A small part of the debate last week has now become Hillary Clinton's strongest argument against Barack Obama's national security credentials.
Obama's explanation that he had not held a subcommittee hearing because he only became chair after the campaign began, has now become he's too busy campaigning "to protect our national security," something Hillary Clinton claims she will never be.
The latest in the "3 a.m." ad war uses a tiny excerpt from a debate that most observers "scored" for Obama into a potentially powerful closing argument for Clinton.
In many campaigns there exits a meta-debate--a debate about debates--where campaigns spar over enticing or resisting televised encounters. Often the call for debates is as much about occupying the "high ground" or illustrating strategic dexterity than securing actual debates. The Clinton campaign call this week for "a-debate-a-week" from now to March is a different sort. It appears they really want the debates.
This post explores reasons the respective campaigns may want to debate or to avoid debates, including the reasons I conclude: expect more Clinton-Obama encounters.
The meta-debate was underlined today via an open letter from Patti Solis Doyle, Clinton Campaign Manager to David Plouffe, Campaign Manager writes. (Full text of the open letter)
I was disappointed to see that Senator Obama rejected the idea of having more debates given the fact that he and Senator Clinton have had only a single one-on-one debate. I think we can do better and so does Hillary.
Senator Clinton believes voters should have more than one opportunity to see the candidates discuss the issues and has accepted five debates between now and March 4th from CNN, MSNBC, WJLA, ABC and Fox News.
To that end, we hope Senator Obama will join Senator Clinton for a debate a week beginning this weekend.
Below the Fold: Handicapping the unfolding debate about the debate:
The last two standing, Clinton and Obama, face off tonight, CNN 8:00 pm (EST), at the Kodak Theater in Hollywood, Calif., home of the Academy Awards. Highland and Hollywood, the Kodak's address, is close in proximity to Simi Valley's Reagan Library, but worlds away. The GOP debate held last night and Democratic debate tonight will be back-to-back on the schedule but may be light years away in character.
"Spoiling for a fight" may best describe what the media is looking for in, arguably, the long primary season's most important debate. However, overt confrontation would be a disservice for both candidates. Momentum, feeding or stemming, seems more important than sanctioning more news cycles of "petty sparing."
The Clinton camp has reason to nip speculation of defensiveness or worry; the Obama camp risks conceding the high ground that underwrites his very rationale.
Other media outlets are also previewing tonight's debate.
Obfuscation was the winner in ABC's "This Week" Republican primary debate from Des Moines, IA. The top-tier (as well as the rest of the field) stayed largely true to form while John McCain did not meet expectations in jumpstarting his campaign. The host, George Stephanopoulos, despite his stated goal of hosting a "real debate." failed to generate anything like the "mayhem" he was seeking. Perhaps the biggest loser (and/or winner) was the person not onstage (and I don't mean Fred Thompson).
Last night and today one question has dominated the post debate spin and commentary about who won and lost. It also was the subject of the last portion of our blogtalk radio show when former National Debate Tournament champion and Jim Webb campaign staffer, Jon Paul Lupo, called in to discuss how the answers portray Democrats as weak or strong on defense and terrorism (you can listen to the archived version here starting at the 44:30 mark).
Listen very closely to the question in the YouTube clip. Very closely, especially to the end of the question.
The video shows the candidates in the order they answered: Obama, Hillary, Edwards. They were the only ones asked. Richardson demanded and received a chance to answer later (an attempt to show he belonged in the top tier?).
Join me below the fold and in comments for analysis on what the answers say about who "won" this part of last night's debate and more. In the YouTube age, candidate answers will be dissected more than ever. We had might as well do a good and productive job of it.
By staying away, Obama preserves some mystique and delays his first test ... perhaps until the first quarter is complete. By then, he'll have time for lots of mock debates and might even have a chance to lower expectations. After all, someone this allergic to debating can't be all that good at it, can he?
This is pure nonsense since this is in no way a debate and is not billed as one. It's just candidates speaking sequentially, not even sharing a stage, as I understand it. The DNC speeches last weekend should qualify as a debate by that standard.
In fact, this event was reshaped so as to avoid even the semblance of debate:
Nevada Democratic Party spokeswoman Kirsten Searer said some candidates also had expressed concerns about the format of the forum, and the party agreed to accommodate them.
Candidates will appear on stage individually, give a statement and answer a series of questions posed by a moderator, Searer said.
"Their concern was that they didn't want a lot of negative back and forth," Searer said. "We were very open about the format. We want to give them an opportunity to introduce themselves to Nevada as they're comfortable."
But even so, what would make it a debate? When the first "debates" are held April 4 and 5 in New Hampshire, and 10 candidates at a time share a stage and take turns answering questions, is that a debate? What "mock debates" would one hold to practice for that?
The more candidates one has on stage at a time, the less the event lends itself to debating, and the more it is, simply, a forum.
