Hillary was looking for free air time when she suggested weekly debates

[ProSense]

Her financial situation puts that strange last-minute request in context.

Netroots Open Fire On Hillary For Agreeing To Debate On Fox

[Avalux]

1. Yep. Obama was wise to not agree.

Why agree and give Hillary free airtime? He's raised enough money to pay for his own publicity and that's exactly what he should do.

[LakeSamish706]

3. Has Obama declined to debate on Fox? If so! Yes, Yes, and Yes....

Screw Fox, they do not deserve to have Obama on there F***up network...

[Avalux]

8. Yes.

His reasoning - we've already had over a dozen debates; I need to be out there talking to the people. :D

[LakeSamish706]

13. Yes, thats excellent... Let HRC find her own damn money to continue. n/t

[jenmito]

28. Are you sure? Dana Bash reported that he agreed to at least one debate!

I hope she's wrong!

[papau]

38. peoples right to know - don't let money decide elections? - or was Obama full of it when he spoke

[jlake]

2. And Obama is hiding from the issues.

He can only perform when preaching at his scripted rallies.

[Hippo_Tron]

6. The debates are just as scripted as Obama's rallies

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4443587&mesg_id=4443587

[jlake]

11. No they are not and some REAL issues are discussed.

Not just celebs and platitudes.

[Hippo_Tron]

27. By discussed you mean candidates read scripted answers and give scripted rebuttals

Hillary has never had to actually answer how she plans to enforce her mandates. Obama has never actually had to answer how much more it will cost when healthy people aren't forced to buy into the system. None of the moderators force them to actually answer real questions like that.

The current debates are just the candidates reciting their platforms. REAL debates would actually scrutinize their platforms.

[LakeSamish706]

15. Yeah, except that he is the best candidate for the Dems out there. n/t

[jlake]

17. So why not take the opportunities to showcase his superiority?

[LakeSamish706]

23. And why the hell would he want to appear on Fox Noise again in order to...

allow Hillary to raise money on his back? Thats exactly what this is all about!

[chascarrillo]

16. Exactly! That's why he's participated in eighteen debates so far.

... because he wanted to hide from the issues.

Wow.

Look, this is a standard tactic from anyone who's behind in a race. Superficially, it's hard to argue against having more debates. That said, it 1) reeks of desperation, double in this case due to Clinton's money woes and 2) there have been eighteen debates already! You can't portray the opposition as ducking debate if they've already participated in such a huge number or forums already.

Hiding from issues. Please.

[jlake]

18. Only 1 substantial debate - with 1 on 1 vs. Hillary. Sorry.

[chascarrillo]

21. The SEVENTEEN others don't count?

Wow. I do not agree. Sorry.

[jlake]

22. The amount of time for each candidate was limited. We have only seen a SUBSTANTIAL "debate"

between Hill & O one time.

[chascarrillo]

26. So, back to your point: Participating in EIGHTEEN debates is "hiding from the issues"?

Really?

Sure you don't want to revise your remarks?

[jlake]

30. I am not revising anything - he is hiding from debate. I don't know why that is so

hard for you to understand. He is SCARED of Hillary because he knows that his schtick doesn't work when up against an opponent.

[chascarrillo]

37. Eighteen. Soon to be nineteen. Obama's agreed to another, so your point is moot.

[jlake]

39. okay. keep telling yourself that. Wait 'til the Republicans get ahold of him.

He won't poll above 40%

[Trajan]

4. Ooooo ... You NAILED her !

Damn .... she is SHIFTY and sneaky ... aint she ?

Why ... She should be castigated by ALL the world's good people .... and made to pay for this transgression against humanity itself ....

:sarcasm:

[AtomicKitten]

5. The Clintons are the lifeblood of Faux News fodder.

Perhaps they've struck an accord.

[DianeG5385]

7. You're kidding! Free airtime, the audacity!

Good! I hope they all learn to campaign on the cheap. Look at McCain and Huckabee! They proved that you can score points without big money.

[ProSense]

12. Obama proved you can raise money

one small donor at a time

[DianeG5385]

35. So he's the guy who came up with the idea?? I thought it was Dean!

Let me update my diary.

[ProSense]

43. Where does it say he came up with the idea? He perfected it! n/t

[cbayer]

9. reject. nt

[Thrill]

10. When she agreed to go on Fox. You know she is worried

[Occam Bandage]

14. Her campaign is going off the rails.

[chascarrillo]

20. It really does seem that way.

There are too many tell-tale signs revealing themselves: Loaning yourself money, wanting free airtime, hiding donation totals... not a great spot to be in. With Obama's expected chain of wins this month, it just looks bleak for Clinton.

[CompSciStudent]

19. Obama’s health plan leaves 22 millions out and is twice as expensive as Hillary’s that covers all

Hillarys plan kick ass and give her plenty of ammo in the weeks to come. Hillary’s plan is far superior over Obama’s, both ethically since it covers everyone, and it’s also fiscally sound.

Paul krugman writes about Hillary vs Obama’s health plan in an op ed dated Feb 4th:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/04/opinion/04krugman.html

He refers to a new study by Jonathan Gruber of M.I.T, one of America’s leading health care economists,

He dissected both plans and "Gruber finds that a plan without mandates, broadly resembling the Obama plan, would cover 23 million of those currently uninsured, at a taxpayer cost of $102 billion per year. An otherwise identical plan with mandates would cover 45 million of the uninsured — essentially everyone — at a taxpayer cost of $124 billion. Over all, the Obama-type plan would cost $4,400 per newly insured person, the Clinton-type plan only $2,700."

Krugman writes; "As with any economic analysis, Mr. Gruber’s results are only as good as his model. But they’re consistent with the results of other analyses, such as a 2003 study, commissioned by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation that compared health reform plans and found that mandates made a big difference both to success in covering the uninsured and to cost-effectiveness.

And that’s why many health care experts like Mr. Gruber strongly support mandates."

"If you combine the economic analysis with these political realities, here’s what I think it says: If Mrs. Clinton gets the Democratic nomination, there is some chance — nobody knows how big — that we’ll get universal health care in the next administration. If Mr. Obama gets the nomination, it just won’t happen"

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/04/opinion/04krugman.html

[chascarrillo]

24. Obama's $102b < Clinton's $124b. $102b is not twice as expensive as $124b.

Also, the people that it "leaves out" are the people who are expected to voluntarily opt out. It doesn't deny them coverage.

[jenmito]

25. But they reported on CNN that he AGREED to at least one debate! I wish he hadn't!

[chascarrillo]

29. I liked the last O/C debate. Gotta have another.

There's much too much road to go to not have at least one more.

[jenmito]

33. I don't know...

She wouldn't have requested this if she didn't think it would be to her advantage. And she's almost always declared the winner no matter what.

[Imagevision]

44. I agree, Obama's numbers go up with more people contact w/ less Hillary exposure...

[adapa]

31. Typical politicial move, debate when your behind-refuse to when you think your ahead

O is a politician after all-

that will come back to haunt him,

[Tom Rinaldo]

32. May well be

But at least two or three more one on one debates between the two remaining serious Democratic Candidates for President would be a net positive for voters, and for the Democratic Party. Virtually everyone here at DU agreed that the last one on one debate made us proud of our Party and of both of our candidates. We conmented on how well our Democratic candidates compared to the Republican ones. We were glad to think that millions of Americans were watching both Obama and Clinton and seeing for themselves what the Democratic Party stood for. We here felt more unified coming out of that debate than we had in weeks it seemed.

And it is consistent with the Political Party that we belong to for Democrats to face the public and debate their positions so that the public can make informed decisions. We are the Party of tranceparency, we believe in "power to the people".

I can see why Obama may not reasoanably want to debate weekly with Clinton. But the opposite stance, to refuse to debate her again, not even a couple of times, would verge on cowardly and is an affront to a Democratic belief in facing the public and informing them.

[zulchzulu]

34. She can still debate herself if she wants on Fox news

She has opposing positions to her positions on nearly every issue, so she could actually just debate herself.

[MzShellG]

36. It's weird that Faux noise is offering Hillary free air time.

Ofcourse it's all about ratings. Why would she want to be on Faux weekly anyway? Signs of desperation. :puke:

[sam sarrha]

40. maybe she wanted to debate the issues... maybe Obama was wise not to agree, he is a better preacher

[sam sarrha]

41. i would have to say that i would not vote for anyone who stoops to being on Fox by choice

[Skwmom]

42. She also wants to reduce the time Obama has to spend in states

and I'm sure her campaign knows that the so-called anti-Hillary media will help her with the after debate spin (for example, repeatedly showing the attacks against Obama without showing his response).

[ProSense]

45. Exactly! n/t

[CorpGovActivist]

46. .