Senator Clinton - You Are an Idiot

[Two_and_a_Half_Inches_of_Fun]

Senator Clinton has challenged Senator Obama to a Lincoln-Douglas debate. The only problem is that she does not seem to know what happened at the Lincoln-Douglas debates.

Just the two of us going for 90 minutes asking and answering questions. We’ll set whatever rules seem fair. I think it would give the people of Indiana – and I assume a few Americans will tune in because nearly 11 million watched the Philadelphia debate, and I think they would like seeing that discussion. Remember that’s what happened during the Lincoln and Douglas debates.

No, that is not what happened during the Lincoln-Douglas debates. The format was:

one candidate spoke for a one hour
the other candidate spoke for an hour and a half
the first candidate gave a half hour rejoinder

Sure they posed questions to each other in their openings and replies, but it was not the 90-minute mess you are suggesting.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/04/clinton-chall-2.html
http://www.nps.gov/archive/liho/debates.htm

[Captain_Carrot]

I think that’s unfair. Sure, L-D was less broken-up, but I think the essential characteristic of having the candidates talk to each other instead of having a moderator pose questions is more important.

[Mosier]

@Captain Carrot

I think that’s unfair. Sure, L-D was less broken-up, but I think the essential characteristic of having the candidates talk to each other instead of having a moderator pose questions is more important.

Completely agreed.

It looks to me like Clinton meant her “that’s what happened during the Lincoln-Douglas debates” statement to the general atmosphere of the debates instead of the specific time format. She wants to try a debate without a moderator, and that IS what happened in the L-D debates.

[Tuckerfan]

@Mosier

Completely agreed.

It looks to me like Clinton meant her “that’s what happened during the Lincoln-Douglas debates” statement to the general atmosphere of the debates instead of the specific time format. She wants to try a debate without a moderator, and that IS what happened in the L-D debates.

Well, what the hell’s the matter with her? Charlie Gibson was a great moderator!

I keed! I keed! The only way he’d be a great moderator is if you got to see him waterboarded (Remember, it’s not torture if you’re dealing with matters of national security! Sometimes. We think.) every time he asked a stupid question.

[ElvisL1ves]

Any excuse for a bashing, huh? Doesn’t even need to be even vaguely fact-based, not for some people.

So, 2.5, any reason you *wouldn’t * want to see it? Or think it *shouldn’t * happen?

[DoctorJ]

@Tuckerfan

Well, what the hell’s the matter with her? Charlie Gibson was a great moderator!

For me to poop on!

[Baldwin]

Why don’t they run Presidential campaign debates like high school debates? It seems like we have higher standards for high school students.

[elbows]

I believe they have already been to 21 debates.

Enough already, get on with it. I can’t wait for the whole thing to be over already!

[BrainGlutton]

@elbows

I believe they have already been to 21 debates.

Enough already, get on with it. I can’t wait for the whole thing to be over already!

But then you have to watch the winner debate McCain.

[Two_and_a_Half_Inches_of_Fun]

@Captain Carrot

I think that’s unfair. Sure, L-D was less broken-up, but I think the essential characteristic of having the candidates talk to each other instead of having a moderator pose questions is more important.

Lincoln and Douglas did not cross examine each other.

[BJMoose]

So who does Shrillery want to be - Lincoln or Douglas?

[BarnOwl]

Who would trust Shrillery* to abide by the agreed-upon rules?

Not me.

*Thanks, BJMoose.

[Liberal]

Obama’s Lincoln. She’s Booth.

[atomicbadgerrace]

Good lord, Two and a Half, anything to bitch about, eh?

Whatever you want to call it, I think Clinton’s idea is sound. This is the kind of debate I would have love to have seen long ago.

[WhyNot]

@atomicbadgerrace

Whatever you want to call it, I think Clinton’s idea is sound. This is the kind of debate I would have love to have seen long ago.

You mean…a debate where people…debate?

Get outta here with your wacky radical notions!

[Tuckerfan]

@WhyNot

You mean…a debate where people…debate?

Get outta here with your wacky radical notions!

He’s one of those damned lefties who thinks that an informed voting populace is somehow “good” for the country.

[Simplicio]

Yea, I like the idea. By far the worst thing about the debates have been the moderators, especially the most recent ones. Also the free-for-all thing should make for, if nothing else, good TV.

Though without Charlie Gibson, who will bring up such important issues as whether or not Clinton mischaracterized the specifics of a debate that happened a hundred and fifty years ago.

[Two_and_a_Half_Inches_of_Fun]

@atomicbadgerrace

Good lord, Two and a Half, anything to bitch about, eh?

Whatever you want to call it, I think Clinton’s idea is sound. This is the kind of debate I would have love to have seen long ago.

The issue is not whether it is a good idea. The issue is whether the debate style suggested by Senator Clinton is “what happened during the Lincoln and Douglas debates.”

[Captain_Carrot]

It may be oversimplified, but her proposal is certainly a lot more like those debates than the sorry excuses for such that have been presented lately.

[Two_and_a_Half_Inches_of_Fun]

@Captain Carrot

It may be oversimplified, but her proposal is certainly a lot more like those debates than the sorry excuses for such that have been presented lately.

Senator Clinton should either propose a debate format that is like the Lincoln-Douglas debates:

Opening
Response
Rejoinder

Or she should leave Lincoln-Douglas out of it. The way she is using Lincoln-Douglas sounds like she is either ignorant or is just using Lincoln-Douglas as meaningless rhetoric.