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.
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.
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.
Will there be more debates in primary season? Pressure on the campaigns to debate in the long lull before the Pennsylvania primary will be forthcoming. An opening salvo was issued by Bill Whalen in the San Francisco Observer today.
This fall marks the sesquicentennial anniversary of the fabled Lincoln-Douglas debates - a series of seven one-on-one encounters across the state of Illinois which, for two months in 1858, settled not only a very contentious Senate contest but also catapulted Abraham Lincoln into the subsequent presidential race of 1860. Why not do the same for the Pennsylvania primary and get Clinton and Barack to stop fussing and feuding and instead talk abut real issues?
Whalen offers a schedule of seven debates for the seven Pennsylvania markets, paralleling the seven encounters in Illinois.
He also suggests formats and content. For example, "Keep the national media off the stage and let local reporters ask the questions." Breaking the stranglehold of 24/7s "debate ownership" seems unlikely in the short term, but is a laudable goal.
I would add: why not hold one or more of these debates in North Carolina and Indiana. Together there are more delegates at stake than in PA.
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.
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:
Typically the candidate who is behind wants more debates. They provide opportunity to change the trajectory of campaigns, potentially a quick momentum stopper. Of course campaigns may just want "to educate voters" but a strategy calling for more and more debates is an unusual choice for the "front runner."
The Clinton campaign this afternoon--Super Tuesday--called for a debate a week for the remainder of the primary season. Do they know something about results the rest of the pundits are awaiting to see?
In close races if one candidate accepts a debate their opponent is unable to decline joining in. The press pressure would exact a political price. Also network pressure can force joining in. Curious that the Clinton campaign now wants debate on FOX. [Just in: Netroots criticize Clinton for debating on Fox]
In case you missed it, the Green party held an "event" that organizers dubbed "A Presidential Debate That Matters" last Sunday (January 13) at the Herbst Theatre in San Francisco. My guess is that in fact you did miss the debate, and don't much care. After all the current political season has had so many debates that tracking one more is above and beyond.
Public encounters seem to have become the manifestation of elections and by inference what it means to be a democracy. That is, candidates must collectively stand before the public and genuflect in apparent deference. It is increasingly unthinkable to bypass debates as part of the audition. The Green debate can be seen as part of the expected pageantry or at least a faint imitation of what is working to draw attention.
In case you missed it, the Green party held an "event" that organizers dubbed "A Presidential Debate That Matters" last Sunday (January 13) at the Herbst Theatre in San Francisco. My guess is that in fact you did miss the debate, and don't much care. After all the current political season has had so many debates that tracking one more is above and beyond.
Public encounters seem to have become the manifestation of elections and by inference what it means to be a democracy. That is, candidates must collectively stand before the public and genuflect in apparent deference. It is increasingly unthinkable to bypass debates as part of the audition. The Green debate can be seen as part of the expected pageantry or at least a faint imitation of what is working to draw attention.
We're familiar with the post debate spin room, placard lead spokespersons careening from reporter to reporter. Increasingly, however, campaigns are finding more efficient ways to manipulate.
We're becoming accustomed to candidate web page's (re)interpretation of debates (A favorite of mine was Dodd's "Talk Clock" exposing disparate speaking times) but the practice seems to have stepped up a notch.
The Drexel Debate was not Hillary's best effort. After dominating the prior encounters Clinton's smooth sailing ran aground and fairly received a severe media lashing. Even FactCheck.org documented, at length, three questionable "bobs and weaves."
What is a well heeled campaign to do? Simple, fight back by extending the post-debate spin, often using video interpretations that infiltrate campaign coverage.
Sunday there will be another presidential primary debate. Yes, yet another round of witnessing democracy at work, history in the making. More likely the GOP debate in Florida simply another round of filling the 24/7 news cycle, venerating the host's importance, and seeking "sounds bites" for a small class of pundits? Voters are invited to watch, but only at the margin. The 2007 primary cycle seems more about special interest sponsors, hype, and new technical possibilities.
When do candidates find time to campaign, let along reflect. Simply put, there are too many debates. Even journalists and bloggers observed in Matt Towrey's Inside The Numbers: Too Many Candidates, Too Many Debates.
And here's the real kicker: our surveys show that virtually no one is watching these little gems. So all the rooms filled with spinmeisters and all the column inches wasted on these non-debate debates are a relative waste of time.
Republican debate in Dearborn concluded this afternoon. The debate is one among many, and had a "been there, done that" feeling, save a couple aspects.
First, it was Fred Thompson's debate debut. Expectations were set so low that Thompson had opportunities. He held his own, but not much more. Answers tended to show the lack of well practiced routines(e. g., Romney's strength through words or McCain's return to his political truths), and even walked the line of down-home homily without sounding slow. Nonetheless his answers showed the absence of months of practice. It also seemed he received less time early, although later he joined in and gained comfort. It will be interesting to see how Fred spins in the collective media.
Years ago, Jeff Auer commented (after the Kennedy Nixon debates in 1960) that an event called a debate had certain characteristics, one of which was that the participants would need to have equal and adequate time for dealing with the topic(s) of the debate. Seeing the "talk clock" for the Republican primary debate held last evening in New Hampshire tells just part of the story about the usefulness of the format with respect to the criterion of equal and adequate time. It's not just a matter of how much time certain candidates struggle to get in a "gang" debate format; what also matters is when those candidates get to talk, and about what.
One of the most notable differences between the typical general election debate format and the ones that have dominated the early primary campaign debate season is that the current slate of debates makes no pretense about trying to provide equal time to the candidates on the stage, and the extent to which the format has failed in that regard is unquestionable. The moderator spoke almost twice as long as did the candidate who had the most "talk time," and almost four times as long as the candidate who received the fewest opportunities to speak. So we know Wolf Blitzer a lot better now, but what of the others on the stage?
MSNBC will broadcast the first presidential primary debate of the 2008 campaign on April 26 from South Carolina. The first presidential primary debate was broadcast on radio in the Oregon primary of 1948 (Dewey v. Stassen). Content analysis of dozens of presidential primary debates from 1948-2004 has revealed several common qualities.
First, these debates feature mostly positive statements (64%), with fewer attacks (31%) and few defenses (which are refutations of attacks: 4%). Primary debates are more positive than general election debates (57% positive, 35% attacks, 8% defenses).
We also know that the contenders tend to attack the front-runner more than other candidates. This could explain why Governor Ronald Reagan in 1980 proposed the "golden rule": Thou shalt not attack your fellow-Republicans (as the front-runner, the other Republican candidates tended to attack Reagan). In fact, a candidates' position in the public opinion polls is a pretty good indication of how many attacks will target him or her: Most attacks are directed toward the front-runner and the fewest attacks toward the candidate at the bottom of the polls.
Usually, presidential primary candidates are more likely to attack each other (Democrats attacking Democrats and Republicans criticizing Republicans): after all, they have to defeat the other members of their own political party to win the nomination. However, 2004 was an exception to this rule as Democrats in their primary campaign attacked President Bush more than they attacked one another (apparently he was a uniter, not a divider, as far as the Democratic contenders were concerned).
We also know that news coverage of presidential primary debates focuses on the negative. Newspaper stories about these events mention attacks more often than candidates make attacks in debates; when candidates make positive statements, reporters are less likely to mention such statements in their stories. This effect is consistent.
We also have learned that presidential primary debates stress policy more than character, 68% to 32%. The stress on issues is even higher in general debates, 75% to 25%. In some years, news coverage has roughly the same balance between policy and character as in primary debates; in other campaigns, the news stresses character more, and policy less, than the candidates in their debates. Unlike news coverage's tendency to accentuate the negative, there is not a consistent emphasis on character. However, almost never does news coverage of debates discuss policy more than the candidates themselves.
William L. Benoit is a professor of Communication at the University of Missouri, author of several books on political campaigns including Communication in Political Campaigns (2007).
