Obama needs to debate

[Onlooker]

Obama did terribly in the last debate, and that shook the confidence of some of his supporters that he can beat McCain and be a good president. In all the other debates he did well, maybe not as well as Clinton, but he certainly carried himself favorably. Why he screwed up the last debate so royally is beyond me. It's no excuse that he was asked a disproportionate number of tough questions. After all, debates are supposed to show how people think on their feet. I think that if Obama has another debate and does reasonably well, he will seal the deal. If he doesn't do another debate, voters and the superdelegates will have questions about him, and the could enable Clinton to eke out a victory with the help of nervous superdelegates. I think if he does do another debate, he will do reasonably well as he did in all the debates but the last one.

[TheCowsCameHome]

1. If only the questions asked were worth discussing.

They skip right over what's important to the average citizen.

[Hailtothechimp]

2. She needs one more than he does. I vote no debate

Let her buy her way onto the air if it's so important.

[mod mom]

13. Really, I concur. She is just attempting to buy free air time-let her pay for it.

[mmonk]

3. He was not asked issue oriented questions

in a legitimate format. It was a hit job to paint him as unpatriotic, racist and radical. If someone wants to hold a legitimate debate, Obama could probably be made to change his mind. But old southern style race baiting is not a debate and I for the life of me can't figure out why some people can't see that. The one in the lead needs debates less. That's always been the case.

[Vinca]

4. No presidential primary in the history of the country has had so many debates.

In fact, you could probably total up the number of presidential debates in the last 20 years and not come up with this number. Enough already. Let's get this over with. The only debate I want to see is McBush and Obama.

[guyanakoolaid]

5. Why debate a defeated candidate with no chance of winning?

Learn some math.

[GoesTo11]

6. He did fine in the last debate

The news articles saying "Obama was on the defensive over Rev. Wright, Ayers, and Flagpins" were merely stating a foregone conclusion - if he is asked attacking questions about these, then by definition (at least as far as the reporters go) he was on the defensive. In the second half of the debate, the moderators said he had used most of his time in the first half, so he couldn't respond to HRC. There was no way to win in this circumstance. My confidence was not shaken at all, other than my confidence in the whole debate process. That was shaken so badly, that I am convinced he should never give HRC another debate. As to giving the people another debate - the people gain nothing from a debate like that one.

[PATRICK]

9. The biggest mistake

is granting the delusion that these are truly "debates" and ignoring the hostile atmosphere, conduct and aftermath spin of this MSM total sham. Gore "lost" his debates because of the pundit perception given after to people who never watched the debate and the sham of focus groups added to ignoring the biased makeup of the actual audience.

If people here are also going to insist on granting this sham any respectability- as the nation of suckers we have become why not conduct the self flagellations at free republic where the sadists there can be hugely entertained.

Hillary has been ambushed. So has Barack. Other candidates ignored, humiliated, discounted and given the respect and pity treatment just as they are forced to bow out. What sickens me most is how our leaders lead suckers as suckers themselves and never confront the issue.

Do what the GOP does. Ignore all the trivial crap and focus on winning. We also have the luxury of defending the truth which, by accepting the MSM sickening twist of reality, we will never get to on their terms.

I never watch the MSM at all, in part or anyway as a source of truth. The well is totally poisoned and the water is carried here daily without care, without adequate treatment, and with fear and respect it does not deserve.

[GoesTo11]

22. Which raises a good question: How to decide when to debate.

Why do the Dems agree to debates hosted by Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh, when they know that this can only be intended to harm them?
Are they just afraid of being called (falsely) afraid? Like kids afraid to decline a stupid dare from the bully because of peer pressure?

Time to put an end to it.

Who has the real power here? What does a debate need in order to occur?

1) Candidates - Well, there are only 2 candidates, so if they don't agree, there's no debate.

2) Moderators -
The number of people who could possibly moderate a debate is pretty large. For example, I would guess there are over 200 million who could do a better job than Stephenopolous and Gibson. And any journalist would be thrilled to have the opportunity to moderate.

3) Somebody to broadcast it. There are 6 or so largest broadcasters (big 3, PBS, CNN, Fox), and many smaller broadcasters. Some have more visibility than others, but the debate can create the visibility anyways. Should be easy to get a broadcaster to play ball or go somewhere else.

This was not hard to figure out, Dem Leaders.

[PATRICK]

28. Sure, take them on,

even on their home turf, but if in effect it is like appearing at a MCCarthy hearing(where your weakened mike is distorted when you try to reply), you have to call them out on what they are and negotiate fairness as with a hostile party. The dual politeness of granting them journalistic legitimacy or integrity of which they possess none, and as having legitimate points of view or fair questions is to be the sucker they need you to be. Nice guys, intelligent, right on the money, someone to cheer on, but suckers nonetheless distracted from the crying needs of the people and the real job.

Sure any irritated leader who hates the press questions can think along those terms, but this is exactly the opposite. In an open and shut case of hostile bias and sabotage, and mike monopoly, our candidates are straight men, cooperative, unreactive, and help keep the public itself oblivious to the clearest outrages even after the ABC AmBush. The exact same for voting systems. The same for major issues of clear truth versus lying mad criminality. While we try to go about democracy in our imperfect party we have to perform on their stage with their catcallers, their critics, their stage hands. We do Shakespeare to their flurry of rotten tomatoes.

And no appeals to the sane majority of the audience who at this point are ready to take heads off or storm out disgusted.

[hokies4ever]

7. You obviously didn't watch McCain in the debates

because he SUCKED. Ron Paul was the best, but was thrown under the bus by the party because he is against the Iraq War. Mike Huckabee also did wonderful in the debates, but was unable to close on McCain's torture 'advantage'. As if being tortured makes you more qualified to be a commander-in-chief. Didn't he finish 894th out of 899 in his Naval Academy class?

Obama doesn't need to debate. He still holds town hall meetings and takes questions directly from the voters instead of the media pundits. By talking directly to the voters, he gets the questions that matter most to them and can adjust his stump speech as necessary to each particular debate. I know that every network reports the daily Gallup poll, but as Rachel Maddow reminds us, that's not how the democratic nominee is chosen.

[Iceburg]

8. 23 debates and Obama has yet to win a Single One! Not a record I would be proud of /nt

[Labors of Hercules]

18. that's your bullshit biased opinion, not a record. nt.

[BeyondGeography]

10. Where's your flag pin, Mr. Friend of 60's Bomber Scary Black Preacher Defender Guy?

(That wasn't a debate.)

[barack the house]

11. He did great from what I saw given the time he was permitted. yeah another debate works now.

[EmperorHasNoClothes]

12. He did a great job in that debate, despite the media spin (and your spin)

The people pushing this "Obama loses every debate" meme are obviously not being objective. It's the same bullshit spin that said Gore lost debates to Bush.

[Onlooker]

14. It's not spin

You're the one who's spinning. I'm a strong Obama supporter, but saw how he hesitated, hemmed and hawed, and did not seem to have a plan for not only the Wright and Ayers questions, but even the question on Israel. As I said, Obama has done fine in most of the debates, but in this last one, he did not look good, and the PA results show it. He was closing in on Clinton and could have put the race away. He could have won. Instead he lost by enough of a margin to keep Clinton's hopes alive.

[EmperorHasNoClothes]

19. You must have been watching a different debate

His answers were solid and well thought out. Hillary spent the whole debate spitting out canned responses and meaningless rhetoric.

[SoonerPride]

15. Translation: Hillary needs free TV time because she can't buy any more ads.

No sale.

[texas_indy]

16. The only debates he should do are against McCain, no more with Hillary are needed. nt

[my3boyz]

17. Is that you Carville? Begala? McCauliffe? nt

[shadowknows69]

20. Sorry, no more free assassination time for Hillary

[truebrit71]

21. ....John McCain....I agree....I think that after 21 Democratic debates we have had enough...

..Besides, why would Obama deem to give her free airtime?

If she wants to spread her lies and distortions, and continue with her right-wing rhetoric she should bloody well have to pay for it herself...

[JBoy]

23. It is Hillary who "needs" to debate. Which is why Obama should deny her the chance.

To quote (roughly) an Obama official yesterday: The Clinton campaign needs oxygen. We don't have an obligation to provide it to them.

[SeaLyons]

24. He bombs....

Can't fight for himself when it comes to uncomfortable questions. Very weak debater.

[Cali_Democrat]

25. Another debate?

No thanks :thumbsdown:

[applegrove]

26. Obama is not a good debator.

[Voltaire]

27. No more goddamn debates

Let Hillary debate herself, she has two faces anyway. There is nothing new to be said and nothing to be gained by giving her broke-ass more free airtime. They have debated over 20 times. If a state wants a debate to educate their voters on the issues....THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN PAYING ATTENTION IN THE FIRST PLACE. I did!

[ObamaKerryDem]

30. I agree..

There have already been what, like 21 debates? What more is there to say? The last one was so tired and boring, more about talking points than the actual issues. I mean, what else is there to know about these two candidates? It's high time to settle on a candidate and be done with it so we can get to fighting John McCain already!

[BlueIdaho]

29. Didn't watch the last one - won't watch the next one.

After twenty debates there is nothing - nothing left but gotcha politics. Hillary needs to debate because she is out of money. A debate = free air time. I say let her campaign slowly bleed to death.

[otohara]

31. Nah....Get Out Meet The Voters

in remaining states. Screw another debate with the same old questions and worse, this time it would be Katie Couric.

[woolldog]

32. His next debate should be with McCain.