Preston on Politics: On The Campaign Trail

The Debate Over Debates - Obama’s Weak Argument

If there is any doubt about whether Barack Obama is still the front runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, the answer comes in the form of debates. Obama doesn’t want to take on Hillary Clinton in another televised live argument. At least not right now. That’s the advantage that a front-runner has, the ability to NOT confront their opponent. After a poor performance in the Pennsylvania debate, Obama is passing on the chance to take on Clinton ahead of the primaries in Indiana and North Carolina. Obama campaign Communications Director Robert Gibbs sent this statement to the media on the subject:

“We have participated in 21 nationally televised debates, the most in primary history, including four exclusively with Senator Clinton.  Senator Clinton refused an earlier invitation that had been accepted to debate in North Carolina.  Over the next 10 days, we believe it’s important to talk directly to the voters of Indiana and North Carolina about fixing our economy, cutting the cost of health care and ending a war in Iraq that never should have been authorized in the first place.”

Clinton, who preivously argued that she was getting asked the tough questions first, now is subtly jabbing Obama by offering to debate him without moderators, playing to his complaints that the questions posed by ABC moderators Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos focused too much on sidebar subjects such as flag pins and Reverrend Jeremiah Wright, and not enough on the issues that Americans care about most, such as the economy and foreign policy.

If the Rev. Wright controversy continues to implode the Obama campaign, you may see Obama become more open to debates with Clinton. He may need to re-convince Democrats that he has the mettle to take on Clinton, McCain, and even the issue of Rev. Wright. And a strong performance in a debate against Clinton could shift the momentum back into his corner and take the spotlight off his attention-seeking pastor.

For now though, Obama is running the playbook of the incumbent/front-runner, declining to debate Clinton to avoid the risk of losing another live debate. His argument is that he wants to talk directly with the voters of Indiana and North Carolina. What I’m confused about is how he can do that better than a debate? No candidate can be in two places at one time. Choose one, Indiana or North Carolina, but not both. However, a televised debate reaches far more voters than a single speech in a single town in a single state. Of course, Obama and his campaign staff is intelligent enough to know all of this, which makes his argument for declining further debates weak at best, and reminds us that his campaign for a new kind of politics seems to borrow on the politics of old far more often than Obama is willing to acknowledge.

It has been months since any debate delved into the real issues...economy, health care, Iraq war, etc. 

Twenty some odd debates and you really suggest there ought to be more?  Have you paid no attention thus far, or forgotten the time when both candidates DID talk about the differences they had on the real issues?  And these were subtle differences, as any pundit will quickly point out.  We’ve been there, done that. 

It’s no wonder Obama chooses daily rallys rather than holding another debate.  Not only does he speak to thousands at a time, he CAN talk about his ideas for the country. I attended one, as a fence sitter, and learned so much about his stances on the issues that my vote was then decided.

The one thing this long race doesn’t need is to be any longer.  The Democratic party may not recover come November from this inter-party bickering.  And that is the last thing America can have.