"Debate-about-the-debates" largely occurs in the press and can serve several masters. It informs:

• Who controls the media agenda-news cycles

• Who claims title to "champion of an informed Citizen"

• Who selects venues that showcase their candidate's communicative strengths

So how will the Clinton's campaign new initiative play out? Will Obama be in more debates? My guess is yes (reasons below). First what are the reasons Obama would want to avoid a-debate-a-week, including the specific dates already accepted by Clinton.

Reasons for Obama resisting:

• Been there, done that. It harder to make the case that voters "deserve to hear how the candidates" will address issues when there have been, by Obama's count, eighteen democratic debates.

• Debates are not the proper venue. For candidates who more often than not agree on policy, there may be better venues to contrast styles and philosophy of leadership. And aren't debates an old model of campaigning playing to traditional power brokers.

• We're not hiding. Both candidates are on the campaign trail meeting real voters every day. Both campaigns are on TV every day. Voters are informed.

• Things happen. Debates are opportunities but also carry significant risks. Maybe that is why underdogs are more interested--more to gain, less to loose. He/She who clamors for debates could be painted as desperate. Let the story simmer.

Obama's statement, as relayed on the Chicago Tribune's Washington Bureau, allows plenty of maneuvering room, a position he references as "balance" further underscoring his overall message.

"I don't think anybody is clamoring for more debates. We've had, what 18 debates so far. I think we've had 10 more than in the last Democratic contest.. Here's the good news. We will have more debates. We are still trying to sort through our schedule

"Sen. Clinton starts off with I think 100 percent name recognition and a very familiar brand. We benefit from being on the ground talking to voters directly. So what we have to do is figure out, to balance how do we provide enough debates where people can continue to hone in on the differences between the candidates at the same time not using up so much time preparing for debates where you've got one a week or one every four days or something where it burns up a lot of time that we could be on the ground, in town hall meetings with voters.. I'm sure we will accept at least one."

Reasons Obama will have to debate (likely more than once):

• There has only been one one-on-one debate. If the contest remains "tied" the pressure for more direct encounters will gain legs.

• Not accepting debates keeps the story alive; a story that over-time seldom compliments the resisting candidate.

• Hosting networks are actors here, wanting more made-for-TV-spectacles. Hence they will carry story after story of one candidate accepting and one not accepting. Depending on the spin their pressure will hard to resist.

The Tie Breaker:

Hillary's possibility: Holds firm, say you will show up whether Barack does or not. With a little cooperation of the networks to have an extended interview if necessary, he will show up. Not many positive attributions are assigned to an empty chair in a debate.

Obama's possibility: Control the narrative. "A-debate-a- week" is silly, excessive. Hillary's call for debates is politically motivated and disingenuous in wanting to inform voters; the debate challenge is calculated to change the rules, thwart momentum, a sign of ceding front runner status.