The Obama campaign almost instantly offered detailed and documented rebuttal to the charges at the fact-check section of his campaign web site. Informative but without impact on voters perceptions, speaking to the converted and few reporters, who are better served by continued squabbling.

  The Obama response on from the campaign trial, however, was weaker; essentially arguing that there are enough debates and any more would unlikely produce new information.

"I could make the arguments on behalf of Senator Clinton that she would make against me in a debate. We all know them. You guys could too. And I'm sure the same applies to the other side.

On the other hand, when we have a chance to talk to voters directly, when we have a chance to give them a sense of where we want to take the country and that's my priority in these closing weeks.

He was more pointed, via motive, in another response during questions with reporters.

"I understand Sen. Clinton, periodically, when she is feeling down, launches attacks as a way of trying to boost her appeal," Obama said in Milwaukee.

"The debate exercise is one that I think has become fairly predictable," he said. "I could make the arguments on behalf of Sen. Clinton that she would make against me in a debate. We all know them. You guys could to. I'm sure the same applies on the other side."

Of course debates are potentially much more explosive than Obama claims and they need not be predictable. Likely that is why Clinton pushes and Obama resists, each seeking their most favorable venue.

Who is winning Round 4 of the Debate about debates is still outstanding. Has the Clinton campaign successfully stirred up the contest's calculus? Will the intentionally negative approach backfire with voter's apparent demand for higher standards from candidates? The jury is out.

My sense is the prevailing characterization is that the spots are evidence of the lengths to which he Clinton campaign will go to revive a troubled campaign. The more numerous stories with this tone will prevail, mirroring earlier attempts to go negative. Watch for weekend press backlash and a Tuesday verdict.

Wisconsin Governor, Jim Doyle, who likely commands press comment, reminded voters Friday that the lament of no-debate was coming from an absentee candidate. He seems to be betting that Wisconsin voters are more troubled by being ignored than information deprived.

"The fact is that Sen. Clinton hasn't even been in Wisconsin yet. She hasn't reached out to Wisconsin voters at all except in these negative campaign ads."

Called it a "hypocrisy" to attack Obama's concern for local voters when she has sent "a husband and a daughter in place of the candidate."

Further Side effects of the Clinton Debate-about-Debates initiative.

Local Wisconsin Press

In an earlier post I looked at how the debate-about-debates produces local headlines that tend to favor the candidate calling for more debates.  The rounds of debate TV spots has also produced some local press response.

I did a limited, and less than systematic survey, of Wisconsin newspapers. The general tenor of stories mirrors national coverage, reporting that Clinton is employing a tactic to reframe the contest.

An exception is the Coulee News, West Salem Wisconsin  which editorially defends holding a debate in the state. The editorial hardly defends Clinton's motives but does defend the local voter's informational needs.  

Clinton and her political friends obviously favor a debate for more than civic reasons. Yet Obama should wholeheartedly accept the invitation anyway.

The Illinois senator is going to need Wisconsin -- both now and in November -- if he wants to become president. Our swing state deserves its own debate with questions focusing on Wisconsin, the Midwest and the economy.

The Green Bay Press-Gazette reporting is without commentary, a direct conduit for the candidate's statements. In their debate story what is related is Hillary's spin via phone conferences with local news outlets.

[Clinton] defended her television ad called "Debate" airing statewide in Wisconsin in advance of the state's primary on Tuesday. In it, Clinton tries to capitalize on Obama's unwillingness to agree to Marquette University's invitation to debate on campus.

Clinton told reporters during a conference call today that she would be in Wisconsin now or tomorrow if her opponent had agreed to debate.

"The ad we're running is accurate," she said. "This ad is about what each of us has said and done. It doesn't characterize Sen. Obama; it recites the facts. He has refused to debate me in Wisconsin.

"Senator Obama doesn't want these differences to be known, but I think the voters of Wisconsin deserve to have that information as they make up their minds."

National Press:

The national press and blogosphere have generally been skeptical about the debates spots, viewing them as transparent expressions of strategic choice. There have however been a few instances of joining the call for more debates.

The Nation for example editorializes:  

The fact is that these candidates should be debating -- in Wisconsin, as well as in Ohio, Texas, Vermont, Rhode Island and other states that will hold primaries in coming days and weeks. The debates that have been held so far have, for the most part, been media-managed events where important economic, foreign-policy and Constitutional issues have not been seriously discussed.

Soon, the Democratic presidential race will be done. When it is, there will be no more opportunities to get anything akin to answers from an as-yet dramatically ill-defined nominee -- be that individual Obama or Clinton. The fall debates between the Democratic and Republican nominees will be even more managed, and meaningless, than the debates of the manipulated nominating campaign.

It is exceptionally unwise to suggest that the Democrats do not need more debates.

In fact, the Democrats need debates now more than ever.

Script for "Deserves":

Announcer: Barack Obama still won't agree to debate in Wisconsin. And now he's hiding behind false attack ads.

Maybe he doesn't want to explain why his health care plan leaves out 15 million people and Hillary's covers everyone.

Or why he voted to pass billions in Bush giveaways to the oil companies, but Hillary didn't.

Or why he said he might raise the retirement age and cut benefits for social security. But Hillary won't.

Why won't Barack Obama debate these differences? Wisconsin deserves better. Clinton: I'm Hillary Clinton and I approved this message.