Senator Barack Obama will be declining all future debate invitations, although he will attend those to which he has already committed, including five sanctioned by the DNC. The Politico's Mike Allen reports:
Campaign sources confirmed that the announcement could affect such key Democratic constituencies as the Congressional Black Caucus, Iowa AARP and League of Conservation Voters, which are planning to sponsor forums in the fall."Unfortunately, we simply cannot run the kind of campaign we want and need to, engaging with voters in the early states and February 5, if our schedule is dictated by dozens of forums and debates," campaign manager David Plouffe said in a statement.
Read the whole article at the link above. All I can say is, "Good for Obama!" The number of these things has gotten out of hand. The problem remains that as long as the fringe candidates with virtually no chance are allowed to participate, there is less time for each candidate to speak, and it is more difficult to have interaction and discussion over issues or questions.
This, of course, suits Hillary Clinton rather well, because as the strong frontrunner, she wins any debate she doesn't obviously lose. The shorter the time and the fewer questions each candidate must address, the less chance for a damaging mistake.
One or two "mega debates" with the full field in each party is fine, but those candidates who couldn't gain traction from two aren't likely to get any from twelve, either.
Obama's point about the campaign is also quite correct. With so many early state primaries, fitting in debates becomes a logistical nightmare for schedulers and advance people.
We've tried quantity and found it lacking. Let's give quality a chance with fewer debates, featuring fewer participants.
Permalink | Send To A Friend | Linking Blogs | Digg this!
Filed under:
2008 Presidential Race, Democrats, Obama, Primaries, debates
Tags: debate, Democrat, Obama, presidential campaign, primaries
Comments (9)
Ohhhh. You know that can't ... (Below threshold)1. Posted by John in CA | August 18, 2007 8:48 PM | Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Ohhhh. You know that can't go over well with the democratics natural constituencies. Democratics are expected to pander to all the special interests. What will happen when Obomba stiffs them? It's obvious, he just doesn't feel their pain. He doesn't care about the little people.
1. Posted by John in CA | August 18, 2007 8:48 PM |
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Posted on August 18, 2007 20:48
2. Posted by bryanD | August 18, 2007 11:32 PM | Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
It's hilarious, the "too many debates"/ "walk and chew gum" rationalizing.
Obviously, Obama is signalling: number 2 will do (for me), Madame President.
Of course, Hillary is the classic "slow boat to China". ETA: 2016, MAYBE!
2. Posted by bryanD | August 18, 2007 11:32 PM |
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on August 18, 2007 23:32
3. Posted by kim | August 18, 2007 11:46 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Aging that sour spirit is a waste of container, bD.
===========================
3. Posted by kim | August 18, 2007 11:46 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on August 18, 2007 23:46
4. Posted by Jim Addison | August 19, 2007 12:03 AM | Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Why on earth would Hillary choose Obama as VP?
What could he bring she doesn't already have locked up? Hmmmm . . .
Black vote? No, check, got it . . .
Feminist vote? Check, got it . . .
Illinois? Check, got it . . .
Connections to financiers under investigation and/or indictment? Check, got it . . .
4. Posted by Jim Addison | August 19, 2007 12:03 AM |
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Posted on August 19, 2007 00:03
5. Posted by kim | August 19, 2007 12:13 AM | Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Wouldn't Warner resent the Clintonista trashing of him?
========================
5. Posted by kim | August 19, 2007 12:13 AM |
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on August 19, 2007 00:13
6. Posted by bryanD | August 19, 2007 3:15 AM | Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
"Why on earth would Hillary choose Obama as VP?-ja"
Obama's just offering. The Council on Foreign Relations has vetted him. He's OK with the military-industrial complex and the GWOT. A real goodfella.
Oprah has endorsed him, too! so why not bring her minions in?
Hillary's only hope is to capture every available Democratic vote, after all.
6. Posted by bryanD | August 19, 2007 3:15 AM |
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on August 19, 2007 03:15
7. Posted by kim | August 19, 2007 6:55 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
How, bD, is Hillary or Obama going to appeal to non-government union members, who are Democratic?
=================================
7. Posted by kim | August 19, 2007 6:55 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on August 19, 2007 06:55
8. Posted by bryanD | August 19, 2007 6:44 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Who knows how people vote in the booth, but when I was a USWA member, the Democratic ticket was pushed from union HQ and DNC propaganda was posted on the union's designated bulletin boards in the shop. The last day before the general election a union representative passed out Kerry fliers to each car leaving the parking lot.
There were only two rather vocal Republicans in a shop of 300.
So, the FDR legacy lives. Unions equate Republicans with Hoovervilles and Reagan's service-deficient service economy. The two-job existence. Union jobs support families plus allow time and extra money for sprint car hobbies, owning a boat with time to enjoy it, or affording a Benz or Lexus. Or for not having to rely on public school systems. Hard to gainsay. It really is.
8. Posted by bryanD | August 19, 2007 6:44 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on August 19, 2007 18:44
9. Posted by kim | August 19, 2007 11:23 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Yeah, maybe, but blue collar union members vote like red staters more than you care to admit.
========================
9. Posted by kim | August 19, 2007 11:23 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on August 19, 2007 23:23