(...) Leading candidates generally like to avoid debates, for the reasons listed above and because debates cannot be completely controlled as to content or performance. There is always the chance, in other words, of committing a fatal blunder.
Gerald R. Ford did it in 1976, when he asserted bizarrely, in a debate with Jimmy Carter, that Poland had not fallen under Soviet domination in the Cold War. You could almost hear the "sproing" as his campaign began falling apart.
You may remember, too, that Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis lost big to George H.W. Bush in 1988. Dukakis kicked out the pebble that started the landslide in his answer to this debate question: "Governor, if Kitty Dukakis [the governor's wife] were raped and murdered, would you favor an irrevocable death penalty for the killer?" Dukakis replied flatly, without emotion: "No, I don't, and I think you know that I've opposed the death penalty during all of my life."
His polling numbers dropped seven points that night and his campaign never recovered.
In recent days, Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign has made a point of challenging Sen. Barack Obama to a debate at every opportunity. Her Oregon campaign also has pushed the idea in connection to the May 20 primary here. Clinton's people argue that a debate in Oregon would give citizens of this state their only opportunity to see the candidates jointly address issues of regional importance. They also argue that the viewership numbers suggest few Oregonians have watched the earlier televised debates in the other primaries.
The Obama campaign argues that Americans have had plenty of chances to see the candidates face to face and that enough is enough.
We agree with the Clinton arguments.(...)
(...) An Oregon debate between Obama and Clinton would be good for democracy here and the country generally. As a general principle, voters should be given the chance to compare the candidates, face to face, in at least one televised event.
If there is a race to be run in Oregon, let it be a strong one, but let it be punctuated by a real face-off between the candidates.
1 comment :
(...) An Oregon debate between Obama and Clinton would be good for democracy here and the country generally. As a general principle, voters should be given the chance to compare the candidates, face to face, in at least one televised event.
.............
Do you honestly feel that this is why Hillary wants a debate. Would she be willing to agree in advance that the debate would center on important issues alone? The problem with the debates is that they are very rarely about the issues themselves but more about character assassinations. Why should Obama, leading comfortably in Oregon, agree to another two hours of guilt by association?
Post a Comment