One upcoming debate is set: Obama/Clinton, April 16, Philadelphia, ABC as network host.
Another debate is possible/likely. Barack Obama agreed to an April 19 debate in North Carolina hosted by CBS. Nothing yet from the Clinton camp. No host site in North Carolina has been confirmed, either.
The latest news is that the North Carolina debate date is also uncertain. Since two weeks separate the Pennsylvania (4/22) and North Carolina (5/6) primaries, there is room for maneuver.
Wake Forest University, host to two general election presidential debates (1988 and 2000) and an alternate site for the fall 2008 general election debates, is well prepared to host a potential Clinton/Obama debate.
It is interesting to note that the Clinton campaign clamored for more debates after a string of electoral setbacks in February, but has not called for any after the March 4 primaries. This time, it's the Obama campaign agreeing to an extra debate.
Cleveland State University, a college of working class and middle class students, had to raise $300,000 to help put on the Democratic debate last week at the Wolstein Center.
Why?
Debate sponsors NBC-TV, its affiliate here WKYC, and its cable network MSNBC are all profit making entities. They all enjoy government-anointed, semi-monopolies using the public air waves. They are being fed by millions and millions of dollars of election advertising. Yet CSU had to go take $300,000 out of this community to host the event. I don't understand why the profit-makers didn't pay their own way.
The Cleveland debate drew 7.78 million voters, a historic best for MSNBC, according to Nielsen Media Research.
So shouldn't NBC pay CSU, rather than the other way around?
Not much of a debate at all here. Cleveland State might muster the argument that they benefit from the prestige of having hosted. They had better be able to prove that $300,000 could not have earned a better return had it been spent on other forms of recruiting or fundraising.
We know MSNBC got a huge return on their investment.
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.
I've often thought that Barack Obama may be a better debate coach than a debater. In this space I even questioned his debate preparation.
I turned out to be wrong. He is both a great coach and a great debater.
If you've watched the 20 democratic debates, you've seen the maturation of Barack Obama from a relative novice to a "great debater." He's figured out what few ever do - and that is the best strategic and tactical position is to speak in the language of the judge and judge the debate as you go along. In a 2005 article in the Debater's Research Guide, I argued that debaters should learn to speak in the language of the judge. Obama did that tonight and more. Over the past two month's he's been framing himself as the best debater and that's worked well for him.
Below, in chronological order is the complete debate about more debates (which has, obviously, turned into something else entirely) as played out on the Wisconsin airwaves.
Obama has responded quickly to each attack and both campaigns have hewed to their respective narratives.
Opening salvo from Hillary:Reply from Obama:
Other ads below fold
So you thought that the primary debates schedule ended in January? MTV/MySpace begs to differ and invites you to join Obama, Clinton, and others in their "Closing Arguments" event tomorrow (Saturday) at 6pm ET:
Three days before Super Tuesday, when 23 states hold their presidential-nomination primaries or caucuses, MTV and MySpace will host some of the remaining Democratic and Republican candidates in a "Super" edition of the ongoing MTV/MySpace Presidential Dialogue series.
At 6 p.m. ET on Saturday, "Closing Arguments: A Presidential Super Dialogue" will be broadcast live from the MTV studios in New York. Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, the two Democratic front-runners, and former Governor Mike Huckabee and Congressman Ron Paul, two of the four remaining Republican candidates, have already been confirmed for the forum, the latest in a collaborative series between MTV and MySpace that has so far hosted events with Senators John McCain and Obama, as well as former Senator John Edwards.
I watched and blogged the event they held with McCain as the candidate and it was quite good. Why not tune in or catch it on line (they have lots of cool stuff on-line including instant polling answer by answer)?
After prefacing the liveblog below with the prediction and challenge to the candidates that tonight was a once in a generation opportunity to really debate as the next president and the first black or women, I owe it to readers to do something I have become somewhat disenchanted with -- pick a winner.
But to explain what a winner is it is important to explain why I have become disenchanted with that. Several reasons. First, the debates have been multi-candidate debate up to now. Second, the format has not always given equal opportunity to contestants. Third, and most importantly, the idea of winning is so dependent on expectations and on contexts outside of the debate that the "winner" was not determined by the debate but by the press coverage and other later, intervening events.
This last factor still has importance, but the context tonight was clear enough and the variables were reduced enough that I can posit a judgment. My judgment is just that. Considered, but not "objective" or definitive. Please help me and yourself by engaging me in dispute about or questioning of this judgment.
With a Democrat favored to win the White House in November and just this one debate between the two remaining Democratic hopefuls, a woman and a black man, there arguably may not be a single debate that has had more historic significance.
Kennedy/Nixon may be your quick reply. Yes, in retrospect, that is true. Interesting, too, since Obama has been anointed Kennedy's successor.
Surely this has sunk in for the candidates. Let's hope Wolf Blitzer and CNN treat the event with the dignity and significance it potentially has.
As for the candidates, join me in the comments to see whether they rise to the occasion. For in the end, it is they, two unique and powerful figures, who can prove me right or wrong on my pre-debate take.
Tonight, the same scene, the Reagan Library in Simi, California, with Air Force One as the dramatic backdrop, has fewer actors and the script now has one of them, John McCain cast as the front-runner.
McCain reminds voters that he was a "foot soldier in the Reagan Revolution" by way of asserting his conservative bona fides.
Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul have one last chance to debate the merits of McCain's claim.
In the comments I will liveblog their efforts and John McCain's debut as the candidate with the right to invoke Reagan's 11th commandment, "Thou shall not speak ill of any Republican."
The debate airs live on CNN the web at 8pm ET, is moderated by Anderson Cooper, and co-sponsored by Politico.com. You can go to politico to submit questions and to vote for questions.
You can prepare yourself for watching the debate by reading David William's excellent compilation of tips for watching.
Join us in the comments for liveblogging of tonight's GOP presidential primary debate from Boca Raton, Florida, held five days before Tuesday's primary there.
The debate starts at 9 pm ET on MSNBC and can also be viewed at MSNBC's website.
The five remaining candidates (Giuliani, Huckabee, McCain, Paul, and Romney) will be questioned by moderator Brian Williams, NBC's Tim Russert, and St. Petersburg Times editor, Paul Tash.
In the comments we'll be looking for signs of desperation from Rudy (who had told Russert and the world that Florida was his firewall) and for an escalation in the Romney/McCain competition for front runner status.
GOP hopefuls Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, John McCain, Ron Paul, Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson square off in their third debate in six days at 9 pm tonight from Myrtle Beach, SC, on FOX News Network (on cable and streamed by FoxNews.com which has a preview.
We'll use the comments on this thread to record live reactions if my internet connection here in Texas keeps working and if the FOX stream works. I'm at a Radisson which features both balky internet access and a cable package that does not include Fox News.
The debate should be closely watched in not only in South Carolina, but also in Michigan where Romney is trying to hang on to his chances after having pulled ads in South Carolina and Florida. McCain is challenging in both places. Fred Thompson is making his last stand in South Carolina and Mike Huckabee leads there and is still rising in many polls of many states.
Rudy Giuliani is polling just ahead of Ron Paul and needs to remain relevant. Ron Paul might get questions tonight about his racist pamphleteering from the 1990's.
With McCain acting like the new front runner, or at least the "establishment" candidate, it will be interesting to see whether or not Thompson, Romney, and Huckabee triple team McCain much as Romney was ganged up on in New Hampshire.
Join me in comments or just live blog it without me should I lose contact . . .
After getting our hopes up and having them dashed yesterday, it's tough to preview today's Democratic version of yesterday's disaster. Since most of the blame lies with the moderator and the format, today's Des Moines Register debate might not be much better, but a few factors offer hope.
First, there are three fewer candidates, and no Alan Keyes. Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Chris Dodd, John Edwards, Barack Obama and Bill Richardson are the debaters. Dennis Kucinich did not meet the sponsor's criteria and complained with a press release, but his grounds for complaint are weak as Jason Zengerle explains.
Fewer candidates could mean longer time given to each answer, more follow ups, and/or more total questions. If the last is the adaptation, the debate will be no better than yesterday's.
Second, the moderator and her employers surely cannot have escaped the stinging and nearly unanimous rebuke of those who watched or participated. Maybe, just maybe, some crow will be eaten and the format and moderation will be improved.
Third, the candidates can learn from yesterday. They might run roughshod over the moderator knowing the media is sympathetic. They can exploit the rules to attack without naming names and to demand answers. They can "frontload" their sound bites to adapt to the very short response times. They can question the question, question the premise, and use "go backs" (go back to an earlier issue after being very brief in reply to a current one).
On the other hand, the poor format and weak moderator also allow candidates to avoid debating if they choose. They might bet on little follow up and not name names so as not to elicit a rebuttal. This afternoon we'll hear a debate if the Democrats want one and the moderator allows it.
To see for yourself at 2pm EST:
Tune in to Iowa Public Television, CNN, C-SPAN3, Fox News Channel, C-SPAN Radio or Fox News Radio.
You can also watch via the web at C-SPAN 3 or at the Des Moines Register website
Update [2007-12-13 12:56:14 by Ross Smith]: Lest you think we exaggerate, I just found this:
Charles Krauthammer: "That was not just the worst debate of 2007, that was the worst debate in western history, and that includes the ancient Greeks" ("Sprecial Report," FNC, 12/12).
But DebateScoop's criticism was muted compared to that elsewhere. The extremely harsh reactions might be due to the fact that the expectations and stakes were high. These debates are, after all, the last debates before the Iowa caucuses, races in both parties are up for grabs, and the results may well determine who the next President of the United States is.
Whatever the reason, this debate had the worst reviews of any we have seen since DebateScoop was founded in August of 2006.
The first problem was that this event had too little give and take to merit being called a debate. Even the Des Moines Register's David Yepsin did not spare his own colleagues on that score:
"The biggest problem with the debate was that it wasn't really a debate. Candidates got almost no opportunity to grill one another. Often they ran out of time and were cut off just as they started to probe an opponent.
The event would have been more nourishing had the format allowed for more back-and-forth."
Dean Barnett of the Weekly Standard is not as measured as the home town colleague:
I'm sure there are people in Iowa who could capably moderate a presidential debate. Unfortunately, and obviously, Carolyn Washburn is not one of them.
The bulk of the post-debate analysis will probably focus on how maladroit Washburn was at the job. She did the impossible--she moderated the last Iowa debate between the Republican candidates before caucuses and yet saw to it that none of the candidates engaged each other. In other words, the moderator ensured that the debate would be as lively as a 12 part PBS series on "How Grass Grows."
A personal aside to the Des Moines Register--"boring" is not synonymous with "serious."
The problems went beyond Washburn's lack of mad moderating skillz. From the outset, Washburn announced that the candidates would not be discussing either Iraq or immigration. Swell! It's the biggest debate of the season, so let's take the two biggest issues off the table. For what it's worth, Washburn brought all the charm to her assignment of a latter-day Nurse Ratched.
Whether from left, right or center, from blogger or mainstream journalist, the reactions to the format, moderator, questions, and resultant "debate" tended to be closer to Barnett's than to Yepsin's. "Highlights" are in the extended entry.
