Clinton extends all kinds of invitations to Obama

Under normal circumstances, presidential candidates host town-hall meetings so they can answer voters’ questions and present their ideas. They don’t usually invite their rival to share a stage.

But these, my friends, are not normal circumstances.

In an unusual move, Hillary is inviting Barack Obama to appear with her side by side at a town hall meeting in Maine this weekend, when both are scheduled to be campaigning in the state.

In a statement sent only to local reporters in Maine that someone forwarded our way, Hillary said: “With both of us in the state — I would like to invite him to join me for a joint town hall Saturday morning in Orono, ME, so that the people of Maine have a clear idea of the differences between us.”

“It’s time for the people of this country and the caucus goers of Maine to pick a President,” Hillary continues. “I hope Senator Obama will accept my invitation to help them do just that.”

Spin from the Clinton campaign’s perspective: Aren’t we gracious? What other campaign would consider sharing our time and our stage with our intra-party opponent?

Spin from the Obama campaign’s perspective: Given the Clinton campaign’s financial troubles, they’ve apparently decided that gaining publicity through a media stunt is easier than buying ad time.

On a related note, the Clinton campaign is still pushing those debates pretty hard.

Hillary campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle has sent an open letter to the Obama camp, stepping up their debate challenge. The letter argues that voters should get to see more than a single one-on-one debate between the two, and that the two of them should have one debate a week for the next five weeks starting this weekend.

One particular proposed venue would definitely be a sticking point with a lot of Democratic activists: “Senator Clinton believes voters should have more than one opportunity to see the candidates discuss the issues and has accepted five debates between now and March 4th from CNN, MSNBC, WJLA, ABC and Fox News.”

The Obama campaign seems unimpressed.

Mr. Obama said most of that fighting would be done on the ground in the next voting states, not in debates. When asked whether he would accept the invitation from Mrs. Clinton to attend four more debates in the coming weeks, he laughed.

“I don’t think anybody is clamoring for more debates,” he said. “We’ve had 18 debates so far. I think we’ve had 10 more than we’ve had in the last Democratic contest.”

He said he would agree to at least one debate, but noted, “It’s very important for me to spend time with voters.”

I guess the next the next argument we’ll hear is that after 18 debates and about a dozen joint candidate forums, Obama is “afraid to go up against Clinton.”

Stinks of desperation by Hillary. Everybody knows her campaign is running out of money, that is why Bill had to broker that Uranium deal to get some funding so that they could “loan” it to the campaign.

Obama is a run away train, and Hillary is just standing in the way.

Hillary had the support before any other candidate emerged, but now that somebody without the Baggage of Clinton has arrived, Hillary is yesterday’s news.

Time to Turn the Page.

  • Fox news, no. It’s the home shopping network for the Republican party.

    I know Obama has promised to appear on O’Reilly’s show and Clinton has suggested a debate on Fox but the only way to deal with Fox is to rob them. Rob them of any connection to the next administration, whoever wins the election.

  • Obama is right. Even CB was getting tired of watching the debates so I wouldn’t have to.

  • Are people still voting for Hillary? Isn’t the Clinton Saga a little tired and dated?

    Who out there is honestly considering voting for Clinton? And why would you want to invite the Republicans to have a field day with her lack of character and the issues that plagued the previous Clinton administration?

    Isn’t it better to have a candidate that doesn’t have strong hatred against him by the media and most non-democrats in this nation?

  • I guess the next the next argument we’ll hear is that after 18 debates and about a dozen joint candidate forums, Obama is “afraid to go up against Clinton.”

    Afraid might be too strong a word, but he may have realized it wasn’t going to serve him well. Some analysts were pointing out this morning that Obama’s Super Tuesday numbers didn’t seem to live up to the energy he appeared to have in the run up. Now some polling is showing why: Clinton was on an upswing at the end. This is consistent with exit polling in several of the states showing that late deciders broke for Clinton.

    Not much of note happened in that time period. . . except the Los Angeles debate. In that format, her precise mastery of policy detail shows, his charisma — which is stronger when he can pre-write the speech, feed off the energy of an audience, and sustain momentum — is less effective, and she comes off as other than the caricature the Right has created. All of which are to her benefit.

    She is right to try and pressure him into debates; he is right to resist.

  • Obama was 20 pts down in the polls two weeks ago, and he won on Super Tuesday (at least the most delegates, which is really what matters).

    How was that a disappointing Super Tuesday? that is a huge victory.

    Obama’s momentum is too much for the Clinton Apologists to stomach right now. That statement right there is proof positive.

  • “Senator Clinton believes voters should have more than one opportunity to see the candidates discuss the issues and has accepted five debates between now and March 4th from CNN, MSNBC, WJLA, ABC and Fox News.”

    One can just imagine what a Democratic Party debate on Faux News would look like….

    “Hello, I’m Chris Wallace and welcome to the Democrat Party candidate debate on Fox News between the Senator from New York Hillary Clinton and the Senator from Illinois, Barak Hussein Obama. The first question will come from Fox News’ senior correspondent Britt Hume.”

    “Surveys have shown that an overwhelming majority of Americans believe the Democrat plan for withdrawal from Iraq would be a dangerous surrender to the terrorists. In fact, many Americans say they consider it tantamount to treason. So my question to both of you is, will you as President be willing to reject the Democrat leadership’s misguided, dangerous, and ultimately treasonous plan to cut and run and will you support our brave soldiers and allow them to have the opportunity to achieve victory in Iraq?”

    (Wallace)“Thank you for, Britt, for that insightful, fact-filled question. Our next panelist is a best-selling author and the host of popular programs on both radio and television, political independent, Bill O’Reilly.”

    “As you know, the most important issue facing this country in the ‘Secular Progressives’ WAR ON CHRISTMAS. Now, a Factor Investigation has found hundreds of Americans across the country who have been THROWN IN JAIL just for trying to buy a Christmas tree. So my question is, will either of you have the COURAGE to come on The Factor to denounce the S.P.’s War on Christmas? The Far Left has … no wait Obama, I’m not finished yet. The liberal moon-bats have … shut up Obama. Someone turn off his mike – he was getting ready to lie. In fact, turn off both their mikes. The people only want to hear me … ME… ME….”

    (Wallace) “Thank you, Bill, for that will-reasoned, and self-effacing question. Our third panelist is a politically moderate, nationally-known commentator and the author of many best-selling books of thoughtful political discussion, Ann Coulter.”

    “Tchaah! I think you’re both total FAGS. So what are you going to do to prove to Americans that you’re not both FAGS?”

    (Wallace) “Thank you Ann. We can always count on you to elevate the tone of any discussion. That’s all the time we have. Thank you for joining Fox News — political coverage that’s always Fair And Balanced.”

  • Who out there is honestly considering voting for Clinton?

    According to the exit polls in NY and CA, gay Democrats are overwhelmingly in favor of Clinton. Latinos appear to also vote overwhelmingly in Clinton’s favor.

  • SteveT,

    your parody Fox News [SIC] debate, especially the O’Liely part is perfect. LOL! thanks!

  • MESSIAH or SANJIAH: If Obama is so highly principled shouldn’t he give a speech on the economy, then vote “No” on the Stimulus Package because under his leadership we can do better than election year pandering? Isn’t this rush the same reactionary politics that got us into Iraq. By the way, from the start many African-Americans were against the invasion. And likewise, any Senator from New York is going to vote for the authorization. And now, Obama consistantly votes YES for additional war funding…So again, lets see Obama take any stand, where we say, “Wow, he should be president!” Or is he just a one-hit-wonder who’s being hyped as the next American idol?

    Yes, people are over-exploited. With Clinton/Obama we might get better healthcare coverage. Otherwise, without campaign finance reform, wouldn’t it take a revolution to alter the status-quo? And Obama said he ain’t looking for a fight.

  • Once Again Obama ducks substance but wants people to believe that there is something more there than all the hype. You think he would be relishing a one-on-one debate since all we heard when Edwards was in the race was that Obama would be able to shine once it was just him and Hillary. Now that Edwards is out- he suddenly has done enough debates.

    The real truth is that he failed big time in California, New Jersey and Massachussets despite having plenty of advantages and plenty of face time because a lot of people weren’t impressed with what they saw.

    Instead of working to convince them in a meaningful debate format when they can compare him against his opponent- he wants to continue the dog and pony show as if he was just another product Oprah was trying to sell on her show.

    Don’t the voters in Pennsylvania, Texas and Ohio deserve to see a substantive debate close to their big voting days just like the other states saw.

    Edwards would be there since he was never afraid to take someone on one-on-one, Indeed, he would have relished the opportunity.
    It says alot about Obama that he won’t show up to prove that he is the best candidate.

    Maybe its because he knows that he isn’t.

  • Steve… good interpretation, although you don’t have to be a brain surgeon to figure out all the leading questions that would come from Fox.

    I like what Hillary just did, by inviting Obama. You can read into it whatever you’d like, but put that aside for a moment.

    Isn’t it great, that a candidate actually sets the agenda, instead of the media, the way it always has been.

    I’d love to see Obama and Clinton do those impromptu joint town hall meetings. Just let the media find out about it through the media, instead of having advance warning.

    IT would be great to see the media ‘chase’ the democratic’ candidates.
    the Obama and Clinton campaign can hash out the details and announce it through Youtube, or their respective websites. Completely ignore the media. The media would end up covering the Youtube segment and the website reports. BUT on the candidates terms, instead of the media with all their shallow questions.

    So what if the questions from their own campaign are planted. At least we’ll get to hear what the candidates think is important, instead of the stupid horse race we end up having to watch because the current ‘media’ is too lazy to do actual reporting.

    I hope Obama accepts with many more to come. Take the wind out of the media’s sails, and enjoy the ride.

  • I’d like to see a town hall with Obama and Clinton. I’ll like to see them sit and argue freestyle without a moderator at all. But mostly I’d like to see them in DC showing strong leadership and doing their jobs.

  • Everyone knows that Hilary excels at debates, while Obama is a stronger orator. Neither skill is really necessary in a president; both are important for candidates. But Obama would be crazy to accept this offer. Fortunately for him “one a week for five weeks” sounds pretty excessive, so it’s easier to turn down than if she had proposed adding a second and possibly third debate. Going for five makes Hilary look like the unreasonable one.

    The town hall gambit is a good one, though. They’re both in the state, so why not? Heck, he could even accept contingent upon making it a candidate-neutral town hall with both of their supporters and, say, making it a speech-off: 10 minutes each. That would be putting the battle back into the arena he is more comfortable with and better at.

  • The invitation for a dual town hall meeting sounds like, “Gee, Barack, could you raise a 20,000 person crowd for me? Please? Pretty, pretty please?

  • Obama is singing the same line from Bush in 2000. “Believe in change. We need a change. I am the only one can bring the change.”
    With the help of bunch of psycho-analyst from CNN, voters believed that and voted for Bush.

    Should we do that again?

  • Hillary Clinton is a murder? Who was this guy Vince Foster? Why haven’t we heard of any of this before? How did they manage to keep it quiet?

    /snark

  • was just watching MSNBC and the scrool said Howard Dean was pushing for new election days in FL and MI. sounds like a plan to me. but I say popular vote wins and no delegates involved that way there should be no dispute who the nominee is because if you use delegates it will still be tied. wins the state and all the delegates if one wins one state and the other winning the other

  • Let’s see, we have been hearing for weeks/months how Obama is not a typical politician and how Clinton is a calculating politician. But, now that it is one on one Obama no longer wishes to debate his opponent, apparently because of the usual political calculations that all politicians make when deciding on doing debates. I guess this means that should Obama get the nomination we will have the usual dance between his campaign and McCain’s about whether to have debates and how many.

    I am not objecting to Obama making political calculations, it is the smart thing to do and I don’t want an idiot in the White House (we have tried that for seven years and know how successful that is), but I do object to hypocrisy, no matter who is guilty of it.

  • Edo said:
    SteveT,
    your parody Fox News [SIC] debate, especially the O’Liely part is perfect. LOL! thanks!

    Parody? What makes you think that was a parody? [G}

  • PS @ 24: Are you suggesting that Obama would be just like Bush in office?

    And is there any candidate out there, in either party, who is campaigning on some entirely-new-to-politics platform and idea? It seems silly to attack the guy for doing what every politician since the dawn of time has done. And yes, he claims not to be like other politicians. They all do that, too.

  • Barack will accept invitations to Town hall meeting or additional debates if he deems it benefits him. If he turns down her invitation, it just means that there was nothing in it for him. It’s silly to label other’s refusal to attend as being afraid, etc..

    In my opinion, what he needs to do is to meet his voters as much as he can. He is not so well known as Hilary and Bill. He needs to introduce himself to the voters first and let them know what he believes in and where he stands on key issues. Let him introduce himself first by himself. He is a big boy. He does not need Hilary or anyone else to facilitate the introduction for him.

    As a best venue for this, I would like to suggest a televised town hall where he can introduce himself and take a few questions from the voters. You see, Obama does not need Hilary for that. He’s got his money and staff to put together his own town hall. Let the voters decide whether or not they would like to attend Obama’s or Hilary event or both. Let the voters decide to what degree they would like to compare Hilary and Obama. Please do not MANDATE how we voters make decisions. Thank you.

  • PS @ 24. You link Obama to Bush because they both said we need change? If that is all you know, please don’t vote.

    MW @ 27. Obama has agreed to two more debates on top of the 18 we’ve already seen. How many more people are going to get reached this way? You don’t want hypocrisy, but the irony is dripping.

  • C’mon MW.

    There’s a difference between playing smart to win and playing to win at all costs. I don’t see how playing to his strengths is hypocritical.

  • Debates aside, what I really long to hear is BOTH candidates say “Should my opponent become the Democratic nominee, they can count on my support to campaign for the general election.”.
    Clearly, we have two strong candidates with loyal followers. I’m not so hot on ‘dual ticket’ fantasy talk, but the chance of success at the White House would increase if they acknowledged that they see merits in each other…. Kum-bi-yaa my friends.
    I have a preference, but like many, I will vote for the other if the outcome does not go my way. Michelle O, as long as she’s out there campaigning, should buy into this as well.

  • Obama is a chicken and he should be … he does not have the command of the subject matter that Hillary does and a debate is the best way to show that … a good interview would also show that but the media is too consumed with having him be their candidate that that isn’t going to happen.

    I was just at MSNBC … is that Obama’s new home page or what?

    The media sucks in this campaign … they sucked in the last two also …

  • It says alot about Obama that he won’t show up to prove that he is the best candidate

    No, actually it says a lot about Hillary that somehow she got derailed on the way to the coronation. She wants debates for two reasons: 1) she thinks she’s better at them than Obama, and 2) she’s running out of money.

    I see no reason Obama should allow her to dictate how the rest of the campaign plays out.

    Nice spin, “Truthsquad”, but it won’t work. Obama will prove he’s the best candidate by getting more votes and more delegates, or he won’t. He doesn’t have to follow the edicts of the Queen.

  • On MSNBC, after a Bush/Gore debate Chris Matthews (& Peggy Noonan) gushed about how well Bush held his own. It was like Dubya had just fallen off a turnip truck, when in reality, high-office politics & corporate p/r was his whole life. And now Chris is an Obamaholic…

    “Hey Matthews, keep this in mind; You hate the Iraq war!”

  • Sen. Obama only had ONE 1-to-1 debate with sen. Clinton.
    Once again, that shows sen. Obama doesn’t want to be tested. He’s been attacking his rival using different approaches (e.g., at his stump speeches, via flyers, via radio ads, etc).
    Why doesn’t he want to confront her at a debate?
    (Remember, he can for sure beat Clinton on the issue of the Iraq war at any debate.)

  • I really cannot understand why some people say that Senator Obama is all talk no substance. He was a community organizer who became known to the community through his effort to improve living conditions of some of the worst neighborhood in Chicago. He went to Harvard law school, became a civil rights lawyer, state senator and passed many landmark legislatures in Illinois before he became US Senator. He is actually a policy wonk (ask his University of Chicago colleagues) but he has a very different approach to policy making. Like his campaign organization, his policy making process is grass root. When he was putting his Healthcare proposals together, I remember Obama holding a number of town hall meetings to solicit input from key stake holders in health care, i.e., medical professionals, healthcare workers, insurance companies and PEOPLE like us. His decisions, not to create single-payer healthcare, leaving freedom of choice among government sponsored healthcare plan & employer (private sector insurance), and not to mandate for coverage, all came from those town halls: As a result of Obama listening to the Voice of stakeholders.

    As Obama often states, I believe one of the reasons why so many healthcare proposals failed is the detachment of law makers from the general public, a key stakeholder (constituents of the healthcare debate). The policy makers ignored the voice of the key constituents, the people. They only listened to the insurance companies and drug companies behind the closed doors. Needless to say, this kind of behavior, listening to special interests and do not obtain adequate input from general public create another problem, corruption in Washington.

    You see now, why Senator Obama is big on Change.

    Senator Obama is constructing his change argument on the belief that the majority of people would welcome departure from the status quo. Examples of the status quo are; the situation in Iraq, lack of adequate health care system, current education system, current state of economy, and the list goes on and on. Apparently, he does not think the status quo is working. That’s why he proposes to change the status quo! In order to transform the country, America needs right kind of leadership. Policy knowledge and proposals are important for any future president, however, ability to make excellent policy proposals alone or having long years in Washington are not the most important requirement. No worries, Senator Obama prepared overwhelming number of well thought out policy proposals as Senator Clinton did and he has over 10 years of state level and national level experience (see http://WWW.BarackObama.Com).

    Leadership is what’s important and where Senators Clinton and Obama differ significantly.

    She is a policy wonk, very experienced and seems to regard her 35 years of experience (former First Lady of Arkansas, the United States and US Senator in Washington) as her qualification for an enabler of Change. Senator Obama offers a rare leadership that is characterized with vision, courage and sound judgments to transform this country. I know many effective managers who can deliver results by giving tasks to the employees, keeping track of their work and controlling their behavior through reword and punishment. President of the United States is not a mere manager but a leader of the free world. Much is asked for such leader. He should be able to influence/inspire/move people by sharing his visions and earn trust through his ability to lead the country to the right direction by making sound judgment for critical issues at the moment when it is at stake. That’s our Senator Obama. Look, he has created a movement from the ground up by sharing his visions and earning trust from people through his straight forward campaign. I would like to endorse Senator Obama as our next President of the United States.

  • Tom Watson made the “Obama’s afraid” argument over in a post at his place titled “Obama Turning Tail?”

    Um, ok.

  • One of my favorite pastimes is listening to the wack-os call into talk radio. You can’t listen for an hour without hearing about the Clinton pardons. Those who have set up an infrastructure to deal with this misinformation with Media Matters and Think Progress, as well as the usually good work by atrios and Daily Howler know what to do click on the link. or here.

    For the people bringing back up the “murder” of Vince Foster, it should be remembered that Independant Prosecutor Fiske found no evidence it was anything other than suicide due to a depression of a WSJ editorial fabricating wrongdoing. (The WSJ, without a hint of remorse and smelling a swell opportunity to score partisan points over the death then went on to push the “murder” investigation constantly, in a sort of dance over the grave of the man they drove to kill himself.) Since Fiske came to the wrong conclusion, he was summarily fired and replaced by Kenneth Starr who knew that the only possible findings by his investigation were “Guilty” or “Ongoing”, and pursued the matter for another few years until he finally (finally!) caught Bill doing what he told us he did on 60 Minutes after the New Hampshire primary, and people voted for him anyway.

    And let’s save some time on the next 90’s talk radio memes the Obamites will try to resurrect: Clinton’s haircut did not stop air traffic (can anyone connect the dots here? Edward’s hair isn’t a fluke any more than Gore’s earth tones or Hillary’s cleavage or Obama dressing like the President of Iran). Clinton did not run drugs. He did not murder 40 people. And before you bring up the sleepover list, do a search on Daily Howler.

    It was wrong when Rove concocted the pardon scandal and the myth that Clinton trashed the WH and Air Force One (look that up as well), and it’s just as wrong when Obama people do it, just as it would be wrong for Obama people to bring up Gore never having said he invented the Internet if he was the one they were running against. You won’t hear me talking about Terrorist Madrassas, or other debunked nonsense we now have an infrastructure to shoot down. You can’t cheer MediaMatters and ThinkProgress in off-years, then propell the same nonsense they tore apart when you’re running against those people in a primary. Obama’s not a Muslim. I know this. You should know better than to fall for the nonsense when the same tactic (the orignal examples) are used on Clinton. It’s shortsighted — we have to be against the mindset, as Obama would (should?) say, that allows these things to fly.

  • Follow up point…Obama didn’t say he wouldn’t debate her anymore. He seems to lean toward not doing it every week. Frankly, that makes sense from his point of view. The general trend is that as more people meet him, the more they like him, so it would be in his best interest to ramp up his ground game in Texas and Ohio and get out and meet the people there. Public debating IS her strong suit (but, as noted above, it’s not an especially important skill for a president) and so being goaded into playing her game isn’t wise.

  • Look, there will be more debates, but clearly this is ploy by the Clinton campaign. For a change, I think it is an above board tactic, so bravo for that!

    On the other hand, anyone who says Super Tuesday was an outright victory for either candidate is smoking something or trying to spin things one way or the other.

    Since deligates are the hard currency of this campaign and those are a virtual tie, then there was NO clear winner.

    That said, the fact that Obama was as much as 20 to 25 points behind in many state polls only two weeks prior to ST shows that he picked up some momentum. In California, for instance, he cut Clinton’s lead by 10 to 15 points and split the vote 42% for himself 52% for Clinton. Yes, Clinton won the state, but he did earn a significant portion of the deligates there.

    And the fact that the next several contests will likely favor Obama means that there will be a month of favorable press. So, of course, the Clinton Campaign is trying to create a little buzz in order to minimize the impact of these weeks between now and Texas and Ohio where things are more favorable to her. THAT is the reason for her sudden interest in joint town halls and extra debates.

  • Pug

    All I was saying is that the Obama supporters kept on clamoring for Edwards to get out so they could have one-one-one debates and now when he doesn’t get the votes after the debates, he doesn’t want them.

    That has nothing to do with what the “queen wants” – its basically about not being a hypocrite.

    But hey he has at least accepted one so at least he realized he wasn’t looking good.

  • And one point for all those who say that Obama cut her lead from 20 to 25 points based on picking a number from a November poll- get a grip.

    First, the polls right before the race said he was ahead in California so obviously, if I go by your logic, he lost 17 points overnight. Does that mean people are turning from Obama in droves?

    Clearly, the polls are just a snapshot in time VIEWED THROUGH THE POLLSTERS lens and picking and choosing them to make your points is pretty silly.

    The polls that matter are the one on election days. In those he didn’t do well in Mass, Ny, Florida and California – he did better in others. You have reason to be proud but don’t try to twist his losses into victories- it just weakens you other arguments and makes you seem unrealistically biased.

  • Simply put, Clinton wants to control Obama’s message. She wants to become an obstruction between Obama and his audience. The last time I checked, he was campaigning for the position of President of the United States, and not “chief number one house-boy for the Clinton plantation.”

    Tell Hillary to crawl back into the pit from whence she came. If she wants the nomination, she’s going to have to earn it—every last step of the way—and her bandying about on the issue of weekly debates and endless townhalls smacks of what one would logically expect from “a Foxchurian Candidate….”

  • and her bandying about on the issue of weekly debates and endless townhalls smacks of what one would logically expect from “a Foxchurian Candidate

    see, this is the kind of wild overreaction i just dont get.
    Obama is smart to turn down HRC’s suggestion of a debate every week, because it isn’t good campaign strategy for him to debate her every week. See, I can say that even though I support HRC. Objectivity isn’t so hard.

    But how is it wrong of her to suggest it — much less as wrong as you suggest? It is good campaign strategy for her. This is a repeated theme among amny Obama supporters: that almost any logical campaigning on HRC’s part at all is somehow evil. Like your guy is entitled to just have her roll over and give up.

    I really don’t get it. But I’m really very glad I’m not a part of it. And for the sake of many here, I hope it is curable.

  • zeitgeist, stop looking so deep into this. you are not a political expert, so stop acting like you are a tv analyst.

    obama has caught hillary, and she’s scared. she knows her past is shaaaaadddyyy, and that the americans are sick of her act. obama is making his push, we’ll see who wins.

    give up the political mumbo jumbo and try spending some time at your job. maybe then you can make an extra $2k and give some money to obama for the general election as he takes over the white house.

    wish him luch, and embrace the change.

  • Wow I guess it’s really true that republicans are supporting Obama – Hillary murdered Vince Foster – really how mild, how could you forget to add that she did it while having lesbian sex and selling hard drugs. I didn’t think anybody but my mother-in-law believed that – and I’m not convinced that she doesn’t believe it with a wink and a nod but that it’s required by the party. Welcome to the left blogosphere – hope you absorb some of the good ideas.

    As for another topic on the internets today – a cluster of comments about the tent revival character of an Obama meeting – that he’s the One – there seems to be some validity reflected in some of the comments above.

    As to the Fox News, point is well taken not to support the official network of the Republican party, so perhaps this is irrelevant, but I do recall a republican candidate debate on Fox that had some of the most substantive questions – so it’s not impossible (not to mention that the other bozos doing the debates leave lots to be desired).

  • Truthsquad (#45): I can go part way with your analysis. It is true that polls the day before and day of the the primary in California showed a virtual tie and still Clinton took California by 10%. That was impressive, no doubt. But it is also true that as little as three weeks prior to the primary, Clinton held a 20 point lead in most polls for Cal. That is not exactly November like you implied. So, While you are correct that Clinton did well on the day, it is also true that Obama closed the gap considerably.

    It is also true that she took her home state of New York by about 17%…pretty darn good. But Obama took his home state of Illinois by 33%.

    We could go back and forth spinning and re-spinning and re-re-spinning these results, but what it comes down to is this: Super Tuesday was a draw. From my perspective, a draw gives Obama a slight (emphasis on slight) advantage because no one expected him to be here now….and because the next several contests are in places that are likely to favor him. IF, and this is a big if, he does win the upcoming contests, then it will be a month of headlines like “Obama wins Louisiana” and “Obama takes Washington” and “Obama is on a roll”.

    Now I will be the first one to say that this by no means seals a victory for Obama. In this wild election year I’d have to be crazy to make a statement like that, but if he strings together a month’s worth of victory headlines, it will be even harder for Clinton to regain her momentum when Texas and Ohio come around.

    Truth be told, the super deligates will likely decide the nominee because it is doubtful that either Obama or Clinton will get enough pledged deligates to claim the nomination outright.

    So this brings up another question: how should the super deligates vote? Should they simply vote for who they want, or should they examine their individual state and district results and follow suit? It is an interesting thought, eh?

  • Obama is smart to turn down HRC’s suggestion of a debate every week, because it isn’t good campaign strategy for him to debate her every week. See, I can say that even though I support HRC. Objectivity isn’t so hard.

    But how is it wrong of her to suggest it — much less as wrong as you suggest? It is good campaign strategy for her. This is a repeated theme among amny Obama supporters: that almost any logical campaigning on HRC’s part at all is somehow evil. Like your guy is entitled to just have her roll over and give up.

    I really don’t get it. But I’m really very glad I’m not a part of it. And for the sake of many here, I hope it is curable.

    Zeitgest: please. You’re obv trying hard ot be honest here, but the calculation here goes beyond whether or 5 debates before March 5th is “good campaign strategy”. The fact is, it’s an absurd proposition. Period. You and I know it. Say Feb 9th is the earliest we could have a debate, and March 3rd the latest. That’s at best a debate every 4.4 days. Each debate day is a day where the candidates can’t campaign. I mean, that’s absolutely moronic. Through out the multiple election days, and you’re looking at more than 1 debate day for every 4 campaign days.

    This isn’t about Hillary trying to show off some tactical advantage she has over Obama (he actually gets the better of her on foreign policy in these things); it’s a transparent attempt to set his schedule and keep him off the campaign trail, and keep her in the news without spending any money. That is, it’s a ploy, and an obvious one at that. It should be dismissed as such, and saying debates are her strength, so she’s smart to demand them, and as such he’s smart to say ‘no’, elides the main point here, which is the sheer volume of the demand and its implications for campaigning.

    And it really highlights the absurdity of all the faux handwringing here about Obama being “scared” or “lacking substance” or what not. I mean, where the hell were you all just a week ago when Obama more than held his own face-to-face with Hillary?

    And lastly, zeitgest, your analysis about the likely effects of the debate is faulty, for the main reason that if you’re citing hte polls as at all accurate, then you’re missing the evidence of the “debate effect” in all save 1 (gallup)…but if you cite gallup as at all accurate, you have the issue that gallup’s national tracking poll didn’t jive at all with the preferences the a huge % of the nation registered on Feb 5th.

    It doesn’t work. Sure, some polls showed Obama up in Cali, but some, like SUSA, did not. That’s standard sampling and stat error. Overall, we know a month ago Obama was down 20 nation-wide in just about every poll and 20+ in most state polls. We know that 22 states and 15 million voter turned out two days ago and….Obama and Clinton basically tied. Some math says she probably had about half a % point more voters in her favor; other math suggests Obama won more votes (by the same slim margin). Obama won more states but Clinton won bigger states.

    The suggestion that somehow this represents a disappointment for Obama, that he didn’t effectively end the race on Feb 5th, is flatly absurd. Literally the day before multiple people were talking about him simply needing to stay within 100 delegates. Now he actually wins the delegate battle slightly, and that’s a loss and proof his momentum evaporated and on and on…please.

    Fact is, even a week before super-tuesday, Obama was not the favorite to win 10 states, let along 13 or 14. Before the debate, very few would’ve predicted him winning 13/14, basically tying if not out-right winning the popular vote, and edging out with a slim delegate lead. I’d like to see a link to someone predicting that finish as “likely” back on, say, Jan 25th-28th. The debate happened between that date range and Feb 5th, and Obama’s standing in the period clearly rose. I find it hard to buy the notion somehow Obama had actually, for a day or two, become the clear national front-runner in 22 states (including huge states like Cali) but Hillary cut him back down to size on the strength of one debate performance that by pretty much all accounts, including focus groups, was somewhat of a draw.

  • Just as a counter-factual to kinda prove the point I was making above about the requests being absurd, how ridiculous would it be for Obama to “invite” Clinton to give a speech every 4 days at his mega-rallies.

    It wouldn’t be “smart campaign tactics” cause he knows he’s really good at addressing enormous audiences, and she’s not. And it wouldn’t be “smart campaign tactics” for her to turn him down.

    It would be an insultingly transparent ploy on his part, which =/= “smart campaign tactics”.

  • MIchael #51

    Let’s say all this is true … how does a guy do that? I know, he’s very inspirational, his team is fantastic, his grass-roots effort it amazing. AND, the media wants him to win. There-in lies a very big and real advantage that will be hard for anyone to overcome.

    I keep thinking about the elections that took place in this country before TV … before radio … before the telegraph. Someone like Obama would never be able to do what he has done. Just an observation.

    I wonder where he would be if the media hadn’t decided he is the favorite? Perhaps he’d be where John Edwards is. I have actually watched FOX news twice in the last week and thought … at least here the partisanship is obvious and they treat Obama and Hillary on an equal playing field (they slam both of them). This worries me … that I have to go to FOX to have the two democratic candidates depicted in any semblance of equity.

    I said this already today but I went to the MSNBC web site and thought … this looks like it must be OBama’s home page. Those of you who back Obama might think this is great … but there is an inherant danger in trusting the media to raise up your candidate. Reality migh kick him in the butt.

  • Very good points Michael, thanks for writing posts #51 & 52. Obama is under no moral obligation to use the same campaign tactics as Mrs. Clinton, & if he most wants to increase his name recognition and establish his identity on specific issues, which is what I would do if I were him, then I don’t see the typical debate format as helping his cause.

    As for the idea that he’s scared of Mrs. Clinton, gosh, who can know? He’s run in elections before and survived Harvard Law School, I suspect he’s not lacking in intellectual confidence. I don’t think the televised debates we have really function as intelligence tests or surveys of knowledge, anyway– if that was the point, we could just set up a couple of giant “Jeopardy”-like boards and see who came out with the highest amount of money.

    Independent thinker, my impulse would be that ‘superdelegates’ ratify the winner of the overall delegate count, then step aside and let the general election campaign gear up. And I would set aside the Michigan and Florida totals unless those are re-run either as pure primary elections or as caucuses. I think that’s the most democratic and best reflects the overall will of the primary voters and caucus attendees.

  • Hillary sucks. Obama is the real deal.

    Obama is trusted, and we can hold our heads high with him.
    Hillary is dishonest, and she’s a crook.

    Why would anybody vote for Hillary?

  • I can’t help wondering if it’s just a stage-setting exercise in getting the voters used to seeing them together (as in the Clinton/Obama “Dream Ticket”), and forcing voters to consider choosing her as president; with the implication that they would still have Obama as Vice-President, and that he may already have agreed to a secret deal. If so, he’s wise to refuse.

  • I see many posts here and elsewhere from Clinton supporters, over the past week or two and especially since last week, wherein the media are deemed anti-Clinton to one degree or another, but I’m not finding a lot of concrete examples. The general theme is that cable news commentators, except for Fox, are unfairly critical of Senator Clinton and uncritically favorable to Senator Obama. I don’t see these cable commentary shows often, except for The Daily Show & The Colbert Report, and I’m not sure they’re the programs that the Clinton voters find problematic. Anyone care to vent some specifics?

    I’m afraid we’ve missed a tremendous opportunity to investigate perception of media bias, in a television-saturated primary with an established leader and low-name-recognition competitor who rises up to challenge over the course of several weeks. It would have been interesting to have samples of supporters from each group and see if and/or how their perceptions are altered as the relative success of their favored candidate changes. Sure, there’s plenty of social psych data out there, but this is so incredibly passionate and ‘real world’ compared to undergraduates in a psych lab.

    Re the position and performance of Fox News, I’ve always seen them as primarily a propaganda wing of the Republican Party, and would prefer that none of the Democratic candidates give them a scintilla of attention or a millisecond of air time. I found it deplorable that Senator Clinton included them on her list of preferred sponsoring organizations for Democratic debates.

  • Re the ‘tent revival’ comment from Amelia…. well, I’ve not attended a revival meeting in many years, but I think a lot of people enjoy them a great deal, and they are not the sole province of crazy persons, or the merely mentally unbalanced. Like when they go to church, people often want to hear a good sermon, shared with others who may feel as they do, and it’s a great pleasure to find an orator who regularly succeeds in inspiring a crowd of interested strangers like themselves. But I doubt that you could apprehend among the millions who voted for Senator Obama on Tuesday anyone who believes that he is divine.

    If you find that some Obama supporters are too worshipful for your taste, I suppose that’s a matter of perspective, although the scent of adoration may sometimes appall, it’s true. I’m possibly a fairly cold person at heart and normally find strong devotion to a politician quite repugnant to my intellectual worldview. But I wouldn’t insist that mine was the exclusive scale for weighing a person’s character and capabilities, or imply that people investing more emotion than me were necessarily delusional. If you would require a contrary example, Ameila, I direct you to a Clinton endorsement posted by Taylor Marsh within the week, which has more of the character and logic of a love letter than a political essay, and that has attached a string of testimonials many of which would do a holy roller proud.

  • MESSIAH or SANJIAH: Congress rushed to approval the Iraq war. And now they’ve rushed to approve a Stimulus Package. But where’s Sen. Obama’s leadership? If he’s so highly principled, why didn’t he urge a “No” vote, argueing YES WE CAN do better than this election year pandering, that will add to the deficit, but CHANGE nothing?

    From the start many African-Americans were against the Iraq invasion, whereas any Senator from New York is going to vote for authorization. And now Obama consistantly votes for additional war funding…So lets see Obama take another stand where we say, “Wow, he should be President!” Or is he just a one-hit-wonder who’s being hyped to the heavens as our next American idol? “Hey Barack, just because you hit-one-out-of-the-park, that doesn’t mean you’re the next Hank Aaron. If you’re so ‘all that’ let’s see you debate not just Hillary, but the whole Senate.”

    In 2000, after a Bush/Gore debate, Chris Matthews (& Peggy Noonan) on MSNBC gushed about how well Bush held his own. It was like Dubya had just fallen off the proverbial turnip truck, when in reality, high-office politics & corporate p/r was his whole life…And now Chris is an Obamaholic? “Hey Matthews, keep this in mind; You hate the Iraq war!”

  • Zeitgeist, I don’t think it’s wrong to compare Clinton to FOX. First, she has to know that her “suggestions” regarding FOX debates are a joke. FOX is a tool of the GOP, plain and simple—and of the two contestants in this particular event, isn’t Obama the one reaching across the aisle? Isn’t he the one who wants to build bridges and extend participation beyond the party perimeter—and being accused by the Clinton camp and its followers of using “Conservative frames” for doing so?

    Obama wants to do business with citizens who just happen to be Republicans, because he believes that they, too, can be a part of fixing the mess this country is in.

    Clinton wants to do business with FOX.

    Obama wants to take his message to the people directly, without interfering moderators who want glitzy ratings and ask meaningless questions. Perhaps you think the silly questions have merit—but I do not.

    Clinton wants more debates. More silly questions. More bending everyone else’s spotlight so that it shines on her; bending the content to her control; bending the message to that which she wants heard—and only to that which she wants heard.

    Tell me, Z—what is your candidate afraid of?

    Let’s play this one out “just a smidgen.” The Clinton campaign complains about Obama reaching out to rank-and-file Republicans, but Clinton herself wants to do business with FOX—the Republican propaganda machine. O’Reilly does everything he can to get Obama on FOX—going so far as to foment an altercation at a campaign event—and Clinton now pushes for Obama to meet with her on FOX.

    This isn’t about being fair to FOX, this is about employing a FOX tactic: bending the message from what the messenger wants to deliver; bending the message to what the Republican propaganda machine wants people to hear.

    And your candidate seems to be willing to do that—with a degree of enthusiasm, IMHO, that justifies her being labeled “the Foxchurian Candidate.”

  • Obama hasn’t had any problems agreeing to debates, until after this last – and only – one-on-one. But now that he’s one of two people still standing, he’s no longer interested? Hmmm. Seems to me someone who wants to be president would want as many people as possible to see him. We’ve had quite enough of a president who picks and chooses his audience so that he is always in front of friendly crowds, and it might assure some people that Obama is not afraid to present himself to the people, regardless of whether they are friendly or not.

    Of course he wants to go directly to the voters – that’s a format that works so much better for him – he can give a soaring, inspirational speech, get the crowd all fired up – and there’s no one else there to compare him to. No one whose talking policy and nuts-and-bolts of issues and programs. He controls the message when it’s just him.

    But being the president is a lot more than giving speeches, and America deserves to see, in a nationally televised format, how the candidates handle information and issues, and how they process that information and relate it to the bigger picture.

    I’m happy to see that he has agreed to 2 more debates – one in Ohio and one in Texas.

  • I don’t think Clinton and Obama are ever going to get to Fox. But it’s a cute play to suggest it and get the ability to say “well, I was brave enough to come on.”

    I think Zeitgeist just convinced me that Clinton is going to win. The late breakers always seem to break her way, and often enough it’s enough to win. She may not have an overwhelming delegate advantage in August (damn Dean for putting our Convention so damn far back) but she’s going to have more primary votes.

    Seat the Michigan and Florida delegations and break the rules, or obey the rules and let the Super Delegates vote where they want. Either way I see it going to Hillary.

    Or be two faced and insist that the delegations can’t be seated by the Super Delegates don’t have the freedom of choice.

  • Comments are closed.