MARION, Ind. - Democratic rivals Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton turned up the rhetoric Saturday in their increasingly heated primary battle as she issued a new debate challenge and he complained of a race that's largely been reduced to trivia while working families feel economic pain.

Instead of "sound bites", Clinton suggested something different.

Clinton took the debate dispute to a new level, challenging Obama to face off with her in a debate without a moderator, Lincoln-Douglas style.

"Just the two of us, going for 90 minutes, asking and answering questions, we'll set whatever rules seem fair," Clinton said while campaigning in South Bend.

Her campaign made the offer formal with a letter to the Obama campaign. Obama aides said they were studying the letter.

The more open style of debating where each side presents an argument gets its name from the famed debates that took place during the 1858 U.S. Senate race in Illinois between Republican Abraham Lincoln and Democrat Stephen Douglas.

Trailing in delegates and the popular vote, Clinton has been stepping up the pressure on Obama for more debates in advance of primaries on May 6 in Indiana and North Carolina. Clinton argued that Obama won't debate because he's unhappy with questions from moderators during the April 16 debate just before the Pennsylvania primary. After that debate, Obama complained it focused too much on political trivia and too little on real issues.

On the campaign trail Saturday, he sounded much the same theme.

"I was convinced that the American people were tired of the politics that's all about tearing each other down. The American people were tired of spin and PR, they wanted straight talk and honesty from their elected officials," Obama said at a town hall meeting in the aging industrial city of Anderson.

"If you watched the last few weeks of this campaign, you'd think that all politics is about is negative ads and bickering and arguing, gaffes and sideline issues," said Obama. "There's no serious discussion about how to bring jobs back, to Anderson."

Both rivals were focusing on Indiana, with Clinton bringing along popular Sen. Evan Bayh and talking about reviving the industrial economy.

"We can do that again, but we need, as Senator Bayh said, a president who doesn't just talk about it but who actually rolls up her sleeves and gets to work," said Clinton.

The two Democratic candidates were stumping in the heart of Republican territory, and Obama sought to reach across party lines, saying he's struggled to avoid the back-and-forth bickering of the campaign, and talk about issues like plant closings that have damaged cities like Anderson.

"I've been trying to resist that in this campaign and I will continue to resist it when I'm president of the United States," said Obama.

Clinton campaigned in eastern Indiana industrial pockets, seeking to build a coalition of working-class voters similar to the one that served her well in neighboring Ohio.

While the upcoming primaries in Indiana and North Carolina are crucial to her candidacy, but Clinton deflected questions about how she would handle a loss.

"I don't make predictions or speculate on things that haven't happened yet," said Clinton.

Obama is favored in North Carolina, but the polls have shown the race in Indiana far too close to call.

With no end in sight soon for the Democratic contest, Obama sought to ease worries that the intraparty fight will leave the party vulnerable in November.

"Everybody is kind of nervous about this Democratic primary, it's been going on a long time," said Obama. "I have my differences with Senator Clinton and she has her differences with me. We will be united in November and beat John McCain and the Republicans."

Obama also underscored his differences with McCain, the certain GOP nominee.

"John McCain says he's different, but when you look at his policies he's got no agenda for you, how to make you a little more successful," Obama told his heavily blue-collar audience. "We know in our hearts that this country is not going down the right track. Something needs to change right now and that's what's at stake in this election."

In Anderson, Obama noted that McCain has switched views on issues like tax cuts for the rich to curry favor with the GOP base. "The straight talk express lost a wheel," said Obama.

McCain's campaign was quick to respond. "This again shows that Barack Obama doesn't understand the economy. Americans are looking for proof that the next president is going to be someone who understands their needs," McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds said in a statement.

While Clinton was busy campaigning in the Hoosier state, husband Bill was looking ahead to Oregon's Democratic primary on May 20. The former president was in his second day of a swing around Oregon, stopping Saturday in the small towns that dot the Willamette Valley before winding up in Portland on Saturday night.

In Albany, Ore., he outlined his wife's plans for energy independence, and highlighted her vote against a Bush administration bill that gave final say over the siting of liquefied natural gas terminals to the federal government, instead of the states. Several such terminals are under consideration now in Oregon.

He also promised the crowd that if elected, the former first lady would restore federal payments to timber dependent counties


I truely doubt that Obama will stand toe to toe with Clinton.

Lets hope he will step up but I wouldn't bet on it.

He has everything to loose except lookin' like he's growin' feathers.

He'll get torn apart like a cheap suit at a ................................cheap suit tearin' party.

Just when you thought Hillary didn't have a pair...she whips out the Lincoln-Douglas style debate... Oh my! And if Obama has a pair he'll accept.

For some reason I think Obama's "gonna drop it like it's hot." She'll have the novice stammering and yammering worse than the PA debate...

Of course, all the Obamamaniacs will call this "dirty politics..."

He'll be "busy", or something like that.

This is the smartest thing that Clinton could do. If she comes off looking great, Obama will be seriously damaged. If Obama comes off looking Presidential, Clinton will have to go away.

Of course he'll duck this one too. All the Sunday pundits will be talking about it, as they love any kind of historical political reference to something like Lincoln-Douglas debates... I can already can hear their word processors humming away...

Smart move on her part...She wins if he takes her up on it. She wins if he ducks it and appears to be running away... She wins the Sunday talkies...

There's no question in my mind that she'll make the better president.

Edit: ya know what's funny, we got through all that and there wasn't one mention of race. go figure!

He'll be "busy", or something like that.

This is the smartest thing that Clinton could do. If she comes off looking great, Obama will be seriously damaged. If Obama comes off looking Presidential, Clinton will have to go away.

I think it's rather presumptious of Clinton to compare herself to Stephen Douglas. Douglas actually stood for something.

Would she? If she had a 131 Delegate lead.

ANSWER: NO!

Would she? If she had a 131 Delegate lead.



You're right it's a very small lead...

Would she? If she had a 131 Delegate lead.

ANSWER: NO!

Would you like to see this debate? Do you think it would help flesh out their positions and who they really are?

Would you like to see this debate? Do you think it would help flesh out their positions and who they really are?

Yes I would love it, especially if it was straight up one on one. We would have a actual debate without the moron pundents involved with stupid questions.

Not going to happen! Why? Neither candidate would even take a chance with over a 130 delegate lead. Unfortunently, that's politics.

Can Obama take the weight of the "Yellow" label??

He can't win. If he "Chickens Out", he's gone. If he takes part, he's gone. He can't stand up there all night and give cute sound bites. Both will have to explain their views to a hostile questioner.

His only way out is to become "sick" at the last moment.

This just in:..........Obama does the Chicken Dance......(without music)
.
.
.
"Obama aides said he had already debated Clinton 21 times, "the most in primary history."

"Over the next 10 days we believe it's important to talk directly to the voters of Indiana and North Carolina," said Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs."

Yeah....Right.....Hahahahahahahaha


<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/6UV3kRV46Zs&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/6UV3kRV46Zs&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

Would you like to see this debate? Do you think it would help flesh out their positions and who they really are?
Give me a break. How many f-ing debates do we need to have between these people? If people don't know where Clinton and Obama stand on issues, then they've been hiding in a cave for the last year.

Funny ... Barack Obama is supposedly out of touch and condescending toward "real American people." Yet Hillary believes they're so f**king dumb and apathetic that they wouldn't know by now how she and Obama stand on real issues.

Once again, she never, ever takes the high road. She doesn't give a f**k about issues and giving a debate to the people of Indiana and N.C. She thinks she did well in the Penn debate and wants to go in for a rematch. Too typical with her ... it's not about the people, it's about her. Classless. Games. More of the same.

If there are issues specific to Indiana and North Carolina, then fine. Have at it.

But if it's unmoderated, and she brings up ANY of this sideline crap like Wright, bitterness, lapel pins, etc., she will be 100% responsible and will be revealing herself as the true scumbag most of us already know her to be.

Give me a break. How many f-ing debates do we need to have between these people? If people don't know where Clinton and Obama stand on issues, then they've been hiding in a cave for the last year.

Funny ... Barack Obama is supposedly out of touch and condescending toward "real American people." Yet Hillary believes they're so f**king dumb and apathetic that they wouldn't know by now how she and Obama stand on real issues.

Once again, she never, ever takes the high road. She doesn't give a f**k about issues and giving a debate to the people of Indiana and N.C. She thinks she did well in the Penn debate and wants to go in for a rematch. Too typical with her ... it's not about the people, it's about her. Classless. Games. More of the same.

If there are issues specific to Indiana and North Carolina, then fine. Have at it.

But if it's unmoderated, and she brings up ANY of this sideline crap like Wright, bitterness, lapel pins, etc., she will be 100% responsible and will be revealing herself as the true scumbag most of us already know her to be.

If they do have the debate, turn your sound down and then you won't run the risk of hearing any unpleasant messages about your hero. I think he will sound like a kettle drum, just a big old empty shell.

If they do have the debate, turn your sound down and then you won't run the risk of hearing any unpleasant messages about your hero. I think he will sound like a kettle drum, just a big old empty shell.
Make no mistake about it, Obama is not my hero. He wasn't even my main horse in this race; I just turned my support to him after the media phased Edwards out.

That said, he grew on me. He was trying to do something with this campaign that, unfortunately after the last two presidential elections, has become important to me.

Sadly, people like you and Steam and Spyderman aren't ready for it.

Make no mistake about it, Obama is not my hero. He wasn't even my main horse in this race; I just turned my support to him after the media phased Edwards out.

That said, he grew on me. He was trying to do something with this campaign that, unfortunately after the last two presidential elections, has become important to me.

Sadly, people like you and Steam and Spyderman aren't ready for it.

Guess not, that deep empty booming noise hurts my ears.

If they do have the debate, turn your sound down and then you won't run the risk of hearing any unpleasant messages about your hero. I think he will sound like a kettle drum, just a big old empty shell.

Snake boy, looks like you will have to wait til Obama vs McSame. Guess what? McSame won't have a teleprompter OR Lieberman to wisper in his ear. Bye-Bye McShrub, and won't even be close.:D

He'll get torn apart like a cheap suit at a ................................cheap suit tearin' party.


I think you're right. Smart move by Clinton... it's a win-win for her. No way I see him beating her in a debate; she's too much of a politician for that.

Snake boy, looks like you will have to wait til Obama vs McSame. Guess what? McSame won't have a teleprompter OR Lieberman to wisper in his ear. Bye-Bye McShrub, and won't even be close.:D

maybe Ted Kennedy will introduce Osama Bin Bama again for us. :)

Like I said, the Obamamaniacs would try to twist her Lincoln-Douglas challenge into "dirty politics."

How dare a political challenger try to debate her political opponent?

I mean, tag your it!

RUN AWAY!!!!

Give me a break. How many f-ing debates do we need to have between these people? If people don't know where Clinton and Obama stand on issues, then they've been hiding in a cave for the last year.

Funny ... Barack Obama is supposedly out of touch and condescending toward "real American people." Yet Hillary believes they're so f**king dumb and apathetic that they wouldn't know by now how she and Obama stand on real issues.

Once again, she never, ever takes the high road. She doesn't give a f**k about issues and giving a debate to the people of Indiana and N.C. She thinks she did well in the Penn debate and wants to go in for a rematch. Too typical with her ... it's not about the people, it's about her. Classless. Games. More of the same.

If there are issues specific to Indiana and North Carolina, then fine. Have at it.

But if it's unmoderated, and she brings up ANY of this sideline crap like Wright, bitterness, lapel pins, etc., she will be 100% responsible and will be revealing herself as the true scumbag most of us already know her to be.

I always knew "Barack" stood for something...only it's not what you think...

Braack, braaack, braaaack!!!

He's afraid that he might "lay an egg".

You're right it's a very small lead...
In Bush/Cheney land that's a mandate! :)

He's a gentleman. She's better at rudely yelling over the top of people and interupting. It doesn't make her tough, just rude and inconsiderate. We've had enough rude and inconsiderate "leadership" for my lifetime.

Instead of adding one more to a seemingly endless series of debates they should try something new. How about they settle it all with a one on one basketball game! :)

He's afraid that he might "lay an egg".

Ding, ding, ding... Don Pardo says come on down, you're the next winnner...

Instead of adding one more to a seemingly endless series of debates they should try something new. How about they settle it all with a one on one basketball game! :)

Wasn't it supposed to be bowling? After that scene in the bar, she could probably drink him under the table too...:wink:

Surprisingly though, Obama's not turning into that candidate you'd wanna have a beer with...don't know if that's a good thing or a bad thing...

Surprisingly though, Obama's not turning into that candidate you'd wanna have a beer with...don't know if that's a good thing or a bad thing...

Of course you don't; that's why you voted for Bush.

Like I said, the Obamamaniacs would try to twist her Lincoln-Douglas challenge into "dirty politics."

How dare a political challenger try to debate her political opponent?

I mean, tag your it!

RUN AWAY!!!!
Read much?

1) Not an Obamamaniac
2) I didn't say the debate was dirty politics. I said her interest was in herself, not in getting the people to hear them. Call that what you want. I call it typical Hillary.
3) How many f-ing debates do we need????
4) I also said if they want to debate new issues specifically relative to Indiana and NC, then fine.

Of course you don't; that's why you voted for Bush.

That and a nickel won't even buy you a cup of coffee...

BTW, I think I voted for Bush in 2000 more because AlGore came across as a big pompous wanker than anything... Plus, my vote didn't matter cause I voted in a red state... Not to mention the fact that the supremes were the ones who handed Bush the election in 2000, not me...

So, now it's "how many f-ing debates do we need..." How convenient.

Didn't your candidate just complain about ABCs moderation of the last debate? Didn't he complain that the first half of the debate was about his personal character and not the issues? Well, now's his opportunity to be his own moderator ala Lincoln-Douglas style!

Your candidate's soft underbelly is showing and you still wanna put him on the ticket? Good one! :thumbsup:

Tag you're it...

Read much?

1) Not an Obamamaniac
2) I didn't say the debate was dirty politics. I said her interest was in herself, not in getting the people to hear them. Call that what you want. I call it typical Hillary.
3) How many f-ing debates do we need????
4) I also said if they want to debate new issues specifically relative to Indiana and NC, then fine.

So, now it's "how many f-ing debates do we need..." How convenient.

Didn't your candidate just complain about ABCs moderation of the last debate? Didn't he complain that the first half of the debate was about his personal character and not the issues? Well, now's his opportunity to be his own moderator ala Lincoln-Douglas style!

Your candidate's soft underbelly is showing and you still wanna put him on the ticket? Good one! :thumbsup:
But you haven't answered the fundamental question: What would we learn, in yet another debate, that we don't already know?

"Your candidate's soft underbelly ..." Jeebus, man. Were you picked on as a kid or something? This is like schoolyard stuff.

Stammering and Yammering when the chips are down... How will Mr. Nice Guy negotiate with the likes of Amadinejadistan? by stammerin' and yammerin' and sayin' that's not fair mr. dictator?

I thought Obama was upset that the last debate wasn't about the issues? Well, here's his opportunity... Lincoln Douglas baby!

But you haven't answered the fundamental question: What would we learn in yet another debate that we don't know already?

"Your candidate's soft underbelly ..." Jeebus, man. Were you picked on as a kid or something? This is like schoolyard stuff.

Stammering and Yammering when the chips are down... How will Mr. Nice Guy negotiate with the likes of Amadinejadistan? by stammerin' and yammerin' and sayin' that's not fair mr. dictator?

I thought Obama was upset that the last debate wasn't about the issues? Well, here's his opportunity... Lincoln Douglas baby!
Hmm. As per usual, question = not answered. I'm not going to chase you on this one. We know what you're about.

I answered the question, you just don't like the answer. "Stammering and yammering" is the answer. That's what America will learn, that Obama is a novice and can't handle the heat when the chips are down.

Stammerin' and Yammerin'... Yes mr hamas leader, go ahead and bomb israel... oh, I mean don't bomb israel...etc.

Hmm. As per usual, question = not answered. I'm not going to chase you on this one. We know what you're about.

"Stammering and yammering" is the answer.

We know what you're about.
'Night.

That and a nickel won't even buy you a cup of coffee...

BTW, I think I voted for Bush in 2000 more because AlGore came across as a big pompous wanker than anything... Plus, my vote didn't matter cause I voted in a red state... Not to mention the fact that the supremes were the ones who handed Bush the election in 2000, not me...
Well, I recall, Gore wanted it settled in the courts. But here we are , 2008, in a discussion about the Democrat front runners, and they still want to talk about Bush....geez.

They might consider talking about themelves for a minute or two. So, I think the debate would be a good idea.
They complained after the last debate about not getting to the 'issues' or their platforms. What better way to clarify their positions? I don't see one.

While I don't think that yet another debate is really even necessary, if they did do this debate in the style that Clinton wants, I have a feeling that she would get buried, mostly because Obama is a much better speaker, and or orator than she is. She comes across as stiff, and reading from the script, while Obama, most of the time, seems to flow nicely and he's able to roll with it.

I would like to see a debate where the candidates get to ask each other questions, instead of moderators from news channels that are in the thank for McCain, or Hillary, or Obama.

I would put a caveat on to this one though. Meaning, there would be a moderator, but he/she would only be responsible for calling BS on attack type questions, and or questions that fall out of the range of policy positions, and or their platform. Meaning, Senator Clinton couldn't ask Obama, again, about Farrakhan, Wright, or 'bitterness', while at the same time, Obama couldn't ask her about sniper fire, Monica, Whitewater, and so on and so forth.

This would actually be a debate worth watching, unlike just about any other debate. The sad and good thing, is that the Youtube debates were probably the best ones yet, because those questions were submitted by regular people, who wanted actual issues addressed, and answered, whereas news guys are out for sound bites, and gotcha style questions.

Lincoln Douglas...style debating. You mean they intend to travel across the state asking eachother the same questions and giving essentially the same answers over and over again in what amounted to a theatrical performance...where one gradually became the better debater because he knew the questions for the next stop (because they had already been asked by his opponent at the last stop) had the time during the travel to think about them and over come much of his opponents original gains over the issue of slavery where he hatched the oh so clever plan to have them shipped out?

Well good for them I say...

Lincoln Douglas...style debating. You mean they intend to travel across the state asking eachother the same questions and giving essentially the same answers over and over again in what amounted to a theatrical performance...where one gradually became the better debater because he knew the questions for the next stop (because they had already been asked by his opponent at the last stop) had the time during the travel to think about them and over come much of his opponents original gains over the issue of slavery where he hatched the oh so clever plan to have them shipped out?

Well good for them I say...

Who gets to play Lincoln? Since he was a republican and all.

I would like to see it more like the debate on the West Wing that they had during the last season with Jimmy Smits vs Hawkeye Pierce. That was actually a good debate, and as I understand it, they did it live.

Who gets to play Lincoln? Since he was a republican and all.

I would like to see it more like the debate on the West Wing that they had during the last season with Jimmy Smits vs Hawkeye Pierce. That was actually a good debate, and as I understand it, they did it live.

You mean Senator Bail Organa vs. Hawkeye Pierce...

//that one is for Phys.

You mean Senator Bail Organa vs. Hawkeye Pierce...

//that one is for Phys.

True enough.

Good thing he rescued Luke and Leia at the end of that horrible Revenge of the Sith and all.

//although not as bad as the previous 2 "pre-quels", I still watched them, and own them because I'm a Star Wars dork like that.

Not taking the bait won't hurt him in the slightest.

True enough.

Good thing he rescued Luke and Leia at the end of that horrible Revenge of the Sith and all.

//although not as bad as the previous 2 "pre-quels", I still watched them, and own them because I'm a Star Wars dork like that.
The third one was good because it finally answered a lot of questions. But what a travesty that trilogy was. Good quality DVDs, though!

That and a nickel won't even buy you a cup of coffee...

BTW, I think I voted for Bush in 2000 more because AlGore came across as a big pompous wanker than anything... Plus, my vote didn't matter cause I voted in a red state... Not to mention the fact that the supremes were the ones who handed Bush the election in 2000, not me...


"I think"? You're not sure now just as you weren't sure then but go ahead and keep telling yourself whatever you need to feel better.

/I have plenty of high quality coffee here already, thank you.

"I think"? You're not sure now just as you weren't sure then but go ahead and keep telling yourself whatever you need to feel better.

/I have plenty of high quality coffee here already, thank you.

The way you and the other stalker moreons are acting, you'd think my all important vote is what gave the election to Bush in 2000...:rolleyes:

If you represent the state of the Democratic party, then we are truly doomed.

The way you and the other moreons are acting, you'd think my all important vote is what gave the election to Bush in 2000...

If you represent the state of the Democratic party, then we are truly doomed.
I haven't made a comment about you voting for Bush in 2000, but it does show your poor judgment re: which candidates you support. It also further reveal where your political priorities are: sort of in the American Idol realm, no?

Oh, and did you watch Meet the Press this morning? How do you feel about the debates Hillary refused to have during her Senatorial campaigns? I imagine you've been working on a craftily worded rationalization about how this time it's different. :rolleyes:

Hillary is playing the losers role perfectly. Keep shifting the goal posts, keep changing the ground rules and keep attacking to open a chink. Obama is covering and waiting for the voters to do the talking. He has the lead it's the last two minutes and Hillary just tried an on side kick. Ball recovered by Obama.

I haven't made a comment about you voting for Bush in 2000, but it does show your poor judgment re: which candidates you support. It also further reveal where your political priorities are: sort of in the American Idol realm, no?

Oh, and did you watch Meet the Press this morning? How do you feel about the debates Hillary refused to have during her Senatorial campaigns? I imagine you've been working on a craftily worded rationalization about how this time it's different. :rolleyes:

I don't watch 'meet the depressed' any longer, so I'm not aware of the issue raised. That said, what does her Senate campaign have to do with the presidential campaign? Since Obama publicly complained about how the last debate was moderated, I thought Hillary offered him a pretty good solution - Lincoln Douglas. Yes, she needs another debate, but he's also running away cause a weakness was exposed...

BTW, while my comment painted with a broad brush, I don't consider you part of the 'stalker moreon' contingent... You stay on topic... When the "stallker moreons" run outa ammo they try to use that to try to win the debate. Pathetic really, considering my ideology has shifted 180 degrees since then...

I don't watch 'meet the depressed' any longer, so I'm not aware of the issue raised. That said, what does her Senate campaign have to do with the presidential campaign? Since Obama publicly complained about how the last debate was moderated, I thought Hillary offered him a pretty good solution - Lincoln Douglas. Yes, she needs another debate, but he's also running away cause a weakness was exposed...

BTW, while my comment painted with a broad brush, I don't consider you part of the 'stalker moreon' contingent... You stay on topic... When the "stallker moreons" run outa ammo they try to use that to try to win the debate. Pathetic really, considering my ideology has shifted 180 degrees since then...
I'm hot and cold with Meet the Press. Russert, like Chris Matthews, let's people get away with too much.

In this case he pointed out that in each of her senatorial campaigns she refused to debate her respective democratic challenger, using pretty much the same reasoning Obama is using now. If your argument is that Obama is some kind of chickenshit bec he won't grant her a 22nd debate and that chickenshitedness speaks to his character, then the same would have to apply to her.

I'm hot and cold with Meet the Press. Russert, like Chris Matthews, let's people get away with too much.

In this case he pointed out that in each of her senatorial campaigns she refused to debate her respective democratic challenger, using pretty much the same reasoning Obama is using now. If your argument is that Obama is some kind of chickenshit bec he won't grant her a 22nd debate and that chickenshitedness speaks to his character, then the same would have to apply to her.

There is no advantage for him to debate, AND she wouldn't if she had a unsermountable 130 delegate lead.

Yup, makes no sense for him to do this. At a deeper level, it would also mean that he accepts her taking the initiative and therefore leading the situation.

He's in front. He's in charge. He will tell her if and when there will be another debate.

I'm hot and cold with Meet the Press. Russert, like Chris Matthews, let's people get away with too much.

In this case he pointed out that in each of her senatorial campaigns she refused to debate her respective democratic challenger, using pretty much the same reasoning Obama is using now. If your argument is that Obama is some kind of chickenshit bec he won't grant her a 22nd debate and that chickenshitedness speaks to his character, then the same would have to apply to her.

From what I can vaguely recall, I think Clinton didn't debate her supposed GOP rival in the senate race cause she didn't find her to be a credible opponent. She wasn't recognizable, and just being on stage with Clinton woulda elevated her in the public's eye. That's a big difference compared to already being engaged in a series of national presidential debates...

Obama's running away cause his weakness is being exposed.

From what I can vaguely recall, I think Clinton didn't debate her supposed GOP rival in the senate race cause she didn't find her to be a credible opponent. She wasn't recognizable, and just being on stage with Clinton woulda elevated her in the public's eye. That's a big difference compared to already being engaged in a series of national presidential debates...

Obama's running away cause his weakness is being exposed.

Obama would wipe the floor with Clinton in that style of debate, just because he's a much better orator than she'll ever be. Simple facts.

The other fact, as others, including Obama have pointed out, is that there have been 21 incredibly boring debates. We already know where they both stand on their issues, and if you need a 22nd to make another stump speech, and or tell people where you are on the issues, apparently, they weren't listening the other 21 times. It's ridiculous really. And I think it would be not only a waste of Obama's time, but of Hillary's as well. She could do better campaigning instead of taking time out for more debate prep, and or the time it would take to do said debate.

How can you call it someone's weakness when they've already debated 21 times? That's just simply good old ignorance. If it were a weakness of his, they wouldn't have debated 21 times thus far in the campaign cycle. Now, if they had only had, say, 3 debates, then you might have a point, but as is the case this time, you don't.

in simpler terms

"SCOREBOARD"

why doesn't the media just come out and say

"Hillary needs close to 80% of the existing votes left"

for whatever reason the media is egging this along as well

if this was a single days election, they would have already declared Obama the winner

My wife supports Hillary and I support Obama, BUT we both agree we would support the Dem nominee no matter what. ANYTHING, but another McShrub FAILURE.

So, spyderman what about you, are you supporting whoever the dem nominee is? OR voting for another 8 years of CON McShrub FAILURE?

in simpler terms

"SCOREBOARD"

why doesn't the media just come out and say

"Hillary needs close to 80% of the existing votes left"

for whatever reason the media is egging this along as well

if this was a single days election, they would have already declared Obama the winner

REASON: The media is owned by the corporate Neo-Con Media, and they're scared sh!tless of Obama! Look at all of them falling is line, except for maybe Olbermann. What a bunch of brown nosers!

Wha... Obama looked bad during the PA debate, and he chose to publicly blame the moderators for not focusing on the issues.

Well, here ya go Barack. Here's your perfect opportunity to "close the deal," per se. The deal you couldn't close in PA, even though you out spent Hillary 3-1... No moderation, just a one-on-one, half court game of O-U-T.

Hillary's momentum is on the rise, they're even in Indy. She does need the debate, but he's running away... If he'll wipe the floor with her why is he running? Lets put this to bed once and for all.

Obama would wipe the floor with Clinton in that style of debate, just because he's a much better orator than she'll ever be. Simple facts.

The other fact, as others, including Obama have pointed out, is that there have been 21 incredibly boring debates. We already know where they both stand on their issues, and if you need a 22nd to make another stump speech, and or tell people where you are on the issues, apparently, they weren't listening the other 21 times. It's ridiculous really. And I think it would be not only a waste of Obama's time, but of Hillary's as well. She could do better campaigning instead of taking time out for more debate prep, and or the time it would take to do said debate.

How can you call it someone's weakness when they've already debated 21 times? That's just simply good old ignorance. If it were a weakness of his, they wouldn't have debated 21 times thus far in the campaign cycle. Now, if they had only had, say, 3 debates, then you might have a point, but as is the case this time, you don't.

REASON: The media is owned by the corporate Neo-Con Media, and they're scared sh!tless of Obama! Look at all of them falling is line, except for maybe Olbermann. What a bunch of brown nosers!

it could just be because it just gives them better ratings

I don't know, so I'm not going to speculate

REASON: The media is owned by the corporate Neo-Con Media, and they're scared sh!tless of Obama! Look at all of them falling is line, except for maybe Olbermann. What a bunch of brown nosers!

:out:

Oblermann has lowered himself to O'reilly's status. He has shown himself to be completely unobjective. It's one thing being correct about the Bush admin and their failures, but he screwed up when he chose to go pro-Obama and anti-Hillary so heavily. Sad really, he was kinda my fav now I don't watch him anymore.

:out:

Oblermann has lowered himself to O'reilly's status. He has shown himself to be completely unobjective. It's one thing being correct about the Bush admin and their failures, but he screwed up when he chose to go pro-Obama and anti-Hillary so heavily. Sad really, he was kinda my fav now I don't watch him anymore.

Maybe he's wrong about Bush too? :)

:out:

Oblermann has lowered himself to O'reilly's status. He has shown himself to be completely unobjective. It's one thing being correct about the Bush admin and their failures, but he screwed up when he chose to go pro-Obama and anti-Hillary so heavily. Sad really, he was kinda my fav now I don't watch him anymore.
Hmmm. Or, Olbermann calls things as they are. No different than when his primary target was Bush.

You can say he's not objective, but he's also spent A LOT of time on the Wright non-issue (including ceaseless replays of sermon clips) and the "bitterness" non-issue. Most of his "anti-Hillary" sentiment revolves around his wonderment at how she's running her campaign and the lies and hypocrisy therein.

Obama chose early on to attack Hillary, long before her sniper embellishment. This is just Olbermann's lack of objectivity shining through.

There's a huge difference between calling bush out for his repeated power grabs, and being objective about a primary election. People have died due to bush's actions...

I also have a feeling this is a hangover from his days of bashing Bill Clinton every night during the Monica scandal. Probably some bad blood between the two...



Hmmm. Or, Olbermann calls things as they are. No different than when his primary target was Bush.

You can say he's not objective, but he's also spent A LOT of time on the Wright non-issue (including ceaseless replays of sermon clips) and the "bitterness" non-issue. Most of his "anti-Hillary" sentiment revolves around his wonderment at how she's running her campaign and the lies and hypocrisy therein.

Obama chose early on to attack Hillary, long before her sniper embellishment. This is just Olbermann's lack of objectivity shining through.

There's a huge difference between calling bush out for his repeated power grabs, and being objective about a primary election. People have died due to bush's actions...

I also have a feeling this is a hangover from his days of bashing Bill Clinton every night during the Monica scandal. Probably some bad blood between the two...
So he should only call people out if their shady actions end up killing people? Nonsense.

:out:

Oblermann has lowered himself to O'reilly's status. He has shown himself to be completely unobjective. It's one thing being correct about the Bush admin and their failures, but he screwed up when he chose to go pro-Obama and anti-Hillary so heavily. Sad really, he was kinda my fav now I don't watch him anymore.

Well, You stopped watching him just because he may support Obama? Come on give me a break! I bet he would probably support Hillary if she was the nominee. Well, I think he Oblerman is great, and love how O'Reilly is he worst person in the world. He calls Bush and his cronies out like it is, the guys got balls.

Why are you so stuck on Hillary? So, if Obama is the nominee, you are voting for McSame? You want 8 more years of Failure? Are you a Dem or a Con? Me thinks you're way to serious. Hillary and Obama are more alike than you think, and some may think I'm nuts, but I still believe the best ticket is a joint ticket between the two. The dems are almost split between the two, and that would bring almost all dems back in line. Look, they are both super smart, and if she was the VP, she would be the next president.

Like I said before: My wife supports Hillary and I support Obama, BUT we both agree we would support the Dem nominee no matter what. ANYTHING, but another McShrub FAILURE.

So he should only call people out if their shady actions end up killing people? Nonsense.

So, there's bad blood between the Clintons and Olbermann, and he just happens to pick Obama as the candidate he likes, and bashes Hillary every chance he gets...

Do you have a different definition for objectivity?

wow, I'm totally shocked by this

frontrunner: "We've had enough debates"

underdog: "I challenge ... to a debate" / "We need more debates!"


are people really unaware this is a simple political calculation, and the same thing happens in every campaign?

read up on Clinton's refusal to debate when she was heavily favored for her senate seat. Russert did a good rundown of it this morning.

nothing to see here. that people are using this to read "wow, Clinton is tough!" or "Obama needs to show some cajones, wtf is goin' on?" just shows they're either 1) political neophytes that don't understand the politics of scheduling/accepting/challenging debates, 2) they have short memories and can't remember past the last election cycle, 3) they're trying to whip up a frenzy over something they know is a non-issue.

the politics of scheduling/challenging/accepting debates. non-issue, nothing to see here.

Instead of adding one more to a seemingly endless series of debates they should try something new. How about they settle it all with a one on one basketball game! :)


Pistols at ten paces would garner more respect and... if all went well, neither one would survive.

Wha... Obama looked bad during the PA debate, and he chose to publicly blame the moderators for not focusing on the issues.

Well, here ya go Barack. Here's your perfect opportunity to "close the deal," per se. The deal you couldn't close in PA, even though you out spent Hillary 3-1... No moderation, just a one-on-one, half court game of O-U-T.

Hillary's momentum is on the rise, they're even in Indy. She does need the debate, but he's running away... If he'll wipe the floor with her why is he running? Lets put this to bed once and for all.

He didn't look bad, but his polished answers were a little, shall we say, stuttery? And aside from that, for almost the entire first hour, all we heard were stupid gotcha questions from the moderators that were about, nothing...

He doesn't need to close the deal, he's already won. You just have to accept it really, and move on, and the support the guy who's going to get the nomination, which will be Obama. It is mathematically IMPOSSIBLE for Hillary to win. Impossible. The only way she can win is the old end around with super delegates, but something tells me that once all of the primaries are done, the supers are going to get together, and give Obama the nomination, because he will have won more state delegates, as well as the overall popular vote.

Look up grasping for straws in the dictionary and you may see her making this speech.

When you're losing, you got nothing to lose.

He should handle this exactly like she did in her Senate campaign....treat his opponent like she doesn't belong on the same stage...because she has shown in this process that she doesn't.

Desperation, thy name is Hillary.

Put a fork in her.

Len

So, there's bad blood between the Clintons and Olbermann, and he just happens to pick Obama as the candidate he likes, and bashes Hillary every chance he gets...

Do you have a different definition for objectivity?
Perhaps you should try watching something before criticizing it. He did a Special Comment on Hillary and was visually upset about it (and pretty much apologized before doing it).

He didn't look bad, but his polished answers were a little, shall we say, stuttery? And aside from that, for almost the entire first hour, all we heard were stupid gotcha questions from the moderators that were about, nothing...

He doesn't need to close the deal, he's already won. You just have to accept it really, and move on, and the support the guy who's going to get the nomination, which will be Obama. It is mathematically IMPOSSIBLE for Hillary to win. Impossible. The only way she can win is the old end around with super delegates, but something tells me that once all of the primaries are done, the supers are going to get together, and give Obama the nomination, because he will have won more state delegates, as well as the overall popular vote.

According to most reasonable people, Obama lost the PA debate (as well as the election). The Lincoln-Douglas style debates will take care of that 'little problem' Obama had with those mean ABC mods... Of course, those questions were so much harder than any negotiations he might encounter with a dictator and such... Uh huh.

But you keep hanging onto your delegate counts...and sleep tight.

Perhaps you should try watching something before criticizing it. He did a Special Comment on Hillary and was visually upset about it (and pretty much apologized before doing it).

Huh? A special comment on what? On how he bashed Bill every night for like over a year straight? Yeah, I'm pretty certain I caught that one... Doesn't mean there still isn't bad blood.

No, Olbermann made his choice to support Obama and bash Hillary. He alluded to it during one of his interviews, I think it was with Chris Matthews, and he said something to the effect of being "...a little worried about what he was about to do...etc." while referring to the Dem candidates. It was a conscious choice...

Believe me, I used to watch him regularly... Not anymore.

Huh? A special comment on what? On how he bashed Bill every night for like over a year straight? Yeah, I'm pretty certain I caught that one... Doesn't mean there still isn't bad blood.

No, Olbermann made his choice to support Obama and bash Hillary. He alluded to it during one of his interviews, I think it was with Chris Matthews, and he said something to the effect of being "...a little worried about what he was about to do...etc." while referring to the Dem candidates. It was a conscious choice...

Believe me, I used to watch him regularly... Not anymore.

Keith had about a 20 minute interview with Hillary

he gave her quite alot of room to stump

far more than O'Reiily would ever dream to

:out:

Oblermann has lowered himself to O'reilly's status. He has shown himself to be completely unobjective. It's one thing being correct about the Bush admin and their failures, but he screwed up when he chose to go pro-Obama and anti-Hillary so heavily. Sad really, he was kinda my fav now I don't watch him anymore.
Oh come now Spidey, don't be that way about Olbermann. He is the Knight in Shining Armor when it comes to the media holding Bush/Cheney responsible for that misbegotten war going on in Iraq.

He's not so much pro Obama/anti Hillary as he is a realist about how the election is shaping up. He is also a realist when it comes to how damaging and divisive Hillie's ongoing campaign death march is to the Dem party.

True, both become wh0res of necessity.

Keith had about a 20 minute interview with Hillary

he gave her quite alot of room to stump

far more than O'Reiily would ever dream to

True, both become wh0res of necessity.


if he had it out for her like you propose
he would not have given her that amount of time

he would have asked tougher questions

he tossed her softballs and alklowed her to stump for well over a quarter of an hour

was some very free, prime time advertising

it makes your claim lacking in any substantiative value

I gave him props when he stood up to Bush when everyone else just rolled over... The nation was/is on fire, and besides Jon Stewart, he was really the only one who publicly screamed it from the rooftops...

It would be one thing if Olbermann provided some balance between the two candidates, but he now starts every show with anywhere between 15-30 minutes of Hillary bashing. Then he switches to kissing Baracks arse for the next 15-30 mins. It's really quite pathetic. The way he goes on about it, you'd think they weren't both Dem candidates.

It's so bad, I no longer care who the worst person in the world is anymore. :nonod: :eek:

I've lost all respect for Keith.



Oh come now Spidey, don't be that way about Olbermann. He is the Knight in Shining Armor when it comes to the media holding Bush/Cheney responsible for that misbegotten war going on in Iraq.

He's not so much pro Obama/anti Hillary as he is a realist about how the election is shaping up. He is also a realist when it comes to how damaging and divisive Hillie's ongoing campaign death march is to the Dem party.

Screw the Lincoln/Douglas style debate.

I say they just get it over with and have a Lincoln/Shields saber duel.





joe

The way he goes on about it, you'd think they weren't both Dem candidates.
Bingo!

She's running her campaign like she's using Karl Rove's playbook.

It's not about the person, it's about their behavior.

Bush = Bad = Nailed by Olbermann
Hillary = Bad = Nailed by Olbermann

Seems simple to me.

ATP is right. He lobbed softball questions at Hillary for the entire interview and didn't challenge her on anything she said.

He also played the Wright sermons over and over and over.

He also gave her plenty of airtime when she tried to destroy Obama over the "bitter" comments.

If someone gives honest, objective analysis about Bush and you cheer him on, why is it so hard for you to see he's doing the same thing to Clinton?

I think it's rather presumptious of Clinton to compare herself to Stephen Douglas. Douglas actually stood for something.
being quiet arrogant to adopt the practices of Lincoln...I mean there will be no statues of Shillary anytime soon...nor write ups in history books...

funny how she has one descent idea (which isn't even original) and spyderman gets all excited and belligerent online...in that kiddie like way of his..

If someone gives honest, objective analysis about Bush and you cheer him on, why is it so hard for you to see he's doing the same thing to Clinton?

hmm, your drifting awful close to stalker material there Doc, might want to disguise hypocrisy a little better .... just a headsup

hmm, your drifting awful close to stalker material there Doc, might want to disguise hypocrisy a little better .... just a headsup
Speaking of stalking ... welcome back!

Speaking of stalking ... welcome back!

olbermann's hillarypalooza pretty much dispelled any sane notion he was out to get her

compare it to stephanopolis' grilling of obama if you want to see bias

Speaking of stalking ... welcome back!

Thanks, stupid work...stupid mortgage....stupid .... wait I'm sounding like a Shrillary supporter... math sucks when it works against you, kinda like physics.... Hillary has picked up 3 SuperD's...Obama 4 in the last week.... stupid Math....

Thanks, stupid work...stupid mortgage....stupid .... wait I'm sounding like a Shrillary supporter... math sucks when it works against you, kinda like physics.... Hillary has picked up 3 SuperD's...Obama 4 in the last week.... stupid Math....
SNIPERS! DUCK!

SNIPERS! DUCK!

she's using her only daughter as a shield

SNIPERS! DUCK!


yep. that tsunami of SuperD's going over to Shrill is gonna happen any day now.... yup, big
tough talking' Shrill has Obama running scared, the tide is about to turn..... any....day... debates.....chicken....yep those SuperD's are just waiting....3:4 don't mean squat....unless
your Shrillary..... damn, did I say that math sucks yet....stupid math...have I said that...am I repeating myself.....

damn statistics, damn 'statistically impossible'

damn statistics, damn 'statistically impossible'
Why do I hate science?

Why do I hate science?

because you love God.

/ what do I win

damn statistics, damn 'statistically impossible'

Nothing is "statistically impossible" given super delegates who have an independent opinion, and answer to no one. :wink:

because you love God.

/ what do I win
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51QF5QQ8W7L._SL500_BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-dp-500-arrow,TopRight,45,-64_OU01_AA240_SH20_.jpg &nbsp; &nbsp; http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51OqdStxjBL._SL500_BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-dp-500-arrow,TopRight,45,-64_OU01_AA240_SH20_.jpg

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41G8JQYE3YL._SL500_AA280_.jpg &nbsp; &nbsp; http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/515MZ3CBBHL._SL500_AA240_.jpg

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/71NJYGQG64L._SL500_AA240_.gif

http://www.benstein.com/expelled-468x60.jpg

your the awesome.... now on my wish list, every single one of them....