Thursday, March 13, 2008

Will Clinton Debate in North Carolina, or Just Pennsylvania?

Update: she will debate in NC, too.

Original post:

20 debates weren't enough; they're about to make it 21 or 22.

Earlier today, Clinton issued a press release accepting ABC's offer to host a debate in Philadelphia: "Hillary Clinton Accepts ABC's Invitation to Debate Sen. Obama in the Keystone State." That's mildly gutsy, given that pro-Clinton Democratic leaders in Pennsylvania have said that Pennsylvanians are racist (something Obama's likely to challenge her -- and Pennsylvanians -- on), but overall Pennsylvania is friendly territory for her.

Interestingly, though, she didn't mention that CBS also offered to host a debate -- in North Carolina.

Why wouldn't Clinton want to mention, let alone accept, a debate in North Carolina, a state that's understandably proud of how well it's moving past the racism of the past and that has a high percentage of African-Americans in its workforce, elected office -- and voter rolls? Maybe it has something to do with the fact that Clinton supporter Geraldine Ferraro unrepentantly keeps insisting Obama is just an "affirmative action" candidate who's only the frontrunner because he's black -- probably because Obama kicked Clinton's rump in those famously African-American strongolds of Utah, Wisconsin, Wyoming, Washington State, etc. Or maybe Clinton's regretting her admission, just in the last day or two, that she won't waste time trying to win the Carolinas in the general election. No: North Carolina won't be a receptive audience, and all of Clinton's (and her proxies' -- hey, good for the gander, good for the goose) missteps will give Obama great talking points.

But Obama's not letting her leave it at Pennsylvania, a state dominated by her pseudo-Democratic, inwardly Vichy supporters. He's happy to debate in North Carolina, and he's not afraid to debate in Pennsylvania. Here's an Obama press release received just a couple minutes ago:


CHICAGO -- Today, Barack Obama accepted invitations to nationally televised debates with Senator Hillary Clinton in Philadelphia on April 16th and in North Carolina on April 19th. ***

“Senator Obama welcomes the opportunity to openly debate Senator Clinton on the issues important to Americans in North Carolina and Pennsylvania and hopes that she will accept these invitations as well,” said Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton.

Whether Clinton cowardly agrees to debate only in PA or has the courage to do so in both states, these should make the earlier debates look like Girl Scout raffles. Then, the candidates were playing nice; Hillary even said how proud she was to be on stage with Obama and how much they really like each other (immediately before starting her "kitchen sink" -- her campaign's phrase -- negative campaign against him). Now, though, there's no way for her to pretend the gloves aren't off -- not that she won't try. I'll expect Clinton to be all over the map (nice-no, mean-OK, I'll be nice), and Obama to be consistent, tough and statesmanlike. With all the cards on the table, it should be fun.


Anonymous said...

*cough* Biased article *cough*

Anonymous said...

Obama Should cut the circus.

That's enough of debates. He has shown off his oratorical skills parallel to those of
Reverend Wright. They have the secret of how to move the masses and make them believe of CHANGE -- but inwardly do not fully disclose in what direction this CHANGE is going to be.


Anonymous said...

I encourage people to debate my posts in the comments -- in fact, I love it! -- and I welcome fact-based criticism. It's funny, though, that every "drive-by comment" simply dissing a post (eg, "Biased article") or parroting Clinton campaign talking points without any original thoughts (Obama "ha[s] the secret of how to move the masses") is by someone "Anonymous."

So please, disagree with me -- seriously, I'm glad to learn, if I'm missing something! -- but if you're going to just troll, please at least make up a name if you don't want to use one, and gin up some facts to make things interesting.

Cheers --
TD Scott

beenthere said...

I would like to see a debate where the gloves are really off. Stop discussing health care and the war - been there, done that. Lets get "kitchen sink honest" for a change. A debate where they are free to discuss the hidden issues like the obvious racist voting of the Afro- Americans (90% for Obama). They could discuss Michelle Obama's thesis in which she claims that only 10% of educated blacks have any respect for white people (interesting, right?). We could discuss whether or not Obama has attempted to incite a riot if the super delegates vote against him. (He has certainly come very close to the line on that one.) These should be major topics of discussion in this campaign - they should not be swept under the rug. They are important. However, on a more acceptable topic, Obama could explain why he lied about his nuclear energy bill. He could explain why Exelon donated $300,000 to his campaign. He could discuss why his nuclear energy bill specified that no federal or state agency could interfere with the nuclear power industry. He could discuss his own cowardice in standing up to his "values" and his promise of "change": (1) voting with the republicans and against the democrats to increase the size and presence of our military presence (2) ignoring the millions of Palestinians exiled from their homeland to concentration/refugee camps on the Gaza strip by writing a letter stating that we must support Israel by fully funding military assistance "and continuing work on arrow and related missile defense programs". No change here. What kind of change can he offer when he has spent the last three years seeking out the advice and support of "old guard" Edward Kennedy? He could be asked about his private meetings with the Senator and if it was on Kennedy's advice that he has chosen to vote "present" rather than taking firm stands on issues so as to avoid any unnecessary "baggage" in this campaign; Of course, his deliberate attempt to emulate Malcolm X and copying the cadence of Martin Luther King certainly should not be free of ridicule nor should his church or his many friendships with people of questionable integrity. It certainly needs to be pointed out over and over again in every debate that Obama was not a U.S. Senator when he made his speech against the war. He was not privy to the intelligence information or briefings given to U.S. Senators and, given his votes along Republican lines in favor of the USA Patriot Act and the 700 mile Border Fence and his Republican stance on nuclear energy, it seems pretty clear that Obama would have been easily convinced to vote in favor of the war. Does he have any integrity? No one should allow him to say he wouldn't have voted as Hillary did -- he does not know. As it has been written before: Obama has become nothing more than a cunning, opportunistic, self-promotion Black man in the political arena who, like any other politician running for office, will say and do anything. He is not different. He has merely worked very hard to develop an appealing public persona and he has managed to keep his real identity a secret. He has no baggage which also means, he has no experience. No one knows for sure if he will seek out his old friend - cocaine - to help him deal with the reality of life -- yet another topic for an honest debate.