Political Punch

All politicians are the same animal. Obama is not any loftier than anybody. It's all a matter of political expedience. There is no such thing as being "principled". Politics is the art of compromise. Obama is preaching a surreal form of politics that does not exist and he knows that. what he knows for sure he's got tons of followers who await to be baptised.

What you want as a political candidate depends on where you are in popular opinion. Incumbents generally don't need or want to debate challengers. In 2004, before Jack ("Seven of Nine's" sex-addled ex-husband) Ryan's candidacy imploded, Obama considered himself the underdog and wanted the public exposure. In 2006, Clinton considered her opponent as the underdog and reluctantly debated him, giving him the least attention. Now, two years later, she either considers herself as the underdog or believes she can gain votes by more debates with her opponent. Once again, what you want depends on where you sit.

i guess obama is afraid to get a reality check. they've only had a single one-on-one debate. obama doesn't have the advantage of the pile-on, so i can understand why he's running scared.

Oh, heavens save us. 18 debates already...my goodness. Why can't they wait until a winner prevails? Debate the darn Republican. He shouldn’t have caved into her at all. He should’ve held his ground. She drones on forever like a schoolmarm with students in detention, (with her ole condescending self). If he had to do it because of stupid media pressure, it should be only one. Why must he satisfy the monster media?!

*sigh* that’s okay; I’ll mute her when she speaks as usual

After 18 debates and refusing to debate on Fox suddenly Hillary is demanding a debate a week...on Fox! I would ask her why she got far more funds from special interests then any other candidate in eighter party then claims she will fight against them. I wonder how she expects to run a country when she can't control her husband or control her $100,000,000 campaign budget. Why does she use tears to get votes? Is that commander-in-chief-like? And this is just a primary!

Hillary Clinton wants more debates because no one watches her speeches, whereas, if Barack Obama is on TV, there will be millions of viewers.

The point of whether to have one more debate or 5 more is moot. Sen. Obama is wisely choosing against wasting our time by having repetitious debates solely for the national exposure.

Watching Senator Clinton is, as other commenters have suggested, a waste of time. She is simply regurgitating market research reports summarizing what voters want to hear. Her actions have been historically based on elections, which is a far too short-sighted approach. America will likely continue to exist for thousands of years, and term-based politics will embed more bureaucratic tumors in our government like the filibuster or like unchecked signing statements.

We need a president who will tell us what we don't want to hear, if necessary. We need a president who will make plans that reach farther than just four or eight years. We need a president who sees our nation as an historian does. We need another founding father.

Any suggestions?

I cant wait to see the dems. elect Jimmy Carter again... Oh! I mean Obama, I could use another 4 years of Washington not getting anything done except disatrous policies that will shove the U.S. closer to 2nd world nation status then Americans will wise up and Give Republicans a good 12 year reign to save the nation AGAIN.

If Barack Obama continues to refuse participation in televised debates on Fox and ABC as well as the offers to do local debates these stations should impose a policy of no further one-on-one interviews. In addition, print and broadcast media should inform him that their reporters will no longer cover his events.

It is apparent that Mr. Obama only wants to campaign on his terms: by means of rallies and speeches at which questions cannot be posed and through paid media over which he has total control as to content.

If, as he has claimed, he is so concerned about communicating with all voters, then he should be agreeable to as many debates as are offered. This is the only format whereby voters have a way to compare the candidates side-by-side, without campaign filters and spin, as such it’s the most fair and equitable approach.

Katherine,

That is great about Illinois, however, I was discussing the US Senate and his tenure there.

Check out his voting record there and then get back to me.

Project Vote Smart has all the info.

Sorry, I've been following politics too long to believe this is a man of 'change'.

In fact, when you look who he surrounds himself with....it screams status quo.

If you haven't figured that out yet....you simply haven't done enough research.

I don't understand any of you libs.

Obama is a light weight. And Hillary is just Romney with a (D) after his name instead of a (R). Matter of fact, I think the "R" in HRC actually stands for Romney.

Man its good that Willard is gone.

Huck will vanquish either of them.

Vote Huck for change.

Vote Huck early and often.

Go HUCK Go.

Clinton is in dire need of free advertising because she is broke. We have watched 18 debates, and we have all heard her over-rehearsed yammering drone on ad infinitum. Voters need to familiarize with Obama. Clinton's name recognition and Bill connections have dragged this thing out long enough.

Obama does not have Edwards defending him any more. It was getting sick seeing Edwards attack Hillary and praising Obama. What was Edwards doing running just to support Obama in the debates. Edwards took the early states from Clinton

I am ambivalent about McCain. I want to know more aout the savings and loan scandal. I remember that it cost the US taxpayers over 500 billion in the 80's and that McCain was one of the Keating 5 and in the middle of the whole mess. Am I not remembering correctly or is this something that could be important in the election???

Mona, are Americans too stupid to know when Obama was elected to the Senate, and when the vote was taken?

Evidently, you knew the difference, as did many others on this forum. So, is everyone here smarter than the average American?

Spineless - a "present" vote in Illinois is a "yes" vote. It signifies that the legislator does not agree with the bill in its entirety. So, try another one.

Oh Hillary! Bill blew if for her in South Carolina. Do not blame Obama for not wanting to waste time with the Clintons -- hearing Hillary KACKLE! Hope that the Clinton era is finally coming to an end -- WITH ALL OF THEIR SURROGATES!!

I am supporting for more debate. It's not because that I am currently support Clinton, but the public has little knowledge about Sen. Obama.
For sure, the Obama supporter will tell that go to his web site, but that is different. Any strategic, advisor can be the author. The public need to know what is his thinking in person. After all, that what they are voting for.
I know it sound unfair, but let 's face it. The Repulican already have their candidate, and we are still fighting.
Whoever win the nomination process, will need to be able to bring the other side of the party into the general election. The supporter of the loser will not jump into the bang wagon, if they don't feel comfortable enough with the winner.

>

Oh yeah - just like he did against Bush in 2000, right?

Hooray, a much needed balanced story after the Obama cult posting from earlier today.

Bottom line is it's human nature to want to debate when you're the underdog. I think Obama's agreed to two at this point. But I certainly would not do it on the Clintons' terms. It's gonna drive her mad to not be in the driver's seat right now. She needs all the positive attention she can get, but he's got the momentum.

Obama's in the driver's seat for now no matter how much the Clintons try to spin it.

They'll try to call him a chicken, but so much of their crap is hitting the fan these days that not much sticks anymore. And a lot of it rightfully is landing back on them. South Carolina.

At the end of the day, folks, let's remember that we are the United States of America. We're better than throwing mud at each other and calling each other names. It's for this reason among many that I think Obama is what we need to move us in that healthy direction.

Great list Cortez, may I add that they took campaign contributions from China and transfered advanced military technology to them which now enables them to hit us with ICBM's. They also failed to respond to WTC1 bombing, the USS Cole, Kovar Towers, and allowed the bodies of our troops to be dragged thru the streets of Somalia with no reponse. They bombed Kosovo who was no threat to us just to get a scandal of Bills off the front page. These people belong in Pelican Bay Prison for the rest of their lives.

I look forward future to debates between Obama or Clinton vs. McCain. Especially the topic about who is ready to be commander-in-chief from day 1.