Hot off the wires: NC Debate CANCELLED

Hmm (0.00 / 0)

I agree that another debate (particularly like the last one) would be silly.  I have a hard time believing this is about anything other than preventing Obama from making a fool of himself again, though.  Last Wednesday's debate was actually embarrassing.  I'm not even a big fan of the guy and I had a hard time watching it.    

You present a good idea, though.  I would love to see a debate about substantial issues.  One or two of the 20ish debates they had were primarily issues-based.  

---

by: Anna @ Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 20:19:31 PM CDT

Great idea JC (0.00 / 0)

...to hold an issues-based debate on western issues. It's surprising that something like this doesn't happen more. Sadly, based on what I heard Sen. Clinton say when asked about some of these issues during a MT Public Radio interview and Sen Obama during an interview with John Adams of the GF Tribune, I don't think either of the candidates has a good handle on public lands, wildfire or restoration issues. Which is too bad, as these are obviously big issues to many people living in the west.

---

by: Matthew Koehler @ Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 08:28:03 AM CDT

Those issues would draw wide national interest I'm sure. (0.00 / 0)

Maybe even a lot of international attention..?

---

by: jed @ Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 10:19:10 AM CDT

Great idea! (0.00 / 0)

There's a lot of time between now and June 3rd.  Unless Pennsylvania delivers a very-unlikely Obama win, then it seems like Clinton probably won't drop out, and superdelegates won't jump to Obama en masse, before June 4th.  I would love to see a substantive debate held out west in late May, either here or in South Dakota.

This last ABC debate was disgusting--Obama might have lost that particular debate, but Clinton didn't win it--McCain did.  From now until fall, there's no reason for Obama's campaign to agree to participate in another debate unless there can be some assurance that it'll be primarily substantive.

Regardless of which Democratic candidate we prefer, I think we could all get behind a debate that offered viewers a fair representation of why any Democratic candidate is vastly superior to McCain in the general election.

---

by: Duncan Idaho @ Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 12:05:24 PM CDT

Maybe a forum presentation (0.00 / 0)

like the Faith Forum at Messiah College would be a better format. I don't necessarily think that seeing the two going head-to-head on issues like this is the important thing. Or maybe a table top, or round table discussion, where the issues are thrown out, and the candidates discuss them.

I think that getting them away from the hot-button issues might give us some insight as to what they think about the topics I pointed out. And if they don't have much to say about them right now, maybe the lull in the campaign after Oregon and Puerto Rico will give them some time to brush up on their talking points for intermountain and western issues.

MCV, you listening?

---

by: JC @ Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 12:24:50 PM CDT

Debates are better (0.00 / 0)

I think they should debate. Of course they should debate about the issues. I see no problem in them doing an actual back and forth. The media just needs to lay off the crap they used the other night.

---

by: Mathello @ Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 13:20:21 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Clinton agreed to come to Missoula (0.00 / 0)

Hi
Great list of issues - mine was broader and more general - rural health, rural schools, rural economy.

Back in February I invited both candidates to the Adams Center for a Lincoln-Douglas-type format. Sen. Clinton's campaign accepted today - I think it would be a great format for both candidates. I proposed 30 minutes for the first candidate, 45 minutes for the other candidate, 15 minutes for the first candidate.

Here's the column I wrote back in February about the idea:
http://www.clarkforkchronicle....

Here's the Clinton campaign press release posted on our site:
http://www.clarkforkchronicle....

Thanks
John Q

---

by: johnqmurray @ Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 22:32:38 PM CDT