Why Obama shouldn't jump into debate waters with both feet.

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

1) I supported Edwards in the primaries.
2) I support Obama over Clinton.
3) I will vote for the Dem. nominee.

That said . . .

I think she beats him in the debates. Overall, for me, she doesn't beat him substantively on the issues (not the point of this post), but on those points where she does beat him substantively (health care, for instance), she takes real advantage of their differences and highlights them. I am no fan of Clinton, but she is a great debater. I think Obama was let off the hook somewhat at their last debate because they were both trying to be so congenial. But that won't be the case now. Clinton will come out really trying to create distinctions and try to get him into precise policy debates, though too tough of an approach could hurt her. She's at her best when she talks policy and just relaxes.

Now delivery is another issue. I find that Clinton can be grating--even while I see that substantively, or perhaps even rhetorically, at times she wins. Though mind-numbing details rarely win debates (ask Gore), her mastery of the details and her crisp delivery make her tough. Obama is just too slow-going, too many "uhhs" and "umms." I think he's good, but she's better.

[LakeSamish706]

1. I agree with you and I hope that he maintains the fact that there has already...

been 18 debates and he has agreed to two more, so tell her side to forget it based on those facts.

[rpannier]

2. I'll take it a different direction...

These aren't debates.

I live in Asia and get European and Australian news.

Korea, Japan, France, Australia have debates.
One person gets a question and has to explain their position (I've some talk for as much as ten minutes).
The other candidate or candidates can jump in to dispute points that the person makes and everyone has to do this.

It's not a forum for sounbites 'Making America Safe from Terrorists." It's not a second grade classroom, "Raise your hands if you think..."

Korea has a 'sit down debate' last November with 9 of the 12 candidates and they had to debate their economic policies. The deabte lasted for about 2 hours and it was rather spirited. But each person got at least 10 minutes of real speaking time total -- both in terms explaining their position and in rebutting someone elses.
The moderators got about 7-10 minutes of that time to ask questions.

The stars of the debate were the candidates -- not the moderators.

I saw the French debate between Royale and sarkozy. It was about 1 1/2 hours long and it was very spirited. They had to explain their policies and they went after each other.
No hand raising.
Once the debate started, I don't remember seeing the moderators face at all. We just heard his voice.
He talked for about 10 minutes.

Those are debates.
American 'debates' are not debates.

Obama gains nothing from doing these debates because we will learn nothing new about either of them on substantive issues.
If there was something new to learn, I'd say do it.

[Whisp]

8. he knows what he's doing.

I'm come to accept that.

He did not accept because of pressure.

I think it's Hillary that doesn't know what he can do to her. she and Bill are still in the old game of dirty politics wins all.

Obama just has to be, Obama.

hillary doesn't know who she is.

[existentialist]

3. You underestimate Obama's debating skills

I'm not saying that he can mop the floor with Hilary Clinton in a debate, on the contrary, the previous debates indicate that they are more or less evenly matched, with, in my opinion, perhaps just a slight edge to Obama.

He is not debating because he is presently ahead, and wants to play safe.


But playing safe is not playing well in this election cycle.

He did not come into the lead by playing safe, and I think that he is making a mistake to try to play it "safe."

But what do I know?

[LittleClarkie]

4. I thought Obama's spokesperson had a good point when he said

they've already debated about 18 times and already have two more scheduled. So why the advertising in Wisconsin saying that Obama is afraid to debate her?

I think she's hoping he'll say something wrong and fuck it up in some way she can exploit.

She can just wait for their next scheduled debate. She must see some advantage to herself and disadvantage to him.

[bigdarryl]

7. shes a FOOL to be lowering Obama's expectations in a debate because if it is seen...

that he is so-called afraid to debate all he has to do is stand there and not make a mistake as he's done in the past and he wins

[bryant69]

5. I don't think he has much to gain and a lot ot lose.

Bryant
check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[NastyRiffraff]

6. Well, he's "happy" to debate McCain

Why not Hillary? Shows that he'd rather "reach the voters personally" is a bunch of BS. Hillary IS a better debater..much better. And Obama knows it. Yes, he's a good speachmaker, but debating isn't is strength.

[stahbrett]

10. He's already debated her 18 times, with 2 more scheduled

If her "much better" debating skills haven't landed her in the lead by now, then maybe the viewers of those debates don't universally agree with you about the "much better" part.

[TheDonkey]

9. She does very well in debates. Obama does not need to give her free publicity either

He's improved though so maybe he'll be ready to take her on. Especially if Hillary gets some Iraq questions.

[geek tragedy]

11. He's starving her of free publicity and the chance

to force him into an error.

He's taking plenty of questions from Wisconsin voters.

[THUNDER HANDS]

12. Hillary has a tremendous understanding of the issues, which comes across in debates

but then again, most campaign managers have an understanding of issues too. And a lot of campaign managers wouldn't be elected if they tried to run for president.

[libbygurl]

13. Should he jump in with one foot then?

J/K.