given your smarts I can't believe you think this would be a good thing for Obama.

Let the media run with it and move on to the primary goal of presidency, hillary is a losing cause.

mccain has no chance and Obama should be smart enough to see this, if not, then we should be questioning his ability to make good decisions.

If he is this stupid as to put himself in such a stupid position than he is not worthy to be president and make decisions for this country.


Think about it this way...


Hypothetically, let's say he does decline and then Hillary gains considerable momentum for a variety of reasons to a point where entering the RNC the race is so close that the super-delegates WILL dedide the outcome. If Hillary is picked he will have been seen as a big-eared coward for refusing her challenge. In fact, he may already be seen as a coward for refusing her challenge and said cowardice may precipitate his eventual downfall.

He isn't a coward for refusing Why dirty Your fucking hands if You don't need to. Whats cowardly is asking for a debate when You are losing your ass and all your fixtures as well. You are just hoping for an Obama loss because You are genuinely afraid of Him that's all JeffJ.


Larry Mohr

Oorah,

If you paid a little more attention to my views you would know, like Jeff J. does, that I am more conservative in many things then you think I am.

I evaluate most by the decision process and the reasoning skill that can be seen. Obama doing this debate would tell me he would lack clear good reasoning decision skills and shouldn't be placed in a position where those skills are needed most for this country.

As to who I would vote for then, I would not know, but would know I have removed one.

Oorah,

In fact, as this hillary staying in continues the more turned off I am getting with the democratic party.

Much longer and the democratic party will lose my vote all the way, so they better make a decision and pdq or they will lose voters.

I am sure that I am not the only one thinking this way, million are like me and not going to benefit the democrats, so they better pull their heads out of the asses.

There are quite a few people where I work who like Obama but don't like him addressing hillary, I agree and if he continues it will probably cost him the prize.

Never change a winning game, and we can see hillary is trying to change her losing game.

It is pretty much telling of both of us.

;-)

Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2008-04-28 03:15 AM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e


RIR

If only there were some way you could find out by yourself that was right at your fingertips.

Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2008


WOW>.....I was just about to defend bb and then even chuckle at something he said...
will wonders ever cease.

and the different format might show us something different and then again....if the leftwing media does a 360 from the APPROPRIATE questions of the last one....and its all fluff, THEN it will be a waste of time.
but if the format is harder on each of them and we dont get all this.....oh thats just diverting and all that....then it might be worthwhile.
but here is another question....is this place that SHE is going to try and pin that drastic thing that she almost HAS to have happen to obama for her to have a chance??? is THIS where the bomb would be dropped...we ARE talking about the CLINTONS you know.

You are simply wrong, Larry.


Read what I have written on this subject in its entirety.


Here is how I see it:


Hillary wants the presidency with every fiber of her being. She is tough, brilliant, viscious, vindictive, self-serving and above all, she's patient.

Because she is proposing such a radical departure from their previous 20+ debates, that number has little meaning. Furthermore, what she is proposing makes perfect sense - debate her without the strictures of a moderator - mano y mano.

If Obama accepts, his acceptance shows a degree of courage and self-assurance. His risk is that he gets his ass handed to him, which would strategically be worse than the flak he'd receive for avoiding this challenge. However, if he nips at her heels he's no worse off than if he'd declined, and being able to nip at her heels should be an easy task for someone as god-like as his supporters make him out to be. Going further, if he wins and even cleans her clock, he likely kills her campaign and ends the bitter divide within the Democratic party.

However, if he remains steadfast in declining, Hillary likely maintains the current gap at best, and more likely narrows said gap. If she is looking to prolong this fight as a means of setting up a McCain victory as a means toward the end of her being better positioned to win in '12 then he is playing right into her hands.

At least if he accepts her challenge he has the opportunity to put her away.


I think he's making a mistake by avoiding this risk.

That his supporters are so afraid of what might happen should he debate Hillary in this fashion is what's telling. Afraid that the carefully scripted platitudes would fall apart without a moderator to hold his hand.

It is obvious why Obama does not want to debate.. first, he does not do well standing on his own and having to respond without notice.. only prepared statements and speeches are in his comfort and ability range.. his depth of experience and knowledge on a lot of issues and his understanding of the electorate is not as polished nor of the depth that most give him credit for having... he is a combination of Dubya and Jimmy Carter.. good words, few actions...naive as hell.. he sings a good song, but is unrealistic about the roadblocks he will be facing.. not that the country should not want things different and by throwing off on Hillary that she is establishment, he thinks it will be automatic changes.. do we want that; yes.. but he really is too unpolished and experienced to handle the ways of the Potomac.. it will take someone who really understands that can make any steps of change.. he will be laughed right out of dignity.. too egotistical and not a really known product.. people may not like the Hillary, but she has made much more progress in the 'elected office' of the Potomac than he has.. and, do not discount any of his associations..this is a critical naivety of the younger voters..he still is due a lot of explanations that he hides behind.. the real Obama shows it's face in these debates...and, it shows that he cannot stand up on a 'one-to-one' strongly with people who do have a specific knowledge of issues...lots of window dressing...

I really hope that Roma, Spud, Rogue, Danforth AND Corky all weigh-in on this thread. I also hope that Rightisright and Rightocenter comment from afar, not unlike those 2 old-guys sitting in the opera-balcony on the 'Muppets'.

Posted by JeffJ
* * * *

Waldorf and Statler. What great characters they were.

Matter of fact, JJ, that's a hell of an idea.

From now on, I'll be critiquing the Democratic Primary from afar up. Call me Waldorf. Like the hotel, the salad, and the curmudgeonly old man who finds great amusement in the miserable performances of a miserable cast.

MONEY-
Regarding Obama possibly losing your vote... what surprised me is that (presumably) Obama has been your likely candidate and you would be willing to toss that aside for his actions in this particular instance.

For you to discard him, I gather it's more a case of Obama losing your confidence vs another candidate rising up to earn your vote.

As to my paying more attention to your posts - I'll try better in the future. But just to help me a bit... are there a few "conservative" agenda items you can really support?

RiR,


The Waldorf and Statler comparison was a sudden inspriration.

It just seemed so fitting on so many different levels in regards to this freak-show known as the Democratic primary.

Good post Soul.

RiR,

I am glad you appreciated the metaphor - I suspect only a few other Drudgies will equally appreciate it - Rightocenter and Leftcoastlawyer most certainly will and 101Chairborne, Nullifidian, Moneywar, Wisgod possibly will.

Ooray,

I want a president who is going to make smart, reasonable, clear decisions and doing this debate would tell me he is not capable of doing such.

Let me put it this way.

JJ says it would be a mistake by not debating, but I can tell you right now, if JJ was Obama, there would be no way in hell HE would do the debate. JJ would look at the numbers and dismiss hillary and him saying anything else than this is nothing but political gaming rhetoric.

We want winning decisions, leadership and there is not a winning coach on this planet that would tell obama to do this debate.

As you can see, I am getting tired of the do nothing sit on ones asses as the democratic party. Wish they would fuckin do SOMETHING.

$War,

Don't get me wrong. I certainly see the drawback(s) toward accepting Hillary's challenge. That said, in the context of the other thread IO've mentioned Obama may very well have more to lose than gain by denying Hillary's challenge.

JJ,

the post was quite fitting, did generate a chuckle.

As you can see I am getting tired of this dog and pony show too.

The democratic party is losin me as well as millions of others with this continued crap. They should have as a party made a decision and got the focus back onto the prize.

A bad decision is better than no decision, at least one can fix the bad decision, nothing can be done with no decision. The democratic party is adrift in the ocean surround by the doldrums.

The democratic party is sitting in the prevent defense while the republican party is marching down the field 4 yards at a time. Getting near the 50 yard line and they are still sitting back trying to prevent some hell marry not realizing they may have to do the hell mary themselves.

The most ridiculous thing of all is trying to call any of these events "debates"

and we let them get away with it.

That said, Obama not doing a no-moderator debate isn't the most honorable thing, but it is the most calculated to get the result he wants.

I just wish the jerk would adopt a truly progressive platform.

Don't get me wrong. I certainly see the drawback(s) toward accepting Hillary's challenge. That said, in the context of the other thread IO've mentioned Obama may very well have more to lose than gain by denying Hillary's challenge.

I understand JJ, but don't get me wrong.

If YOU were obama You would be addressing baghdad bob and the problems with the opposition, it is that simple.

The longer the democratic party keeps this two ronnys show going, the more they are losing votes.

When two people fight, people usually take a side but if the fight drones on and on and on both sides lose. Well, those both sides are one side in reality. Idiots

Thanks 'Right'....do not think many are objective about the reality of getting to this office... not for the novice, as has been proven in the recent years... Obama might make a good candidate down the road as far as substance, if he would get back in the Senate and show the electorate 8-12 good years of dealing with the Potomac.. he has very little to run on and it shows in these public forums where questions are thrown at him....too much like 'Dubya'... he is not solid in any area and that is scary... anyone can talk a good game but you have to be solid to play the full 60 minutes..he is a cheerleader, not a player..!!!

Most of the good, really good presidents we have had in this nation never came from the senate.

Presidents that stop playing politics usually end up being the best, why, because they make decisions that are right and not political.

Well...there you go $war.... since Obama holds himself out as above the fray of politics, his experience would only allow him to truly understand how things work to be able to stand up to the political decisions...!!! and, it will take a few years for him to really learn that as he is too much novice..!!! he will not learn it as 'Top Gun' in the oval, for sure..

thjird post

Polish for "third post"

Obama does not like debates for the same reason 'Dubya' does not hold press conferences..

I don't think you understood my post.

Decisions should NOT be made politically, they should be made through actual facts and data and because it is the RIGHT thing. Political decisions are always counter productive, always.

I can surely see you have never truely managed anything of significance because those who make decision by politics usually make poor ones.

You a nonmoderated debate, You jump at it and we have this debate. I then instead of debating You I launch into a 90 minute tirade about How wrong You are

Every time Hillary Clinton engages in a harsh attack, it ends up hurting her in the polls more than it hurts Obama.

hillary is beneath Obama, and that is how Obama should be treating her.

I think the bottom line is that Hillary can't be trusted to keep the debate on course concerning issues that REALLY matter to Americans.

Throwing random horse-shit like the Weather Underground into the debate was a blatant attempt to distract the public from real issues. The "bitter" comment was more of the same bullshit.

There's no reason Obama should open himself up to those kind of attacks again, he's in the lead, and barring Shrillary tanking the primary system, he WILL win the nomination.

Every time Hillary Clinton engages in a harsh attack, it ends up hurting her in the polls more than it hurts Obama.

So what's the point!!!

Obama should instead be challenging baghdad bob mccain to a no moderator debate.

I think you missed the point...I agree that political decisions are not prudent (from years of high level managing successfully)...if Obama is who he says he is and stands for what he says he is, then someone who is not motivated by political decisions should spend some time amongst those who know no different, so he can find the experience to deal with that... his naivety of today shows no promise that he can... a smart leader spends the time to really know his enemy..in this case, the political decision makers and then can make his moves...Obama has no real sense or experience in that arena that can carry him into the oval... very simple really for any known leader

Corky - just one question. Do you honestly believe that if Hillary were in the lead and all the circumstances were exactly reversed that she would be inclined to accept another debate?

I don't, and rightfully so.

The dems have no issues to debate. This is the true weakpoint in their campaign this year. They don't know it yet. The real issues are not race (except for about 10% of white and 50% of blacks), but raising taxes and declaring defeat in the War. They have a losing proposition in the general election, but they don't know it yet because they've copied each other on all the actual issues....McCane won't have to do much except point out that he will cut taxes, cut spending, and at least attempt to win the war. That's it....It'll be so easy, and they'll think it's so unfair....Stolen election! He distracted the bitter American people from their real problems, which are race and gender issues!

a smart leader spends the time to really know his enemy..in this case, the political decision makers and then can make his moves...Obama has no real sense or experience in that arena that can carry him into the oval... very simple really for any known leader

Posted by drsoul


I'm curious, how do you know this? How do you know he "has no real sense or experience in that arena"? Based on the fact that he turned down a challenge that he has no need to accept?

DRsould,

Nothing but political bull shit rhetoric.

Experience at what???? One either makes smart right decisions or one does not.

Trying to use experience as a by line is nothing but political horse shit thrown out at the public wall and hoping it sticks. Garbage, nothing but garbage.

High level managing? I can see that, yes I can.
Shall I put on my hip waders?

SA

If she had lost the last debate as badly as Obama did, and if the rap on her was that she was not a fighter, and if her opponent were teasing her with a no-moderator debate...... then I think she might.

a smart leader spends the time to really know his enemy..

And please tell me, who are his enemies? Congress?

When you make decisions to reduce your enemies(congress) those decisions are not good decisions or right decisions, they are just malicious vendictive decisions that serve no one and particularly not the people. Counter productive.

I see you must have a wonderful staff below you, how many good managers for your company have you ruined all in the mask of benefitting the company?

DDenton...nothing in his background or published or experience resume has brought any experience of this nature to light... and his showing in debates and what few sitdown interviews he has made certainly does not portray any real experience in this area... not accepting the debate is not related to this statement, but certainly has to loom in the background...

Obviously, $war, you are not very adept at managing yourself...you contradict yourself..go deliver another pizza...

"McCane won't have to do much except point out that he will cut taxes, cut spending, and at least attempt to win the war. "

Riight, he's a guaranteed winner. You haven't seen any of the DNC commercials against McCain yet, have you?

Cut taxes and spending. okay. if we're at war, we can't cut overall spending, and we'll be even further in the hole with our lender nations.

MCCAIN: 100 Years of War, and 100 Years of Loan Payments by our Children's Children's Children....

-Every time Hillary Clinton engages in a harsh attack, it ends up hurting her in the polls more than it hurts Obama.


Yes, it does. Women should only speak when spoken to, and then never harshly.

If she had lost the last debate as badly as Obama did, and if the rap on her was that she was not a fighter, and if her opponent were teasing her with a no-moderator debate...... then I think she might.

Huh?

I don't see it.

He is not a fighter??????? REALLY!

Underdog from ground one and oooohhhh look, he is still here and what? He is now winning. Yep, not a fighter..................Polit
ical bull shit rhetoric from the knee pad desk of hillary.

Obviously, $war, you are not very adept at managing yourself...you contradict yourself..go deliver another pizza...

Wow! The very high level successful manager has given his words of wisdom.

Shall I bow and say yes boss, and stop giving you any push back? I am sure push back isn't something you accept. Hug hug kiss kiss!!! You're the greatest boss!

The pizza is getting cold....am sure that you would not want to piss the customer off and miss that needed tip...!!!

-Polit
ical bull shit rhetoric from the knee pad desk of hillary.


You do make more sense post-lobotomy. Amazing!!

That she is considered more a fighter than him is only news to you, deary. He has lost 4 of the last 5 races, including key high electoral vote states Ohio and PA, and 70 percent of the blue-collar Dems therein.

Heck, one of my engineers, a Bushy, a life-long Repube, came up to me this AM and said McCain was looking pretty bad and he is leaning towards Hillary!

I just barely managed to keep from falling over.

Every time Hillary Clinton engages in a harsh attack, it ends up hurting her in the polls more than it hurts Obama.

Posted by rcade at 2008-04-28


oh godfather....let me have a chance to give you my opinion.....

it hurts her in the polls because of a problem that we will all have if he wins....he is black and that trumps her vagina...?.... that trumps her vagina because if you say ANYTHING approaching critizism, you are racists and it will only get worse IF he is president....


MONEY>.....hey wasnt it you who yelled at the dem congress for not doing anything....amazing how not long ago that was us telling the same thing to the republican congress.....ah the more things change.

and just look right here all of the acrimony between you liberal, pinko, commie bastards......( I dont mean that.,just talking like we used to in the good ole days....ha ha)......and HERE IS why operation chaos is not only working but good for the country....
GIVE UM HELL RUSH...............

For those saying that Obama should not debate her as a matter of "strategy," you are proving again and again that elections are more about strategy than ideas. This is what is wrong with politics, and Obama is perpetuating it. This should not be a game. It should be a contest whereby the best ideas win. The best way to show who has the best ideas is to put the two remaining candidates head to head and let them argue about it. The worst way is to not see them argue at all. Thinking on your feet is an important skill, and the fact that one candidate is refusing to do so as a matter of "strategy" suggests to me that perhaps he's not so good at it.

Good point, Joe... If one cannot think on his or her feet, then they are really deficient in intelligence of issues, for the most part and or not confident of their position.. yes, the argument can be made that some are not good at public forum, but that person does not need to be in a role of leadership as it defines many other problems... Ideas and thinking on the feet are 'must' skills for leadership.. it would seem if Obama is really confident of his lead and that he has it wrapped up, he would show up and erase any doubt of the electorate of that fact...!!!!!

Obama has lost every debate he has been in so far and it hasnt mattered one bit so why would losing another Debate to Clitnon hurt him.

The two canidates have only faced off three times. During all the past debates people complained that there where two many people and no one got to really talk. If Obama and Clinton meet again this would only be their 4th one on one debate.

In debates, the candidates are exposed to the people where through the ads and media reports, the electorate has to rely on the credibility of the source... in each debate, things do show themselves, that are nowhere else... I personally think a debate, without moderators, would give the electorate an additional look at how each would react to this type of setting and is important to define the candidates in a different environment.. with a 'one-on-one' with a timer for each to voice answers and/or ideas and views, I think we get an additional picture of who each is and, regardless of predefined notions, could see an entirely different side... how they handle this and the directness to each other might actually surprise some people... if either candidate is bailing out on a debate due to perceived coveted leadership, then therein presents a lot of questionable issues... for those who rely strictly on not debating as being in the lead as a reason, that is pretty lame...!!! the coverage of debate is also much wider..

DDenton...nothing in his background or published or experience resume has brought any experience of this nature to light...


Experience at what? Dealing with people who disagree with him? Thinking on his feet?

The problem with this stream of thought is that the standard which you expect him to meet is in YOUR head. You haven't cited any benchmark for him to meet, which is the same thing Corky does. "He's not vetted", without specifying how much vetting makes a president. "He's not experienced enough...", without specifying how much experience one needs. "He hasn't answered 'this' question to my satisfaction...", etc, etc, etc...

Defining such things invites the same criticisms of the other candidates, so such things conveniently remain undefined.

DDenton...not just in my head...if you are widely read and listen to public forums on his background, there are many people interested in his background and experience; who are seeking some credible substance of experience... benchmarks?? where are his credentials for having dealt with any international issues at all??? where is the substance of his senatorial and/or state participation other than voting without taking a side in issues???? to take your point, what does his background provide that makes him credible to take on this job other than the spouting of change with no real direction or element of mechanics in how he will do that.. he does not answer anything specifically about how he will handle anything...since you are so defensive of him, tell me where he is significantly experienced to take the oval???? what has this one man really achieved that makes him credible for this office??? the standard is not just in my head, but of most intelligent people who really want change, but want someone who has shown they can make change... does this one candidate have anything that matches the job he wants to take on?? if you do not have any expectations of a candidate related to any experience to do the job, I hope that you are in the minority of voters trying to make up their mind...you treat this like a Miss America contest... I think Americans have defined throughout this campaign what they want in a president... are you new to this?????

I think Obama should consider the debate - no moderator.

But, I think he should make the suggestion that such a debate should exist between the Republican candidate and the Democrat candidate, too.

Would Hillary be willing to publically support that proposal?
Would McCain?

Where they would procede to debate who could lose the war faster and raise taxes the most, before deteriorating to the issues they really care about, racial and gender politics. Yeah...I'm really looking forward to that one.

He has the lead. She is the challenger. I see no reason to accomodate a probable ambush or make it easier for her.

Fresno,
EXACTLY.

Sounds like a lot of people know that Obama cannot hold his own in a debate... of course, if he can stand up 'on his own', this would be a good way to prove it...head to head...by sidestepping, he pretty much confirms his weakness of being able to stand on his own and that will come back to bite him many times over in trying to 'play' prezy......again, just like Bushie..!!

Corky - just one question. Do you honestly believe that if Hillary were in the lead and all the circumstances were exactly reversed that she would be inclined to accept another debate?

I don't, and rightfully so.

Posted by SanAntonioRogue


That's a fair question.

This is a unique situation - the more this drags on the more likely McCain will win in '08. If Obama were to agree to this un-moderated debate and deliver a knock-out blow to Hillary, he could end the in-fighting sooner and increase his chances of winning the general. If Hillary fucks Obama up, the best she can hope for is a long, protracted primary whereby the 2 of them go into the DNC in a virtual dead-heat and the SD's pick the winner.

Given the mathematics, Obama has more to gain by agreeing to this than does Hillary IMO.

Given that Hillary is proposing a completely different format for the debate, she can legitimately play the 'coward card' which will only further weaken Obama.


PS - Where in the hell are Spud and Roma? I was seriously hoping they'd weigh-in on this thread.

Thanks 'Right'....do not think many are objective about the reality of getting to this office... not for the novice, as has been proven in the recent years... Obama might make a good candidate down the road as far as substance, if he would get back in the Senate and show the electorate 8-12 good years of dealing with the Potomac.. he has very little to run on and it shows in these public forums where questions are thrown at him....too much like 'Dubya'... he is not solid in any area and that is scary... anyone can talk a good game but you have to be solid to play the full 60 minutes..he is a cheerleader, not a player..!!!

POSTED BY DRSOUL

Soul you overestimate the voting criteria of the masses. The superficiality of decision making brought us the disaster of Bush 43 and in Nov. it will ironically bring us the best hope for real political progress in my lifetime, Barrack Obama.

Oh, you will just have a greater dose of the Bush era if Obama walks in the oval...he has no foundation of change or progress that he can bring to the table and 'wishing' it will not make it happen.....it is good for the youth to get out and follow the 'pied piper' of illusion, but the naivety of their movement is the same as the young pubs for 'W'..we need someone in office who really understands the issues at hand today and really knows a way to make change, not a dreamer who thinks he can because Jeremiah Wright told him he could.."best hope for political progress" in your lifetime????? hopefully, you jest!!!!

"you will just have a greater dose of the Bush era if Obama walks in the oval."

Some idiocy defies comment.

You definitely illustrate your own words..Danforth

Barry better hope his prevent d works.

If not, he's gonna look the fool.

"I'm offering Senator Obama the chance to debate me one-on-one, no moderators. Just the two of us going for 90 minutes asking and answering questions,"

SMACKDOWN!

Looks like the "weaker sex" is challenging her opponent to a fight to the finish -- with the gloves off!

I wouldn't miss that debate for all the tea in China.