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.
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.
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.
[QUOTE=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.
[/QUOTE]
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.
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.
[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=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.
[/QUOTE]
Lincoln and Douglas did not cross examine each other.
[QUOTE=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.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=WhyNot]
You mean…a debate where people…debate?
Get outta here with your wacky radical notions!
[/QUOTE]
He’s one of those damned lefties who thinks that an informed voting populace is somehow “good” for the country.
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.
[QUOTE=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.
[/QUOTE]
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.”
[QUOTE=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.
[/QUOTE]
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.
