Or maybe she was just trying to use a quick comment which could fit into the 10 second soundbite that the media so loves these days.
Then that is her fault.
It’s her fault that the media likes short soundbites??? 
You’d prefer she be one of those long winded politicians who just drones on and on, until she froths at mouth and fall over like John Kerry?
'Cause it’s just not possible that a “Lincoln-Douglas” debate has become as shortened version of “a “Lincoln-Douglas” style debate where the candidates actually debate each other without a moderator asking questions of the candidates but not necessarily with the specific time format of the actual “Lincoln-Douglas” debates”, nope couldn’t be that. :rolleyes:
CMC +fnord!
She should not play into the soundbite culture. Between soundbite and rambling is clarity.
I am not concerned with the time constraints. If Senator Clinton proposed a format with different time constraints, it would not be a problem. But her format has nothing to with the way Lincoln and Douglas debated each other. Lincoln and Douglas were not going back and forth.
The idea that the best way to choose a president is by which selecting whichever one performs better than a debate is one that has been completely disproved already.
I don’t necessarily want the best debater to be prez, no matter what debate rules they follow (or in Clinton’s case, don’ t follow).
Bullshit. Her format isn’t exactly the same, no, but it’s a hell of a lot closer to Lincoln and Douglas taking turns to talk about actual issues than it is to Gibson and Stephanopoulos asking idiotic questions which have no relevance to one’s effectiveness as President.
Oh, and by the way, if she didn’t present 10-second quips that summarize her argument, the media would just do it for her, and paint her in a more unflattering light.
At any rate, HRC wants TV time, and Obama’s smart to refuse.
What? She’s gonna get TV time anyway.
Thing is, something like this before the 6th, would seriously disrupt existing plans, wouldn’t it? Stop Obama from getting his feet on the ground in Indiana, where he’s slowly pulling ahead of Hillary.
Cause she’s insisting it has to be before then.
I can see why Obama’s turning it down.
I’d love to see an unmoderated debate between the two with some, ah, custom rules – specifically, encouragement of physical confrontations during debates. (Read: One part political debate, nine parts gladiatorial combat.)
Actually I think that it would a good format and would be entertained by it. But as a matter of politics Obama is right to avoid it. The leader always wants to limit new debates and the underdog always wants as many as possible as often as possible. If NC and IN end up as they are polling today then Obama scores a knock-out (finally). Hillary needs to shakes things up and Obama needs to limit the possibility to make a major gaffe. Retail politicing showing himself to be a regular guy serves him best.
Hillary is short on cash. She is just looking for free airtime to spread more of her attacks. Obama needs to propose that they air a series of topic/response ads at thier own expense.
The current format for Lincoln-Douglas Debate, as set out by the National Forensic League:
Affirmative Constructive - 6 minutes
Cross Examination - 3 minutes
Negative Constructive - 7 minutes
Cross Examination - 3 minutes
First Affirmative Rebuttal - 4 minutes
Negative Rebuttal - 6 minutes
Second Affirmative Rebuttal - 3 minutes
Each debate is on a specific resolution such as: **Resolved: Hate crime enhancements are unjust in the United States. **
How?
Anyway, that’s never the sole basis for voters’ choices, but why shouldn’t it be part of the process?
I’d like to note that our current President wasn’t picked on the basis of his speaking ability, and we know all too well how that’s turned out.
Good grief. Nowhere in that article is she quoted as stating, implying, or even hinting that she is proposing a reenactment of the Lincoln-Douglas debates. Would you expect them both to wear vests and speak like 19th-century orators?
Here’s the relevant paragraph:
So what “happened during the Lincoln and Douglas debates”? Eleven million Americans tuned in? Obviously not. Obama debated Clinton? Obviously not. The only thing that “that’s what happened” could be referring to is a debate “one-on-one, no moderators.” Since this would be a novel format for presidential debates (at least within the last few decades), it’s not surprising that she would cite a famous historic precedent. That she’s NOT stating, implying, or even hinting that the debates would follow the same rules is made blindingly obvious when she says, “We’ll set whatever rules seem fair.”
It’s not going to happen in this election, but I would love to see an umoderated debate between presidential candidates. Debates should be opportunities for voters to learn more about the candidates views on issues and their abilities to think on their feet and articulate their ideas clearly (I disagree vehemently with anyone who thinks these are not important qualities for the president to have). They should not be opportunities for TV newsreaders to play “gotcha.”
Amazing. The Dems seem to be snatching a win from the jaws of victory, again.
How can this be?
Okay extended TV time via a debate during which she’d stray from the agreed-upon rules and froth at the mouth with unending personal attacks.
(BTW…Remember how pissed off we were when, in a McCain gathering, a GOP matron referred to Hilary as The Bitch? Well, I was pissed, anyway. Now, I’d growl a ‘Fuckin A John.’)