Now that the Competitive Primary Season has been Extended; the Debates Should be Extended also

[Tom Rinaldo]

Originally the final debate was scheduled to take place right before Super Tuesday. Many months ago, when that was arranged, almost no political observers, let alone the candidates themselves, believed that there could still be a hotly contested Democratic race going on after Super Tuesday. Guess what? Everyone was wrong. There are still important decisions to be made.

Why would anyone sneer at the prospect of further debates? Sometimes debates favor one candidate, sometimes debates favor another candidate, but Democrats have always agreed that candidate debates during an important contested race serve the public interest.

I know the political dance, you know the political dance also. The candidate who feels they have the most to gain from them favors the maximum number of debates. The candidate who feels they have the most to lose from them favors the minimum number of debates. That is politics and I can't fault any politician from playing politics in the middle of a political race, from either side. But the public interest is served by having the candidates debate the issues in public. Especially when a race is hotly contested. Does anyone disagree with that point?

I would not fault Barack Obama for not agreeing to the amount of debates that Hillary Clinton wants to have. Her opening position is wanting a debate every week. His opening position is that there is no need for further debates. Her position is unrealistic and his position is wrong. I accept that both right now are negotiating stances. I expect both candidates to agree to a couple of additional debates. The public is closely divided and a lot is at stake in this election. This is no time not to face the voters, and there is no substitute for reaching ten million voters than public debates between the two people who seek to represent the Democratic party in an election for President.

This race isn't over. The debates shouldn't be either.

[angie_love]

1. Well I think he agreed to at least one more

[SteppingRazor]

2. I agree, and I'm an Obama supporter.

Mind you, I also agree that the 1/week thing is overkill. But I do believe that a new debate schedule should be agreed upon by both sides, with at least 1, possibly 2, debates before March 4, and another afterward if the race is still tight (and it likely will be).

[zanne]

6. I think four to five should do it.

It looks like they're both going the distance. That means months of campaigning ahead. I'd say once a month is a good number.

[Tom Rinaldo]

8. Two debates before March 4th seems about right to me

I understand that one a week is pushing it too far. One on one debates are a dramatic departure from the multi-candidate debates that came before, especially the ones that included more than three candidates. I don't bemoan those, they had their place at the time, but this is a different time. Now we are in the finals, now we are all being asked to choose between two impressive candidates.

Pretty much all of us at DU agreed that the last debate between Obama and Clinton was outstanding, and the consensus around here was that each of them overall increased in stature because of it. That helps the Democratic Party as well as helping us all make our final decisions. We get Democratic issues out there while the public is engaged and paying attention.

[SteppingRazor]

11. I think two before March 4 is doable, but only if they hop to it.

If they're going to do two before March 4, the first should be done soon, to give the candidates time to visit upcoming voting states on Feb. 19. Maybe have the first between Feb. 12-19, and the second on March 1 or 2.

[BeyondGeography]

3. She proposed four debates between now and March 4

That's ridiculous.

He has agreed to one, which is much closer to what is needed.

[chimpymustgo]

4. I'd like to hear them as often as possible. This is serious. Step up to the plate and talk to the

people. ALL the people.

[SteppingRazor]

9. But given that only a few states vote in each voting day from here on out...

it would be just as beneficial to the candidate to actually travel to the states and meet the people, no? Having so many debates would throw traveling schedules all out of whack and, especially for Obama, votes can best be gained be going out and making campaign stops.

[Tom Rinaldo]

28. Except that this is a national contest being conducted in selected states

In recent presidential election cycles we all realized that the debates before Iowa and New Hampshire were supposedly staged for the voters inside those states, but given the national implications of those early state results, they were really debates for all Americans to learn from. That is why they get broadcast nationally.

When Clinton was the overwhelming favorite back in early summer she didn't work to reduce her risk by minimizing the number of debates that were scheduled. The process was designed to give voters all over the nation at least a window into the contest, even if they did not live in the next upcoming contest state.

Like I said, I understand that weekly debates is asking for a whole lot in regard to the point you made. But there is room for negotiation between zero and six.

[SteppingRazor]

31. Absolutely.

You're spot on there, and certainly there's room for negotiation between 0 and 6. Like I said, I think the two candidates ought to do 2 debates between now and March 4, though I'd like the first one to be before Feb. 19, so they'd really need to hop to it to keep to that schedule.

[zanne]

7. Four debates in less than a month would cause burnout...

I don't think the candidates would burn out; I think we would.

[Tom Rinaldo]

12. I agree that four strains the ability of the candidates to campaign

inside the states that they are competing for. It takes at least a day to really prepare for a debate.

But cutting it down to only one debate for a whole month is too little. That is a slower pace for debates than we have had in months. These debates aren't waste of time efforts with so many people up there on the stage that no one gets time to present a complete thought or set the record straignt if some lie gets told. A one on one debate is an opportunity for both of our candidates to have frank and full discussions with the American public watching. This is the critical stage of the entire campaign. I want as many of those as can possibly be arrnaged, but I am a realist. Four debates is pushing it. One debate is frankly inadaquate.

[chimpymustgo]

14. Have the debates in the states they are campaigning in. For example, both camps will be in

Washington state at the end of this week. Have a debate.

Maybe 4 is too many for some, but that's about how many it could take to answer the MANY questions that remain.

[Tom Rinaldo]

15. I would love 4 more debates

It would be fascinating to hear both of these clearly intelligent and impressive leaders have that type of extended conversation with the American public about the critical issues facing all of us. I think that type of series would be looked forward to on a weekly basis the way Monday Night footaball is to sports fans.

I would love it, but I can accept that both candidates, for various reasons including the fact that debates are a format that perhaps favors one over the other slightly, might not agree to it. Still, it is critical for us to see how each handles the pressure of one on one debates. The Presidential election itself may hinge on how well the Democrat debates against the Republican.

If four can't be arrnaged, I would love three debates. And honestly, anything less than two, under the circumstances, means that at least one of our candidates is hiding from the public while trying to play to some inside political advantage. That is unacceptable to me, and I really am trying to be fair about this.

[BeyondGeography]

17. Look, his challenges are different than hers and this is no longer about the American public

Half of the country just voted and most voters are off the table. This is now about state-by-state contests where she leads in the polls and where some of her support is soft because it's based on familiarity. It's the same pattern that virtually all of the contests thus far have followed. He must physically get to as many places as possible in Texas and Ohio before March 4. After we get through the next wave of primaries and caucuses, he needs an Iowa-style five-visits-per-day regime in each state if he is to have a chance to win. The more people see him close up, the better he does.

She's a known quantity, and now she has money problems. Objectively speaking, why on earth would he reduce his opportunity to do what he needs to do in order to help her?

If he sticks to one televised debate only, I'll fully understand. He could also add another NPR-style radio debate (which are better anyway) in Ohio or Texas. Nothing more than that would make sense for him.

[Tom Rinaldo]

18. This is about picking the best possible future President of the United States

...all other considerations pale before that one. It is no different than the battles that once were fought over national Presidential debates between the Republicans and the Democrats. Now we have pretty much settled into an accepted pattern where the public fully expects three Presidential debates and one Vice Presidential debate every four year cycle.

That was not always taken for granted. Televised presidential debates didn't become part of American's lives until 1960 with Kennedy and Nixon. For a long time there was a real struggle even getting an incumbent President who felt secure in his hold on power to debate at all, and certainly holding more than one Presidential debate was not an easy given in some of those election years. But Americans as a people wanted those debates and they made it known to politicians on both sides that this wasn't just about playing to a political advantage, this was about the citizens in a democracy wanting to see those who ask for our votes and trust defend their positions and policies in direct debate encounters with their leading opponent(s).

Fortunately the people seem to have won that struggle for now, but it is one we are constantly at risk of losing in the future if all voters don't stay united on the point that agreeing to stage policy debates at the Presidential level, first for the primaries and then for the general election, are not just political decisions to be made based on short term tactical considerations. They are an expected rite of passage for those who seek our votes to engage in. They are the single most informative exercise that voters can look forward to to help us weigh our choices before voting. They are relevant both to the voters of a single state before a single primary and/or caucus, and to the public at large. They inform the citizenry.

[BeyondGeography]

20. Anyone could have watched the first EIGHTEEN televised debates

Americans have any number of ways to inform themselves, debates hardly being the most useful approach, by the way.

This is a lot of back-and-forth for saying there should be at least one or two more debates. Hillary's proposal for four was not serious, just more Clinton-style game playing that they will try to use to paint Obama as the lightweight in the race and to take the focus off of their own campaign mismanagement.

[Tom Rinaldo]

21. Two or more. Exactly

Now that we have boiled it down to two serious contenders, and now that everyone more or less agrees that the race is essentially in a dead heat, less than two more debates is patently inadaquate to the legitimate needs of the public.

We used to stage two debates a month at a time when many people thought the nomination outcome was a foregone conclusion. We used to stage two debates a month at a time when not very many voters were motivated to watch them. We used to stage two debates a month when the stage was so crowed with Democratic candidates that no one really had enough time to say anything of substance.

All of that has changed, and each of those changes support a need for more debates, not less.

[bigtree]

5. I'll bet that, despite the coolness right now from the Obama camp

he'll be eager to debate. We'll see.

[Tom Rinaldo]

34. Eager? I strongly suspect not. He's not letting anyone get that impression anyay n/t

[John Q. Citizen]

10. I think Hill should offer to debate Kucinich, one on one, with equal time. That would be a first.

[Tom Rinaldo]

13. She could offer to debate Gravel, but Kucinich dropped out of the race n/t

[John Q. Citizen]

16. I'd go for that.

[Tom Rinaldo]

23. Actually, I would get a kick out of that also n/t

[MadBadger]

19. I believe he accepted a debate on Feb 27th.

[Tom Rinaldo]

22. That's one. That's a good start.

I don't expect Obama to agree to debate Clinton once a week, but I do expect him to agree to debate her more than once.

[Tom Rinaldo]

35. I see that Obama has now agreed to a debate in Ohio

Obama agrees to debate Clinton in Ohio
Event will occur before March 4 primary
Thursday, February 7, 2008 4:40 PM
By Darrel Rowland and Jim Siegel

THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH
Barack Obama agreed this afternoon to debate Hillary Clinton in Ohio before the state’s March 4 primary, and he is dispatching the man who managed his successful Iowa campaign to lead the Buckeye State campaign.
http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2008/02/07/lets_debate.html?type=rss&cat=&sid=101


This is somewhat of a turnaround from an earlier statement:

Obama: No Ohio debate
BY HOWARD WILKINSON | [e-mail]

LaBolt left open the possibility that Obama might change his mind. The Obama campaign has indicated it might agree to one more debate between now and the March 4 primaries, but it is unlikely it would be in Ohio.
http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080207/NEWS01/302070076

[Tom Rinaldo]

24. I would settle for two...

Anyone else want to argue for more or less?

[Tom Rinaldo]

25. kick n/t

[denem]

26. why play fair with a candidate

who set up a last minute legal challenge in Nevada? Who had fund raiser on election eve anf victory speech in Florida? Hillary plays the game as hard as she can, taking every trick she can. Do you seriously expect Obama to play any less hard. Roll over and scratch my tummy?

[Tom Rinaldo]

27. I can dispute your summary of "tricks" but

if Obama wants to keep claiming the high moral road then he has to keep walking it. You don't get to bash your opponent over something, cloak yourself as being cut from a different cloth, and then use the fact that your opponent supposedly does what it is that you want to bash them over as an excuse for you to do the same.

That's one reason. But the real reason is because it is the right thing to do, and being the right thing to do, Democratic voters should demand that both candidates do what is right from the perspective of the voters whose votes they are seeking.

[robbedvoter]

29. Considering the large number of voters who watched the previous ones

you're absolutely right. Traditionally, dems always wanted debates. It was the other guys opposing them. But traditionally MSM was giving THEM a free ride, so it was Dems' only chance to call them to task.

[stahbrett]

30. I've watched most of the debates, and they've gotten repetitive

Seriously... we could make a drinking game out of it to keep them interesting. Take a drink every time Clinton mentions 35 years of experience, or Obama mentions being against the Iraq war from the beginning, etc. They've re-hashed their positions on the issues many times over. I just want the whole thing to be over so that we can get to the general election.

[Tom Rinaldo]

32. You are far more of an exception than the rule

Comparitively few voters were watching those early Summer and Fall debates, and those were the hard core political junkies only. A debate like the one that Obama and Clinton just held was a true national event. I read someone say that it was harder to get a live ticket to that than it was to get one for the Super Bowl. Republicans and Independents are showing more interest in watching a Clinton Obama debate now also. These are chances to reach them with our Party's message also.

[stahbrett]

33. That's a great point (n/t)