Clinton wants more debates — including one on Fox News?

February 5, 2008

After last week’s one-on-one Democratic debate in Los Angeles, someone from CNN casually asked Barack Obama, “See you at the next one?” The senator responded, “There’s going to be another one?”

Obama didn’t respond that way because he expected the race to be over soon; I suspect he said that because he figured there’s no real point to having still more debates. There have been at least 15 debates, and that doesn’t even include the many forums at which all of the candidates were present. These candidates have answered just about every possible question, covering every possible issue. My hunch is that most Dems are pretty tired of these events, and aren’t anxious for more.

That is, except for the Clinton campaign, which clearly sees the debates as a way to strengthen her standing.

The Hillary camp … sent out word today that she’s agreed to two more verbal showdowns with Obama: A February 10 debate on ABC with George Stephanopoulos; and a February 27 debate in CNN in Houston.

And the Hillary campaign wants still more of them. On a conference call today Hillary pollster Mark Penn declared that the Clinton campaign would like to see a debate between Hillary and Obama once a week through the end of the contest.

Camp Hillary must think she outshines him in that sort of forum, and more debates lessen the degree to which Obama can frame the race only with his superior oratory. But this is clearly a gamble, because as many commentators have noted, the new head-to-head format allows Obama to rise to her stature level in a way that wasn’t possible when John Edwards was in the race.

I certainly understand Clinton’s strategy here — objectively, she’s a better debater than Obama. The more opportunities to shine before a national audience, the better.

But the Clinton campaign needs to be a little careful with this all-debates, all-the-time strategy.

For instance, I thought we all agreed that Fox News is supposed to be off-limits.

Risking the ire of progressive activists, Sen. Hillary Clinton’s campaign announced that it has accepted a debate to air on Fox News on February 11, according to her chief strategist Mark Penn.

Though Clinton and Obama have frequently appeared on Fox News for interviews, the announcement is a 180-degree turn from the position that Clinton and other Democratic candidates took this past spring in which they pledged to participate only in DNC-sanctioned debates.

“There is an enormous interest in these debates an clamoring on the part of the Democrat [sic] Party for them,” said Clinton’s spokesperson Howard Wolfson.

First, we’re the Democratic Party. Second, I understand the campaign strategy, but I don’t think there’s any genuine “clamoring” in the party for even more debates. (My hunch is the opposite is true.)

But third, and most importantly, Clinton had said and done all the right things when it came to not attending Fox News-sponsored debates, which makes today’s announcement disappointing. For the umpteenth time, Fox News is not a professional news outlet, and it shouldn’t be treated with this level of credibility. Indeed, the Republican network’s ratings have slid throughout the campaign season, in part because Dems have stood firm and refused to debate on the network.

Why would Clinton want to change that now? Why reward a Republican propaganda outlet and end an effective de facto boycott?

If Democrats appear on Fox News for a debate, it gives the partisan outlet what it wants — ratings and legitimacy. It’s precisely why all of the top Dems — including Clinton — agreed to skip FNC events in the first place. The concerns haven’t suddenly disappeared now that the Clinton campaign has decided it wants weekly debates throughout the spring.

For what it’s worth, the Obama campaign doesn’t seem interested in more debates on Fox News or any other network. Bill Burton, a spokesman for Obama, told the Huffington Post, “As of right now, there are no debates on our schedule at all.”

This actually makes the Fox News angle slightly worse for Clinton — she gets all of the negatives (frustration from Dem activists) and none of the positives (winning the debate).

Really bad move from the Clinton campaign. Really bad.

  • The last debate did more to raise Obama’s profile as a candidate ready to be President than a month full of ads could have. They are so close on most issues the differences come down to whom Americans would rather see on their tvs for the next four years, and on that score Hillary is likely to come in second.

    But maybe most importantly, Hillary’s votes for the war and against the banning of cluster bombs (not yet a heads-up issue) will be her undoing. Its hard to call yourself a champion of women’s and children’s issues when her votes show a disregard for those effected by war and its harrowing aftermath. Ask the Iraqi, Palestinian and Lebanese mothers and children so brutally dealing with the repercussions of her votes, not to mention all the American families to whom she refuses to even offer an apology to for being so wrong about Iraq.

  • If the campaign continues beyond Feb. 12, which is the strong likelihood, they should debate again at the end of the month.

    But absolutely not on Fox. I don’t care how much money Rupert donated to the Clintons.

  • “These candidates have answered just about every possible question, covering every possible issue”

    …except questions on global warming, global poverty, Israel’s Gaza blockade, US Constitution/executive power grab, SEC oversight of corporations, and on and on and on…

    So instead of Fox News, does either candidate dare appear on, say, a progressive bloggers’ forum?

  • When I was younger, I wanted to be a standup comic, and used to go to a lot of open mic nights. For various reasons, it was a disaster. Sure, I wasn’t particularly good, but there was another big factor beyond my own mediocrity. Because the open mic night crowds were, by and large, the same people week after week after week – the comics themselves, their friends, young people looking to go someplace where there was no cover, and cranks who needed an electrified outlet to rant (this was before the prevalence of the internet, mind you). One of the purposes of the open mic night was to figure out which of your material was working, what wasn’t, and work on delivering it as well as possible, and it was difficult when the same people kept hearing the same stuff. unless you did something drastically different, they weren’t paying attention, and if you kep trying to do a brand new set every week, you couldn’t refine what you had. It was an instant poll – these people thought THIS was funny, and THAT wasn’t funny but it was a little funnier last week when it was fresh, was my delivery better then, or was it just a new idea blah blah – and it gave you little ability to go somewhere else with a clear idea of what you should use and what you should lose.

    And some people just kept doing the same material, the same way, as if by sheer force of will, something the same audience 8 weeks in a row didn’t think was funny will suddenly find it high-larious on the 9th.

    The sheer volume of debates is becoming a bit like those open mic nights. The same people are tining in, but there’s not much new being said to keep them really paying attention. What can either of them say that they haven’t said before? How often can they refine their message to a point where an Obama supporter suddenly says “I like Hillary now” without a Clinton supporter saying “Aw, eff this, Obama’s my guy now!”

    My big hunch is that Hillary is scared witless that Obama has much more momentum, so she has nothing to lose by doing more debates. Barack is a polished and eloquent speaker, but she has much more experience behind a podium, and I think her big strategy is to keep BO talking until he finally trips up, so she can point to it as the big “The Emperor Has No Clothes” Epiphany. And of course, if BO refuses to go on Fox or do any of the other debates, she can argue to the already-converted that he’s scared to face the right-wing spin machine and she’s not. Of course, I think everyone already knows why BO hasn’t been going on Fox, and it can be spun to look like Hillary is trying to woo the right at the risk of alienating the left.

    Meanwhile, she’s doing the same material to the same crowd week after week. And she risks a major tune-out.

  • I approve of anything that keeps our candidates in the spotlight is a good thing, especially if McCain wraps up the GOP nom today. Both Clinton and Obama are intelligent speakers who generally help themselves when they have a forum, so I’m not too worried about this backfiring. Unless, that is, they agree to debate on Fox. I would not approve of that at all.

  • “I thought we all agreed that Fox News is supposed to be off-limits.”

    CB, Please define “we all” in your so-called agreement.

    If Obama is really a “cross-over” qualities (which I think he does), he should accept the debate on FOX to give him more exposure to the Fox News crowd. I think it would be to his benefit in the long run if he is the Dem’s candidate

  • Just when I thought the Clintons had run out of ways to piss off the progressives.

    Yeah, throw a bone to the network that loves to hire people who hate your supporters. Good move.

    What Obama needs to do is point out Fox’s total take from the proposed debate. Exactly how much money would they make?

  • “The announcement is a 180-degree turn from the position that Clinton and other Democratic candidates took this past spring…Why would Clinton want to change that now?”

    Why would Clinton break her pledge regarding Michigan and Florida? Why would Clinton claim that Obama said things that he didn’t actually say? Why would Clinton misrepresent her vote on Iraq as a vote for authorization…despite her speeches to the contrary? Why would Clinton misrepresent the Levin Amendment in the last debate?

    Because she’s dishonest, that’s why.

  • After Obama confirms that he isn’t doing any more debates, I wonder how long before the Clinton camp is claiming he is frightened to debate with her? 1 week? 1 day? 1 hour?

  • Well, the networks and cable outlets certainly showed their appreciation for Democrats rewarding them with debates instead of Fox, didn’t they? Tim Russert, Chris Matthews, Suzane Malveaux, Wolf Blitzer, Charlie Gibson – they could not have been more neutral and objective in their hosting duties, could they?

    I get the idea of not rewarding Fox – but I don’t think the other outlets distinguished themselves in any way that would set them apart from anything Fox could do.

    Yes, we all hate Fox – but it seems to me we don’t much like any of the others who get to host debates, do we? The only difference that I can see is that CNN, MSNBC, and the three major networks aren’t as blatant about their bias across the board as Fox is.

    Maybe the out for Clinton is the same one that the networks use to decide which candidates can participate in a debate: “sorry, Fox, your ratings and viewership do not meet our requirements for appearing on your network.” If the other networks can invite and dis-invite candidates, seems like candidates can accept and reject invitations to appear.

    Would seem like a nice smack-down for Fox.

  • Ohioan #4 you nailed it.
    and government oversight and energy policy and NAFTA and torture and IMPEACHMENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • I think #4 and #14 have it right. There is lots of issue debate to be had.

    I think Hillary does fine. And if Obama seems more electable with more debates, then let’s please have them.

    As for Fox, they could do worse that Anderson Cooper did to the Republican’ts, or they could muster some sense and actually embarras the opposition by putting on a good debate.

  • Thank you Chopin.

    But #13 Anne has a point too – for example read the transcript below, and can anyone tell me how Sean Hannity would have been any different than Blitzer?

    McMANUS: Senator Obama, one other thing both of your health insurance proposals have in common is they would cost billions of dollars in new spending, and both of you have proposed raising taxes on a lot of Americans to pay for that and for other proposals. Well, now, you know what’s going to happen this fall in the general election campaign. The Republicans are going to call you “tax-and-spend” liberal Democrats, and that’s a charge that’s been effective in the past. How are you going to counter that charge?
    …
    OBAMA: “Part of it is paid for by rolling back the Bush tax cuts on the top 1 percent. I will give tax cuts to people making $75,000 a year or less by offsetting their payroll tax”
    …
    CLINTON: “Well, let me say that the way I would pay for this is to take the Bush tax cuts that are set to expire on people making more than $250,000 a year.”
    …
    BLITZER: “I just want to be precise. [Oh you do, do you, f$#kface? – Ohioan] When you let — if you become president, either one of you — let the Bush tax cuts lapse, there will be effectively tax increases on millions of Americans.”

  • For instance, I thought we all agreed that Fox News is supposed to be off-limits.

    Yeah. And we all agreed that Michigan and Florida Dem Delegates would not be counted, except that…

    I have no doubt that Billery would be quite competent in office, however…

    (Do I really have to say it out loud?)

  • Besides the issue with Fox, can Stephanopoulos really be considered neutral after his stint as Senior Political Advisor with Bill Clinton’s ’92 campaign??

  • What a moronic idea. If I had any lingering reservations about casting a vote for Obama over Clinton, this killed them.

    Why, in God’s name, does anyone employ Mark Penn anymore?

  • Anne:
    Maybe the out for Clinton….

    Huh?
    The out?

    And then this:

    Anne:
    If the other networks can invite and dis-invite candidates, seems like candidates can accept and reject invitations to appear.

    Huh?
    Here’s CB’s quote with bold added:

    Risking the ire of progressive activists, Sen. Hillary Clinton’s campaign announced that it has accepted a debate to air on Fox News on February 11, according to her chief strategist Mark Penn.

    See?
    No one is twisting Billary’s arm. There is no need for an “out.”

    You’ve jumped the swan with that post!

  • I don’t understand it, I just don’t understand it. Hillery was actually looking better, seemingly trying to rise above her earlier mistakes and take her campaign to a higher level. Now suddenly here comes that slimey worm Mark Penn throwing a cluster bomb into the heart of her biggest pool of supporters. And for what? Seriously, what benefit can they get out of this?

    Let’s hope she comes out and nixes this idea real quick or that giant sucking sound you’ll hear will be her supporters vacating the building and heading for the Obama bandwagon.

  • Mark Penn is just a reflection of his boss. This isn’t him. It’s the person at the top. It’s classic Hillary, through and through.

  • ROTF –

    You read only what you want

    Never digesting the whole of what someone posts

    Waste no time thinking about it

    Words bypass the brainular circuit

    Erupting with a weak blurp like baby vomit on one’s shoulder.

    Translation in shorter phrases

    For a shorter mind:

    Fox bad

    Other networks and moderators not much better

    Should Hillary re-think

    A possible out is suggested.

    Many pardons for not providing the synapse you are missing

    To be able to complete the idea.

    🙂

  • Let me get this right:

    agreed to two more verbal showdowns with Obama: A February 10 debate on ABC with George Stephanopoulos
    and
    announced that it has accepted a debate to air on Fox News on February 11

    So thats two debates in two days? I have watched almost every debate (even republican one’s, much to my wife’s displeasure), but this is going too far even for me.

  • Look at it this Hillary goes on Fox, knowing Obama won’t be there—and gets herserlf a free, 60-minute “infomercial” with whoever they feel like posting as a moderator.

    A 60-minute “Obama Bash Fest.”

    Maybe the chief Hill-istine can go have a few beers with O’Reilly or something.

    As an aside—I wonder if it’s too late to break the Hillary/Fox Partnership to all those folks who haven’t voted yet? The polls are still open….

  • Am I mistaken, or didn’t Senator Obama appear on FoxNews after the State of the Union address last week?

    Just wondering. I don’t recall the netroots or the Obama supporters going ballistic over that one – not that there’s any kind of double standard at work with the progressiver-than-thou wing of the Democratic Party.

    Remember – free speech isn’t free or something like that.

  • My guess is that Clinton concluded that if she wants the maximum number of debates, she needs to be willing to have them on the meximum number of outlets: CNN will get debate fatigue before she does.

    The Fox thing will annoy 1/4 of 1% of the population: the regulars on far left blogs. She surely has long since realized 80% of that 1/4 of 1% are firmly supporting Obama.

    The rest of the population is more accessible through more debates, which she tends to do well at, and it is one less evening Obama can have unchallenged raw speechifying, at which he excels.

    A reasonably sensible move, even if it was clumisly handled by the should-have-been-fired-long-ago Mr. Penn.

  • Maybe once a month…but once a week???!!

    Quite frankly I am sick of debates and sound bites.

    Now I want to know who their economic advisors are. And their domestic issues advisors. etc. Just learned who their foreign policy advisors are.

    And so Clinton wants to help pay back Rupert now?

  • The fact that Obama outraised Clinton, by 32 million to 19 million in January had nothing to do with her decision.

  • Someone is surprised that Billary wants to change the rules and thinks nothing of breaking agreements? Like no campaigning in Michigan and Florida?

    This is a sign of her desperation. Obama should say “I agreed to debate in DNC-sponsored debates. If my opponent wants to change the rules unilaterally, the voters should take that into consideration when making a determination about her chanracter and straightforwardness.”

    Like David Geffen said, the Clintons lie about everything. They can’t stop themselves, and if you need a better reason to vote against her, think of that slimy little asshole Mark Penn being anywhere near the decision-making process for America. That fat little shithead is right down there in the gutter with Karl Rove.

  • Anne, better than any possible out for Clinton from her desire to debate on Fox would have been to never express such a stupid idea in the first place.

    Fox News has ZERO place in the Democratic process. For all of your hemming and hawing about not being convinced of Obama’s progressive credentials, you sure do seem to gloss right over Clinton throwing a major progressive commitment (ie NOT appearing in any Fox debates) out the window. If Obama is so suspect for moderate language that appeals to middle of the road voters, then what is Clinton for legitimizing Fox?

    It doesn’t really matter how biased CNN, MSNBC, etc are. The Democrats decided Fox was off limits. Right up until Clinton changed her mind for no good reason. Kind of like Michigan and Florida were off limits. Right up until Clinton changed her mind on that too…

  • The Hillary camp … sent out word today that she’s agreed to two more verbal showdowns with Obama: A February 10 debate on ABC with George Stephanopoulos; and a February 27 debate in CNN in Houston.

    She’s agreed? What about him; has he agreed too? Somehow, I had an impression — doubtless, due to my uncertain understanding of English — that it took two people to engage in a verbal joust, not just one. And, if she does a monologue and/or an interview, can it still be called a debate?

  • She wants to position herself to the Republican-leaning independents who cross over during the primaries and would never vote for Obama. And for the general election for those who will vote for her over McCain because they hate him for being too liberal.

  • What is wrong with more debates? And what is wrong with debating on Fox? Who made this alleged agreement that Fox was off limits? And if Obama truly thinks he can win Republican support he ought to be eagerly agreeing to debate on Fox. Or, wait, maybe that attractive to Republicans stuff is all BS?

  • Clinton’s strength is in the debate. It shouldn’t come at a surprise, with the race so, so close, that she’s looking to exploit every edge she can get. If debates were Obama’s strength, I’m sure he would have been the one to bring it up.

  • She wins! If Obama says no, he looks like the bad guy since without his participation there’s no debate. She doesn’t have to actually do it. She gets all the credit for saying yes and being the first one of the two of them to “reach across the aisle”, one of his big campaigning points. So she wins the debate just by saying yes, whether she ends up doing it or not. A great chess move. Whether he says yes or no, he doesn’t get to say it first.

    But if he does say yes, everyone gets to see how he does in real time with working with those ‘across the aisle.’

  • The issue here is that we need to have Obama out there more than ever before. We need less debate and more time to campaign. Time is running out.. . This is a waste of time. I think this is a trick to keep Obama away from the voters. We all know that one debate a week requires two days of preparation and that means that Obama will have no more time to campaign.

    The fact is that the more voters got a chance to see Obama campaigning and firing up the crowd, the more votes he tends to get.

    Please do not fall for that — this is just another way to derail Obama off this message and to suppress this momentum

  • Hillary, looking for free press with this thinly veiled attempt to debate weekly. I thought they were Pros? They look like amauters/

    • Comments are closed.