The Commission on Presidential Debates is in a world of hurt, the 24/7s and technology have bypassed them and it appears McCain and Obama also are interested in holding debates outside of the rigid CPD's fall foursome (or at least adding other forums). The Commission should be nervous, very nervous.
Candidates Apply Pressure:
Floating a trial balloon via McCain's lead media creator Mark McKinnonlast week, the GOP presumptive suggested that he and Obama "agree to campaign together in some states, attending joint town hall meetings and debating each other without a moderator."
McKinnon rather directly suggested:
The town hall meeting is John's best format. He's a natural campaigner up close with the public. That would test Obama's claims that he wants a clean fight on the issues."
Yesterday, according to Alaska Report, Barack Obama seems interested
it would be a "great idea" to hold joint town hall-style campaign events with John McCain. Obviously, we would have to think through the logistics on that, but ... if I have the opportunity to debate substantive issues before the voters with John McCain, that's something that I am going to welcome."
The media is at work offering the candidates advice for the fall debates. In particular, the Chicago Tribune Washington Bureau's Jim Tankersley weighs in with a list to guide the traveling road show proposed by McCain. Some of the ideas have merit; others would raise more debates among the campaigns and the media.
The meta-message of this advice is: (1) the Commission on Presidential Debates is not a factor, never even acknowledged in the post and (2) despite careful wording the campaigned is framed as a two man race, the proposal implicitly "assumes" McCain vs. Obama.
Specific suggestions from the entry "Traveling debates for McCain, Obama? Here's how."
The "road show" format could change that with a few simple guidelines that wouldn't favor either candidate - only voters.
Let the candidates pick a number of debates in advance and promise to stick to them - no calls for more debates later if someone is trailing in the polls or media exposure. We'll use 10 for our example, but it could be any number the campaigns decide on.
Draft venues. Ten debates? McCain picks five sites, the Democrat picks five sites. No objections allowed. If they wanted to get fancy, they could each have to pick a site in one of five regions - the Northeast, the South, the industrial Midwest, the Southwest and the West Coast.
Hillary Clinton continued to press for debates in Oregon on Friday. She told a crowd "If you think you've made up your mind to support my opponent, wait awhile. Keep thinking. Keep waiting for that debate." She originally called for two Oregon debates in her Compact with Oregon video.
I may have missed them, but I do not recall a response from the Obama camp or a flurry of news articles on his ducking debate in Oregon. There nary a mention in the Portland Oregonian.
Calls for debates seemingly require viability to be newsworthy. Obviously that question is in flux, crowding out any recent advantages Hillary may have gained in local markets in calls for debates.
Rock the Debates has called McCain and Obama to include third party candidates in debates this fall. They write in an open letter to McCain "In all likelihood there will be four presidential candidates who will have a mathematical chance, in addition to the Democrat and you."
Names of the other candidates are not mentioned, perhaps because other candidates are still to be determined.
Imagine the insights with Bob Barr and Ralph Nader chiming in.
They cite Clinton and Obama's willingness to open the debates, a dubious claim at best and ask McCain to respond by May 20.
Don't hold your breadth. Multi-candidate debates only make sense when the contenders have a chance. Otherwise they are distractions. Mike Gravel could take time away from charming the Obama Girl to give comic relief.
Even with Mike Gravel at the microphone, it was nearly impossible for the Libertarian party to drum up any media coverage for an Indiana presidential debatein late April. Looking at the video and judging by the smattering of applause, there were not many in the immediate audience either.
I post this as commentary on how difficulty it is for third party candidates to take part in the national dialogue and how staging debates that matter is still reserved for major party presidential candidates. There have been scores of televised political debates in North Carolina this year, for Governor and Lt. Governor Candidates for both parties, in what are very competitive races, but they too cannot break through.
Rock the Debates is conducting an Internet campaign to encourage major party candidates to debate third-parties, but they have no traction either. You may find their video campaign interesting, sort of a "drive-by-video" effort to sham mainstream candidates into inclusive debates.
The Commission on Presidential Debate ability to control presidential debates is about to end. Likely there will be four CPD debate in the fall but there may a lot more debates as well.
The latest entry is set for Sept. 18 at the Ernest N. Morial Convention Center in New Orleans, featuring Google and YouTube technology to generate questions for the candidates.
The three remaining candidates have been contacted about participating and have not signed on (waiting for the Democratic nomination), but notably no one had rejected the idea in deference to the CPD.
And why shouldn't the candidates agree. Exposure is the name of the game and there are easy alternates to the major networks and inflexible CDP structure. Why not spread the risk and recovery time from three over-hyped CPD productions? Surely the 24/7 networks would be willing, having scored all time ratings during the primary period.
New Orleans may just be the tip of the iceberg. The CPD, which scooped the League of Women Voters to take control for the two major parties, may be endangered themselves.
Hillary Clinton has accepted a Lincoln-Douglas debate in Missoula Montana to be held before the June 3rd primary. The debate would be held at the University of Montana in Missoula, the liberal epicenter of the state.
As reported in the Billings Gazette by--a friend-- Charles Johnson, State Bureau Chief, Clinton is on board and Obama is "evaluating the offer.
The Clinton campaign has for calling for a Lincoln-Douglas the last four days, with Obama resisting. I have wondered who would host the debate since the format would cut out the "talent" from the networks, allowing perhaps a real debate. If the networks are not themselves the central featured why would they cover the debate? Civic engagement surely takes second place to network ratings.
The host answer seems to be an obscure Montana newspaper, the Clark Fork Chronicle, which actually offered the idea for a no-moderator free forum L-D debate back on February 27, made by publisher John Q. Murray. There is not indication the new found headline producing Clinton proposal was inspired by an invitation from the newspaper two months ago, but perhaps.
The format for a non-moderated debate, if Clinton's proposals prevail (L-D Challenge to Obama campaign), would have free form turn taking with the candidates introducing topics and commentary, and all without `gotcha' video and "knowing" signs by journalists. June is a ways away. Should the race still be active Obama might find format and timing to his liking.
While the Clinton campaign continues to stoke the "Let's Debate" fires across four states with little chance of getting debates, there is payoff for the campaign via stories appearing in local press coverage. Every state thinks it deserves to be courted and one sure sign is hosting another debate.
Even if there are not debates Clinton continues to receive local press coverage when she and her surrogates reiterate calls for debates.
Howard Wolfson, a Clinton strategist/spokesperson dramatically, threw down the gauntlet mockingly speaking for Obama, ""You know, I'm going to take my marbles, I'm going to go home, I don't want to do this anymore.' Well, you know what, it's important for a presidential candidate to be able to debate well"
The National Journal's Hotline provides a dramatic example of how the debate-about-debates plays in local media outlets, visuals dominating:
With a band of like-minded area Clinton supporters, Dannie Chandler rented a yellow limousine, attached a chicken head to its roof and parked the avian display in front of the Obama office field office.
"He's just a chicken if he doesn't want a debate," Chandler, 64, said when reached via phone.
About 10 volunteers stood outside Obama's office for an hour and a half yesterday in the pouring rain, holding signs that read: "Too Chicken To Debate?" and "Running Scared In Indiana." Chandler and his poultry brood had to wear yellow parkas to protect themselves from the pouring rain.
Friday morning Hillary Clinton stepped up her call for a televised debate in North Carolina. Speaking at a firehouse in Jacksonville NC (MSNBC's FirstRead):
She made a pitch for her campaign's interactive "NC Ask Me" feature, in which people can submit questions online and get an answer -- some of which have been used in television ads.
"It has been great, and we've gotten over 14,000 questions," she said. "We have answered every one of those questions. But the only question I can't answer is why Sen. Obama won't debate me in North Carolina. And I'd sure like to give an answer."
She said that each upcoming state deserves their own debate, because "the issues in Pennsylvania are not the same as the issues in North Carolina," and "the issues in North Carolina aren't the same as the issues in Indiana."
"There's all kinds of issues that we should be debating about right here in North Carolina," she said. "So again I offer that I'll go anywhere at any time. And we'll have that debate as long as Sen. Obama would agree to actually meet me. I think that would be good for the voters and it would be good for this important campaign."
Does a debate in NC make sense? The Obama campaign has been trying to deflect the calls invoking "debate fatigue," citing 21 previous debates. More likely they find more comfort in filling UNC's Dean Dome next Monday than taking the time out to prepare for anther debate. The recent history of debates indicates the Clinton campaign would use a debate to press attacks and find openings for positioning following the debate.
Playing the Commander-in-chief strategy in Fayetteville, NC, a part of the state surrounded by multiple military bases, Hillary Clinton also continued tocall for a NC debate. She said earlier Thursday:
"I hope we can have a really vigorous discussion about the issues here in North Carolina, and I'm hoping we can have a debate right here," she told a crowd here on her third trip to the state. "I think the voters of North Carolina deserve a debate. I have said I'll debate anytime, anywhere. Look, I'm so sleep deprived, it doesn't matter."
The debate about debates is a fairly safe way to keep the pressure on an opponent. The move is inherently controversial drawing headlines and localizing the demand to have a debate "in-our-state-too."
Both Obama and Clinton have previously accepted and failed to respond to debates in North Carolina. Chances for a debate are nil, with the State and National party pulling the plug onan event scheduled for Raleigh on the 27th.
Clinton is using the same strategy, calling for more debates in Indiana and Oregon.
Following her win in Pennsylvania Hillary Clinton made a video aimed at the Oregon Primary, levering two items that have worked for her, rural voters (not a pattern in the West but. . . ) and her advantage in televised Debates.
She challenged Obama to two debates, one specifically addressing rural issues.
The probabilities seem small after the collapse of a North Carolina debate prior to the May 6th primary.
The New York Times political blog, The Caucus, Sunday morning nudged the topic of an Obama/Clinton North Carolina Debate .
Previously the Obama campaign accepted an invitation for a CBS debate in NC with the Clinton campaign remaining silent. Spokespersons for the campaigns commented on the potential debate but did not advance the topic.
In Friday conference calls Phil Singer, according the NYT, blamed "scheduling conflict" and promising an answer in "a couple of weeks." Obama spokesperson Bill Burton
. . . declined to speculate on why Mrs. Clinton had not agreed to the North Carolina debate, saying only, "Maybe she likes the Jersey Shore more than the Outer Banks."
Singer's comment sounds like a dodge, and Burton's partisan speculation despite his statement to contrary. The campaigns seem occupied with larger issues than nailing down another debate.
Who can predict which campaign will want another debate in early May. If either campaign decides they need a debate, likely the other will be forced to join in. Obama is already on record and Clinton can be reminded of her political advertising in Wisconsin.
Wake Forest University announced Thursday interest in hosting a potential NC primary debatebetween Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama before the critical May 6th primary.
The Obama campaign originally "accepted" to debate on April 19th, three days before the Pennsylvania primary, but the date has since become fluid. The Hillary Clinton campaign has not commented on participating in a NC Debate.
If Clinton wins "big" in Pennsylvania, as current polling suggest she may not want to break the "momentum" with a high profile debate later that week. There would be political heat, however, as the campaign has called for debates, and more debates, including two high profile political spots that ran in the Wisconsin primary.
If a debate is negotiated with a network host and accepted by Obama, it would be difficult for Clinton to decline without being seen as "writing off" the NC primary.
One upcoming debate is set: Obama/Clinton, April 16, Philadelphia, ABC as network host.
Another debate is possible/likely. Barack Obama agreed to an April 19 debate in North Carolina hosted by CBS. Nothing yet from the Clinton camp. No host site in North Carolina has been confirmed, either.
The latest news is that the North Carolina debate date is also uncertain. Since two weeks separate the Pennsylvania (4/22) and North Carolina (5/6) primaries, there is room for maneuver.
Wake Forest University, host to two general election presidential debates (1988 and 2000) and an alternate site for the fall 2008 general election debates, is well prepared to host a potential Clinton/Obama debate.
It is interesting to note that the Clinton campaign clamored for more debates after a string of electoral setbacks in February, but has not called for any after the March 4 primaries. This time, it's the Obama campaign agreeing to an extra debate.
[Editor Note -- The following study was undertaken by Alex Lamballe, a junior varsity debater at Wake Forest University. His study examines the questions used in two CNN/YouTube debates. He assesses if the purportedly democratic format fulfilled it purpose.]
Democracy should be about more than great television. And it doesn't end with our ability to ask more vibrant and compelling questions. It also includes strengthening our ability to get real answers. (Sifry 2007)
The CNN/YouTube debates produced a great deal of political excitement from the day that they were announced. Most of the excitement was focused on the idea that the inclusion of YouTube video questions in the debate would make the presidential debate process more democratic and deliberative by bridging the gap between the general public and the candidates for the 2008 presidential election.
Unfortunately, the excitement over the potential of the new debate format to produce democratic change noticeably dulled just after the first of the two debates. Many people did not find the debate to be as revolutionary as they believed it would be and were generally disappointed with the inability of the CNN/YouTube debate to produce a discussion much different than that heard in past debates.
Indeed, the trend carried over into the second CNN/YouTube debate, which similarly failed to produce a dramatically innovative debate. The current controversy surrounding the debates frequently centers on the concern that CNN chose the questions for the debates. Indeed, much of the failure of the CNN/YouTube debates to produce a more educational and deliberative political discussion can be explained by CNN's role in selecting the questions for the debates.
Invitations are extended, venue set, and pressure is being applied for another presidential debate leading into the April 22nd Pennsylvania primary election.
The proposed debate, to be held at The Franklin Institute in downtown Philadelphia on April 18th would focus on science policy issues: economy and technology, climate change, health policy, and education.
Pennsylvania is a model state for transforming from a rust belt economy into a vibrant science & technology economy competing on a global scale. These are the big issues facing our economy nationally, and there is no better place for the candidates to debate them. We've had dozens of generic debates, we don't need another.
Our signers represent 125 million Americans who are interested in these issues and how we can do nationally what Pennsylvania is doing as a state.
The debate promoters claim to be in discussion with the Obama and Clinton about the debate, but their press releases do not indicate interest on the parts of the campaigns.
Below fold: Pressuring the Candidates and What to Expect in a Science Debate
