Posted on 04/26/2008 2:26:03 PM PDT by freerepublic_or_die
Democratic rivals Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton turned up the rhetoric Saturday in their increasingly heated primary battle as she issued a new debate challenge and he complained of a race that's largely been reduced to trivia while working families feel economic pain. Clinton took the debate dispute to a new level, challenging Obama to face off with her in a debate without a moderator, Lincoln-Douglas style.
"Just the two of us, going for 90 minutes, asking and answering questions, we'll set whatever rules seem fair," Clinton said while campaigning in South Bend.
Her campaign made the offer formal with a letter to the Obama campaign. Obama aides said they were studying the letter.
The more open style of debating where each side presents an argument gets its name from the famed debates that took place during the 1858 U.S. Senate race in Illinois between Republican Abraham Lincoln and Democrat Stephen Douglas. Trailing in delegates and the popular vote, Clinton has been stepping up the pressure on Obama for more debates in advance of primaries on May 6 in Indiana and North Carolina. Clinton argued that Obama won't debate because he's unhappy with questions from moderators during the April 16 debate just before the Pennsylvania primary. After that debate, Obama complained it focused too much on political trivia and too little on real issues.
On the campaign trail Saturday, he sounded much the same theme.
"I was convinced that the American people were tired of the politics that's all about tearing each other down. The American people were tired of spin and PR, they wanted straight talk and honesty from their elected officials," Obama said at a town hall meeting in the aging industrial city of Anderson.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Then it won't be Lincoln-Douglas debating, will it?
It already has rules, and I promise you that you can't improve on them. Only the most pretentious sort of person would think they could or should.
Making up rules and calling it "Lincoln-Douglas" is simply trying to pander to those who might think you were delivering substance when all you are capable of delivering is a load of garbage.
Lincoln-Douglas can mean two things. The debates of Lincoln & Douglas (pops), which had a set format. From Wikipedia, "Each debate had this format: one candidate spoke for an hour, then the other candidate spoke for an hour and a half, and then the first candidate was allowed a half hour "rejoinder." The candidates alternated speaking first. As the incumbent, Douglas spoke first in four of the debates.
Or the Forensics format, which have a different format ( remember: 6-3-7-3-4-6-3).
In any case, neither are "we'll set whatever rules seem fair".
Obama don’t want no stinking questions or debate. He just wants to be president. Can’t we all just go along and turn the country over to him?
If he knows what he is going to say beforehand. I don't know that he is very good at thinking on his feet. Hillary has been BS-ing for a lot longer than he has.
Back in 1980, PBS held a series of genuine debates between people who were expected to work for Reagan, Carter and John Anderson if their candidates won. One debate was for domestic policy advisers, one for foreign policy advisers and one for monetary policy advisers. (In the monetary policy debate I watched Arthur Laffer from Reagan's team eviscerate Mitch Rogovin from Anderson's team.)
Each side got a chance to make its statement and then came the cross-questioning. (This is where Laffer excelled.) Then came summaries. With 3 teams, this was rather cumbersome.
If PBS were to do something like this for Hillary and Obama, we'd put their potential staffers into the position of laying it out straight and avoiding the usual weasel words. In other words, they'd be "working without a net". It would be both enlightening and entertaining.
And hillary is no Lincoln,I hope this happens.
Skilled oaeator...yes...but so was Douglas. He even beat Lincoln a couple of times, but he’s no knife fighter, and that’s one thing Hillary is good at...not only getting the stilleto in, but twisting it a few good times while she has it in there. I’m not saying she’d dominate or win...But a little “no holds barred” between these two, would be the most honest and definitive debate so far...no pulled punches, let them shine or hit the mat on their merits and abilitie4s...*NOT* those of their speech writers, or biased moderators, steering the “debate” the way they want it to go...or the way a candidate wants it to go. let the debate and the candidates use the force of their reasoning and arguments make their case for who is the best candidate.
So then let her voice sink her with the electorate.
Neither one of them can debate. They are both slaves to sound bites that mean nothing and cue cards with the answers to questions known in advance. Neither can think on their feet which means they have no convictions. Of the two I would say that Barak Hussein Obama is the most commited to pure socialism, but when he has to answer questions he might give the canned answer to the wrong question. Hillary Clinton, while committed to the same socialist goals, will say whatever the audience wants to here. She wants real bad to run as a conservative and govern as a liberal (the Clinton family MO), but she had to get past Barry. As long as this plays out with Barak Hussein, Hillary has to show her true liberal colors. In any case Hillary can’t out socialist Barry, and neither can handle themselves well in a debate.
This is a bluff. Obama has already said no more debates, and neither of them would survive a contest of this nature.
Clinton is just doing this so that Obama will have to respond with a no, after which she can call him a coward.
It’s all about the show.
She needs to apologize for bringing up the name of a Republican.
Why didn’t she call for a Mondale/Carter or one of the greats from her party?
From post 17
“It would be much more effective if she challenged him to a Burr-Hamilton style duel... “
Especially if they both lost!
frod,what is your definition of traitor ? Someone who doesn’t vote the way you like ?
Did you forget we have a 2 party (at least) system ?
Just curious.
Exactly. She’s grasping for straws as she tries to redeem her campaign bid. Too late hillllereeee....you showed yourself to everyone and we don’t like you.
So? She calls him a coward. He can call her some names too. Some of which I could too but won’t. I have dignity and so does Obama and hilllereee wouldn’t know anything about the word dignity, class, character. how could she when she so blatantly LIED about being shot at? Wow, I think I will begin calling her:
HiLIARly! It fits.
When his teleprompter is working....
Sure sounds like a setup to me...
Lincoln-Douglas....Gee Hillary....Which card are you playing...hmmmmmmm.
obama is only doing what any front-runner would do.
Bluff or not, if Obama were to take her on in a one on one, cutting the Lincoln-Douglas debate times in half, and he were to come out of it a clear winner..it would be a death blow to any firther chances Hillary would have as a candidate. It would be all over for her if she doesn’t do well.
She’s offering him a way to do exactly what he wants and needs to do...close in for the kill and show he has the killer instinct to do what a President must sometimes need to do.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.