Hillary Clinton has called for a number of debates since the last held just before the Pennsylvania primary, in NC, IN, OR (two debates), MT, SD and now Puerto Rico. The Obama camp has remained, not surprisingly, largely silent about any more primary debates.
Obama spokespersons have signaled willingness to engage McCain in debates beyond the three scheduled by the CDC.
Hillary's latest call for a debate in Puerto Rico followed the challenger form: (1) the people deserve to hear (2) an actual invitation has been accepted, and (3) the move to pressure an opponent - a demand.
The difference in the PR edition is that there is no media buzz. The story of the "presumptive nominee" trumps debate speculation - rendering it mute, idol conjecture for an event that simply won't happen.
The moral of the story, debate-about-debates only has media legs when the race is real and news organizations need a fresh storyline. Fox News reported Clinton's words yesterday:
Speaking outside a small restaurant in Penuelas, where a translator interpreted her every sentence for the crowd of 50 Puerto Ricans, Clinton said she'd accepted a debate in the island commonwealth, and hoped that Obama would do the same.
"The issues facing Puerto Rico are serious and deserve a serious debate," she said. "I was informed that Univision will sponsor a debate between Senator Obama and myself about the issues affecting Puerto Rico. I accept that invitation. Any time, anywhere."
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.
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.
It is Politics 101: make a shady campaign move and then accuse your opponent of the very offense. In Clinton's latest debate-about-debates ad, running in Wisconsin Friday, the campaign made that move. Running negative ads are part and parcel of campaigns but this ad treads on questionable ground.
The Ad opens with "Barack Obama still won't agree to debate in Wisconsin. And now he's hiding behind false attack ads."
Obama does characterize the Clinton debate spot as ". . . the same old politics, of phony charges and false attacks" Maybe that is an attack, but hardly false; and calling his singular effort a "false attack ads" further stretches credulity. The proof is in the tone and harshness of Clinton's second debate-about-debate spot. It really is politics 101 of changing the dynamic not by discussing issues or character, but mastery of tactics and strategy.
The new Clinton ad, however, is not really about debates , but rather uses "ducking debates" as cover for framing Obama as the enemy of health care, friend of big oil companies, and destroyer of Social Security; pretty much a complete attack featuring the trifecta of Democratic "pay dirt" messages.
With these words the Obama campaign answered Clinton's Wisconsin debate spot . This post examines the Obama counter in the debate-about-debates, how it changes the interpretive frame, and responses among political blogs.
The Clinton spot has largely been described in the press as a "negative ad" attacking Obama for failing to discuss his issue proposals. It is more difficult to characterize the Obama spot.
The Obama ad is in part positive, outlining his position on health care and the mortgage crisis (claims that have received some criticism; citing their own campaign as authority) but the essence of the argument is more "descriptive" neither positive or negative nor "comparative" in the parlance of categorizing political spots. The ad's form is a listing of fact, reinforced by visuals of 18 debates; essentially there have been lots of debates, enthymatically "enough is enough."
It is, of course, more than a statement of fact, illustrating the art of response spots; more than denial and counters, a fundamental shift in the interpretive context.
The ongoing debate-about-debate initiated by the Clinton campaigna week agocontinues, turning up the heat with a new ad running in Wisconsin that chides Obama for ducking voters. The jury is out on which campaign will win this round, but the move further illustrates how debates interact with campaigns.
The unknown factor is the effect, if any, the spot will have on actual voters. Voters have lives and may not know the context privy to political insiders and junkies. The ad asks they conclude Obama has spurned Wisconsin or has something to hide.
It also may be the case that the ad will make little sense when voters are seeing Obama on every newscast greeting Wisconsin voters. Simple word-of-mouth from the tens of thousands of Obama rally attendees (17,000 in Madison alone) may reach even the least involved voter. In the age of news and more news, when candidate speeches are viewed by millions on-line, the proportion of voters who "don't have a clue" is a rapidly shrinking.
Round 3: Practical effects of debate-about-debates below
Needing to win the "Big States" Hillary Clinton has taken to the local TV airwaves for interviews. A key satellite interview today was with Cleveland's Northern Ohio station WKYZ. The projected debate to be held Feb. 26 at Cleveland State University is a home event. In the very story reporting her not agreeing to debate the station is promoting tickets for the event.
One has to view the video to feel the awkward denial of the very debate she had insisted take place. The moderator asked several times in several ways if she would accept the CSU debate. Clinton danced. Tom Beres, who conducted the interview, expressed disenchantment in tone and words, saying,
"Hopefully it will be happily settled, there are a awful lot of people in Northeast Ohio, the greater Cleveland areas, the Democratic party who will be very disappointed."
Barack Obama has accepted an invitation to debate Hillary Rodham Clinton in Austin, Tex., his campaign announced.
The event, co-sponsored by CNN, Univision and the Texas Democratic Party, is set for Feb. 21, ahead of the state's March 4 hybrid caucus/primary.
The debate is also sponsored by the Texas Democratic Party and in conjunction with the Lyndon B. Johnson Foundation. The program will air live from the LBJ Auditorium at the University of Texas in Austin on CNN and on CNN International from 8 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. (ET)and will air in Spanish on the Univision Network beginning at 11:30 p.m.
Debates are always political, before and after. More below on pressure via Texas and Wisconsin debates.
The mediated “debate-about-debates” launched by Hillary’s invitation to four debates on Super Tuesday (see “Empty Chair”) was fairly short lived, in one sense.
Before the dust had even settled from the Tuesday's voting the Obama campaign accepted two debates (By early Thursday) (Houston Chronicle). This is one way, too often overlooked, to stem debate challenges from becoming the story itself; just accept a reasonable number and move on.
The interpretive frame regarding who is “hiding from the people” has not exactly stopped, however. Even as it appeared that Obama’s swift move might truncate the story, the spin continues.
When Obama accepted two debates, the Clinton camp responded in a manner aimed at keeping alive pressure on Obama to accept even more. "We are glad he finally accepted a debate with us, and we look forward to many more debates with him in the future," Adrienne Elrod, a spokeswoman for the Clinton campaign, said in a statement.”
Localized Spin
In addition to the national spotlight the “debate-about-debates” has a local angle that is alive and well, playing out in state media outlets, serving as a Clinton skirmish advantage. The campaign used non-acceptance for venues other than Ohio and Texas to get local headlines critical of Obama.
Read more below on the Maine, Ohio, and Chesapeake narratives.
