Going Quietly? Oh, no. Going Negative...
She wants a debate because she's hoping that perhaps Obama might make a slip up. Desperate times are calling for desperate measures.
Tags:
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Subscribe to my feed
Search Osterley Times or the Web
Tortured.
Click on picture to buy.
Obama '08
Awards
third Iraq Moratorium
War Child
Bloggers Against Torture
Out of Iraq Blogroll
Amnesty International
Get Involved
Site Meter
Web Stats
License
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons License.
"Those who would sacrifice a little liberty for a perceived increase in security, deserve neither - and will eventually lose both." Benjamin Franklin.
| Blogosphere of the Libertarian Left Ring Owner: Thomas Knapp Site: Blogosphere of the Libertarian Left |
by Bravenet.com
5 comments:
Desperate times are calling for desperate measures.
Desperate? I don't know (or care) what the British political tradition is, but it's the American political tradition for candidates to engage in debate.
That Obama refuses to debate Clinton one-on-one speaks volumes about the man's lack of substance. Quite frankly though, his supporters don't even really care what he stands for.
That Obama refuses to debate Clinton one-on-one speaks volumes about the man's lack of substance.
He's debated her eighteen times with two further debates still to come.
How does that "speak volumes about his lack of substance?" Hillary is seeking additional debates because she is losing. Why should the person who is winning agree to that? Would you run your campaign based on the demands of your opponent?
Why should the person who is winning agree to that?
I don't argue that it makes tactical sense for him to avoid debates. Now that the field is narrowed and he doesn't have John Edwards and company to help him out, there would be more of a spotlight on the substance of what he says, and I think it's clear that his campaign has decided that is not a strategy for winning. On the other hand, from what I've seen on the non-stop news coverage of the race, the electorate would certainly like to see them square off.
I don't argue that it makes tactical sense for him to avoid debates.
There we have it. The answer. He is not avoiding debate because he "lacks substance" as you put it, he's doing so because - as you say - "it makes tactical sense".
He is not avoiding debate because he "lacks substance" as you put it, he's doing so because - as you say - "it makes tactical sense".
Not exactly. His handlers have made the decision that because of his weakness on substance, it would make tactical sense for him to avoid debate.
Post a Comment