Presidential debates in Oregon? Yes we can!

By Paddy McGuire of Portland, Oregon. Paddy is a former executive director of the Democratic Party of Oregon, a former Clinton Administration appointee, and a former deputy Oregon Secretary of State. A few weeks ago, he contributed "The Red Sox Should Have Dropped Out". He has endorsed Hillary Clinton for President.

There is a lot of chatter going on about the Pennsylvania results. If there is anything to conclude from Tuesday night, it’s that this campaign will go on and Oregon will finally have its say in this election.

Oregon’s elections process is often celebrated for the fact that with vote-by-mail, voters have two weeks with their ballots in hand to make a decision. Two weeks to look closely at the candidates – two weeks to scrutinize the candidates over their positions on issues affecting Oregonians.

Earlier today I was shocked thrilled to see Hillary Clinton unveil what she calls ”The Oregon Compact,”, a list of ten positions on issues which directly impact the lives of Oregonians.

You don’t normally see a campaign be upfront and descriptive about its stances because it often opens them up for scrutiny. But in this case, Hillary Clinton hits the nail on the head. Oregonians don’t just want question-free rallies, thirty second commercials and campaign rhetoric – we want to hear about how each candidate will help us right here in Oregon.

In the Compact, Hillary took a stand on protecting Oregon’s right to determine the siting of LNG terminals, vowed to stop and reverse the depletion of Wild Salmon and protect Oregon’s Death with Dignity law. If this opens up a debate in Oregon on the issues I am all for it.

She is also challenging Senator Obama to debate twice in Oregon, once specifically on rural issues in our state. I couldn’t have been happier to sign her petition at www.debateoregon.com calling on both candidates to hold two presidential debates in Oregon. I just hope Senator Obama joins the conversation so we can focus on the issues rather than the trivia.

Comments

  • Katy (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I'm really glad to see this post - debates were starting to be discussed at the end of Josh's thread and a whole lot of folks were saying they didn't want to see any debates focused on the Pacific NW. I can't fathom that thinking. How could we pass up the chance for the nation to understand the things that concern Oregonians? For all the complaining that this campaign has gone on too long I would hope we could all at least agree that the candidates debating Pacific NW specific issues is a good thing?

  • (Show?)

    Obama, stay away from the debate. Hillary wants to prove that she can stay on issues. Thus far, all she's tried to do is make Obama look bad by dredging up scandal. There is no reason to trust she wouldn't do that again.

  • (Show?)

    And it's her own fault if she can't afford to campaign here...

    But I agree with Karol. The last debate was a complete farce, so why even bother. I wonder if "rural issues" include flag pins and Barack's patriotism.

  • (Show?)

    AKA - Free air time for a broke Hillary Clinton campaign.

    Just say no Barack. They have debated 21 times. 21!

    Enough is enough. Who's gonna moderate this debate? Bill O'Reilly? Sean Hannity?

    This has all become quite depressing.

  • Carol (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I hope Obama will decline Clinton's offer. He was so effective in Medford with the Q & A, much of which concerned the environment and other interests unique to Oregon, but demonstrated how thoughtful he is. (He is not out to score points against his opponent, something we saw a lot of at ABC.) I just hope he will use that format throughout Oregon but also throughout the remainder of his races. It was the most effective I've seen him.

  • (Show?)

    As I mentioned to Kari the other day, once Clinton and Obama had decided to talk about their faith rather than debate science issues before the Pennsylvania election, organizers of Science Debate 2008 issued an invitation to the candidates to meet at Portland State University on May 2, 9, or 16.

    Their proposed moderator is David Brancaccio, the host of PBS's NOW and broadast nationwide through OPB.

    Not likely to happen (in my opinion), but Science Debate 2008 is asking people to contact their legislators to encourage the candidates to participate.

  • Katy (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Ben, By "campaign" do you mean negative mailers and 30 second ads?

    Yeah, they've debated 21 times - but these debates will be focused on THE PACIFIC NW. This is a rare opportunity for the rest of the country to understand the issues that are important to us. Why in the world would anyone be willing to pass that up?

  • (Show?)

    Because I think my point still stands: was the last PA debate about PA issues... or was it ridiculous ABC fluff?

    And by campaign I mean stuff like field organizers. Sure, team Clinton has them, but: I did an event in Forest Grove where the Obama campaign had sent two organizers, for example. No Clinton team in sight.

  • Randy (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Obama won't debate, he is wimp. Nothing more than a modern version of Adlai Stevenson.

  • paulie (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Submit your questions:

    I notice neither of you are wearing a flag pin on your lapel. Do you love America?

    1. Senator Obama what do you think of the rice shortages in California. By the way do you use chop sticks regularly?

    2. Senator Clinton, can you tell Oregonians the name of the state bird and state rock?

  • John Mulvey (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I very much agree with Senator Obama that there's been too much emphasis on superficialities in this campaign. What's needed, and has yet to really happen, is a substantive discussion of issues.

    Therefore, it's unfathomable that any Oregonian wouldn't want the candidates to debate. Why shut down an opportunity to get commitments from a future President on our issues? Aren't the issues what everyone claims are important?

    John

  • Larry McD (unverified)
    (Show?)

    No more attack opportunities disguised as Democratic "debates."

    No more Terry McAuliffe. No more Howard Wolfson. No more Harold "EeewwwDats" Ickes. No more Mark Penn. No more Gloria Steinem. No more Geraldine Ferraro. No more Erica Jong. No more Slick Willy lies. No more Hillary role-playing.

    Enough is enough! The decision, like it or not, has been fairly and squarely made.

    I agree that a healthy debate over issues vital to the Northwest MUST be joined, but it needs to be between Barack Obama and John McCain!

  • (Show?)

    There have been more than enough debates already.

    Enough!

    Let's vote!!

  • (Show?)

    Barack Obama promises a change from "politics as usual." How is refusing to debate when one is ahead anything but "politics as usual?"

  • (Show?)

    "If there is anything to conclude from Tuesday night, it’s that this campaign will go on and Oregon will finally have its say in this election."

    I wouldn't bet on it. What if Hillary loses NC and IN, as she currently is poised to do? Obama is about 40 delegates away from literally preventing a Clinton win, even using a very conservative model tilted towards her (ie, 6 of 9 wins by 10-15 points each). He got Wu this morning, and according to LAT there are another dozen waiting in the wings, I believe.

    My fear is that we will have half an election--ballots go out, and then a few days after NC/IN she drops out, making the last week or two pointless.

  • Marybeth (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I think a debate with moderators from Oregon, not the national media would give our state and region the attention it deserves. This is a tremendous, historic opportunity that Oregon voters should demand of their candidate. I can't believe Obama and his supporters are looking to duck an open, public exchange of ideas about Oregon NW issues.

    Instead of being a candidate of "change" Obama looks to me like just another politician behaving the way his DC handlers direct him to act. C'mon, Obama, time to man up and face your opponent instead of following your play it safe, scripted speeches and staged rallies.

    News flash for Obama supporters - John McCain is about ten times tougher than Clinton (who is about ten times tougher than Obama) - if we want to elect a D to the white house, we better be able to connect with real Democrats, blue collar, big state Democrats instead of just the brie and chablis set that is the Obama base. This race isn't over, it is just starting to get interesting.

  • Unrepentant Liberal (unverified)
    (Show?)

    The problem is, 'what does Senator Clinton really believe?' I can't honestly say I know any position that she has taken that I don't think she'd change one hundred and eighty degrees in a New York minute if she felt the voters were heading the other way. That's what I don't want; a President who always has her finger into the wind constantly to see which way it's blowing.

    "The Oregon Compact" is just another temporary statement of her always temporary policy positions.

  • (Show?)

    "If there is anything to conclude from Tuesday night, it’s that this campaign will go on and Oregon will finally have its say in this election."

    I wouldn't bet on it. What if Hillary loses NC and IN, as she currently is poised to do? Obama is about 40 delegates away from literally preventing a Clinton win, even using a very conservative model tilted towards her (ie, 6 of 9 wins by 10-15 points each). He got Wu this morning, and according to LAT there are another dozen waiting in the wings, I believe.

    My fear is that we will have half an election--ballots go out, and then a few days after NC/IN she drops out, making the last week or two pointless.

  • (Show?)

    Hey all: just wanted to share that Oregon Congressman David Wu has endorsed Obama! KPTV broke the story, or it's at least where I got it (and Daily Kos).

  • caj (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Do I hear whining from the Obama camp? When Hillary was attacked in the NBC debate, none of you seemed to mind.

    Hillary's got gumption and resolve. I like gumption and resolve. Obama's got charisma. I'll take gumption and resolve.

    Let the debates begin...

  • (Show?)

    Marybeth, If you mean "ten times tougher" means sticking it out when you aren't going to win, you are right, Hil's tough. Otherwise, Obama is still standing through her kitchen sink tactics and Republicans nasty attacks. Advantage: Obama.

  • (Show?)

    I remember in 1992 renting a chicken suit and having a volunteer dress up in it at GHWB campaign events. Perhaps someone needs to find a chicken suit.

  • (Show?)

    "I can't believe Obama and his supporters are looking to duck an open, public exchange of ideas about Oregon NW issues. "

    They're not. They're ducking a pointless MSM hack job forum posing as a debate, where nothing of any substance is likely to be discussed.

    And while I've spared no criticism of Ms. Clinton, I don't begrudge the right of Democrats to support her for some unknown reason. Being called part of the brie and chablis set chaps my ass, because I fucking HATE brie, and nobody in OR should be drinking "chablis" when we have killer pinot gris and riesling here. How much brie do they really eat in say, Wisconsin? That seems like a pretty blue collar state that went heavy Obama.

  • John Mulvey (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Being called part of the brie and chablis set chaps my ass

    Perhaps she should have said "arugula"?

  • Blake C Hickman (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "brie and chablis set that is the Obama base"

    I thought Republicans were the ones that painted their opponents with such wide brushes. Man, damn those voters in Iowa, Idaho and Nebraska with their brie and chablis, what elitists they are!!!

  • (Show?)

    How many of the anti-debate, Obama people argued just as strenuously for a large number of debates between Novick and Merkley? How many debates have those guys had in Oregon? Six?

    Common, debates are bad? There hasn't been a single debate in the Rockly Mountain states OR the Pacific Northwest. Debates are bad for Oregon? Right.

    Since when, exactly, did debating become a DC dirty trick, as Mr. Shapiro from Obama-land says? Whether you are an incumbent or a challenger, front-runner or underdog, anyone who wants Oregon's votes has to debate. There will be no coronation.

  • (Show?)

    I remember in 1992 renting a chicken suit and having a volunteer dress up in it at GHWB campaign events. Perhaps someone needs to find a chicken suit.

    Or perhaps someone can dress up like the Fonze and jump over a fake shark.

  • anonymous (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Hillary has no money to campaign so she wants debates for free air time.

  • anonymous (unverified)
    (Show?)
    Posted by: Paddy McGuire | Apr 23, 2008 1:11:28 PM Charlie, Here's how I see it happening: She wins Indiana (despite him being from next door), loses NC by single digits and splits the last seven states. Then the superdelegates do their job and decide who is the best candidate to defeat John McCain, taking into consideration the fact that she has won a large proportion of the big states that are critical to victory in the fall.

    Is Oregon "a big state that is critical to victory in the fall"?

    IF YES, what are you going to say when Hillary loses Oregon?

    IF NO, why push for debates?

    According to Paddy, the superdels make the decision, and they DO NOT take Oregon into consideration for that decision.

    When a member of Hillary's Oregon steering committee says Oregon doesn't matter, he has no credibility to call for debates, and voters have no reason to vote for Hillary.

  • (Show?)

    How many of the anti-debate, Obama people argued just as strenuously for a large number of debates between Novick and Merkley?

    Not me! I think there've been too many as it is. Four would be plenty, IMHO.

  • (Show?)

    "How many of the anti-debate, Obama people argued just as strenuously for a large number of debates between Novick and Merkley? How many debates have those guys had in Oregon? Six?"

    The debate was between six and zero, it seemed at times. And in any case, the Senate race is still one either candidate can win. Not so the Presidential nomination; we're just playing out the string here, Obama's won.

  • John Mulvey (unverified)
    (Show?)

    So it's come to this?

    I always understood that there was some principle underlying Barack Obama's candidacy... at least that's what we were told.

    Now, apparently the principle is: we have money and you don't, so we think it's fine to avoid debating issues and instead run a campaign based on barrages of tv ads and three-word slogans. It will all be very uplifting, I'm sure.

    Tell me again when the post-political era is going to begin?

    John

  • Katy (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I'm still dumbfounded that Oregonians would be against a Presidential debate focused on Oregon. WTH?

  • (Show?)

    I like the idea of an Oregon debate moderated by Oregonians. It's worth looking into.

    While Mr. Obama was not my first choice, he is now. I don't eat brie, don't drink wine of any kind, am not anti-debate, and am FAR beyond tired of being insulted by people who do not know me who choose to believe that I've been somehow entranced by a politician I've never met.

    The fact that Obama's and Clinton's positions are not far from each other, on the issues, is not lost on me. It is the way that the campaigns have been run that have decided it for me, as is the case in several other races. A young lady (not even 20 years old) recently said something in a debate for student body president of her university. "The way you are in a campaign, is how you will be in office." I believe that to be true, because I've seen it over and over. We don't all of a sudden become different people during political season. Claiming to is a cop-out.

  • anon (unverified)
    (Show?)

    if hillary is such a strong candidate, why does she need a debate as a crutch?

    DID HILLARY CALL FOR REGIONAL DEBATES before Idaho? Before WA? Why not?

  • anon (unverified)
    (Show?)

    paddy - answer my questions please

  • (Show?)

    This is all so depressing.

    Two people who I have respected for a long time (Josh and Paddy) are on here peddling nonsense that I KNOW they know is nonsense. I am used to this from the Repubs. Not from my friends.

    Hillary just wants a repeat of the right wing hack job ABC did last week. It really upsets that fellow Democrats have embraced this strategy.

    This thing is over. We need to stop beating up our own nominee and we need to get on to beating up McSame.

    This campaign reminds me of this phrase I saw earlier today: "IF anyone who voted for Obama didn't count, and IF anyone who voted for Clinton gets counted twice, then she'd be the nominee."

  • (Show?)

    I need another debate like I need another hole in my head. If I thought for one second that we'd get a real debate about real issues important to Oregonians, I might be convinced otherwise, but anybody who thinks that's going to happen (unless by some chance Darrel's science debate comes through), is woefully out of touch with the current state of the media. Seeing both candidates pummeled by Republican talking points for an hour and a half doesn't do anyone any good (except McCain).

  • anon (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Hillary camp pushing Rovian strawman that debates are necessary to get the message out.

    Also, they are whining about being broke. Saddle up - deal with it and moveon.

  • wise (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I'm dumbfounded that anyone believes that this proposed debate would actually be focused on Oregon, save for a softball question or two.

    21 freaking debates already. one more will do nothing to move this campaign along.

  • LT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    IF we could have a debate with a neutral moderator (superdelegates who have endorsed already do not qualify--maybe someone like Mark Hass or Paul Hanson if they would do it) focused on OREGON issues:

    logging rural life being a state with so much federal land LNG watershed management and invasive species Hanford cleanup (right across the river) and Arlington (or wherever they are dismantling nerve gas bombs) growth issues (related to 37 and 49 and to such issues nationwide) National Guard (what their mission should be, how many in Oregon have done multiple tours of duty overseas, how Oregon handles re-integration of returning Guard vs. other states and national policy )

    that would be fine.

    But enough of Bosnia snipers, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, "we must be fair and count Michigan and Florida", the bitter comment which sounds a lot like the book WHAT'S THE MATTER WITH KANSAS.

    I'm a white female over 60 who attends church when possible (not possible when I was working retail and had Sunday shifts). I've worked more than one part time job at a time, worked one part time job, worked odd shifts (incl. closing a store one night and opening the next morning)---realities that nationally famous people often don't seem to understand.

    I've also been unemployed due to layoff. And anyone who says I am not bitter about the difficulty of finding full time work because I attend church doesn't know me very well.

    So, yes, I know a lot of people admire Obama and a lot admire Clinton. But if there is to be a debate in Oregon, make it an OREGON debate, not a debate like the one Jon Stewart skewered as "the subject of the economy is the number one issue for many people, so WHY WAS IT THE 16TH QUESTION IN THE ABC DEBATE???

  • LT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    IF we could have a debate with a neutral moderator (superdelegates who have endorsed already do not qualify--maybe someone like Mark Hass or Paul Hanson if they would do it) focused on OREGON issues:

    logging rural life being a state with so much federal land LNG watershed management and invasive species Hanford cleanup (right across the river) and Arlington (or wherever they are dismantling nerve gas bombs) growth issues (related to 37 and 49 and to such issues nationwide) National Guard (what their mission should be, how many in Oregon have done multiple tours of duty overseas, how Oregon handles re-integration of returning Guard vs. other states and national policy )

    that would be fine.

    But enough of Bosnia snipers, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, "we must be fair and count Michigan and Florida", the bitter comment which sounds a lot like the book WHAT'S THE MATTER WITH KANSAS.

    I'm a white female over 60 who attends church when possible (not possible when I was working retail and had Sunday shifts). I've worked more than one part time job at a time, worked one part time job, worked odd shifts (incl. closing a store one night and opening the next morning)---realities that nationally famous people often don't seem to understand.

    I've also been unemployed due to layoff. And anyone who says I am not bitter about the difficulty of finding full time work because I attend church doesn't know me very well.

    So, yes, I know a lot of people admire Obama and a lot admire Clinton. But if there is to be a debate in Oregon, make it an OREGON debate, not a debate like the one Jon Stewart skewered as "the subject of the economy is the number one issue for many people, so WHY WAS IT THE 16TH QUESTION IN THE ABC DEBATE???

  • backbeat (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Fine, but only if it is moderated by the League of Women Voters, rather than the White Male Bobblehead Society.

    Obama/Schweitzer '08

  • RichW (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I would rather that both candidates speak directly to us voters rather than debate non-issues.

    I really, really like Obama's latest TV ad in Oregon where he speaks to the education of our children. It is almost a public service ad. This is high-road campaigning.

  • (Show?)

    "I'm still dumbfounded that Oregonians would be against a Presidential debate focused on Oregon. WTH? "

    We're not. We just don't think there's much chance anything like that would actually be what played out.

  • Jonathan (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Disclaimer: Longtime lurker, first-time (in a very long-time) commenter, Oregon native (and soon-to-be returnee and registered D), East Coast resident, big Obama supporter and volunteer.

    Remember in Iowa when all the candidates fellated corn farmers over the piss-poor idea that is ethanol?

    Nevada, when the litmus test for President of the US became "who loves Yucca Mountain more?"

    Michigan, when Mitt Romney became an overnight economic populist?

    That's what happens when national audiences have to listen to parochial stuff - not that it doesn't matter, just that it doesn't matter compared to, say, fifty issues of national significance that the candidates can, should, and sometimes do talk about everywhere, not just in Oregon. Talking about this stuff is what our candidates for state and federal office within Oregon should be doing - and I've been happy to see in some of the debates that they have been doing just that.

    Let the candidates do what Hillary did - put out a brief statement outlining their positions on Oregon-specific issues that they might have to deal with as President, maybe talk a little about those issues when they're here campaigning, certainly answer questions when asked. No need to make Oregonians look as parochial and tone-deaf as Nevadans or Iowans by airing our concerns during a nationally televised debate to people who could give a rip - it looks like pandering, like it or not.

  • (Show?)

    Let's propose an online debate here on Blue Oregon. I am sure we could figure out a good format. Like give each candidate a five minute youtube opener. Questions are submitted and we vote on which questions to ask: 5 foreign affairs questions, 5 domestic policy questions, 5 questions specific for Oregon. I am sure we could figure out something interesting, fair and informative.

  • (Show?)

    I'm an Obama supporter, and I agree that the only reason Hillary is proposing these debates is because she's behind and it's free air time.

    Nevertheless, I'd like to see two debates in Oregon, one in Portland and one maybe in Bend.

    But Obama should insist that they be limited to specific issues of relevance to Oregon and the PNW. No stupid gotcha type questions.

    Although, I wish someone would ask Clinton why she supports a Constitutional amendment to ban flag burning. What about free speech? She is just pandering and trying to cya from Republican attacks.

  • (Show?)

    Challenge to the Obama campaign: if you don't want a replay of the ABC mess, name the reporters that are acceptable. How about Brad Cain, Jeff Mapes, Steve Law, Arril Baer? There are some mighty fine reporters here in Oregon that aren't going to ask questions about flag pins and sniper fire. We can have a debate focused on the issues that are important to Oregonians: fish, trees, BPA, LNG, Death with Dignity, medical marijuana.

    That's really a terrible idea?

    Debates are really bad?

  • anon (unverified)
    (Show?)

    paddy - answer my questions please

  • Marcus Brody (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I agree that the only reason Hillary is proposing these debates is because she's behind and it's free air time.

    You're only half right. It seems more obvious that she's proposing these debates because she knows Obama is going to decline (why wouldn't he? what does he have to gain by stooping to that level yet again?), and then she (or, more accurately, her surrogates) can attack Obama as a chicken.

    Text book, straight-off-the-shelf campaigning.

  • Christines (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Is Obama really a thug?

    This shows him at his best!

    http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/04/18/obama-invokes-jay-z-stab-the-ladiesmiddle-finga-to-the-law/

    A whole lot of fuss has been made about Obama’s possible flipping of the middle finger to Hillary in response to his treatment during Wednesday’s debate as something less than Baby Jesus. If he in fact intended to flip her off, his gesture marks a new low in a campaign that was supposedly predicated on high-mindedness.

    Obama’s invocation of Jay-Z’s defiant “Dirt Off Your Shoulder” battle anthem during the same speech adds evidence to the claim that he gave Hillary the finger.

  • Kym (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Has everyone lost their minds? I realize we all have our favorites but a debate is not a bad thing! Even the PA debate was not a bad thing! They both were asked ridiculous questions (as they have been countless times) and they both have gone on television shows and played the fool for the sake of the vote. (I seem to remember both of them on SNL, Obama was recently on 'The View'...) Idiotic question galore!

    Point is, Obama has no real reason to debate other than the bad press and Hillary knows that. Hillary also knows that when it comes to debates she usually plays well; good at policy and facts - it's her strong point. Obama is better at spending money on ads that are majestic and have a momentous ending inspiring ‘Hope’.

    I'm for the debates and think they have the possibility of redeeming the first hour in PA.

    Oh, and let's not forget that free publicity is free for everyone - both candidates would be getting that regardless of whether they need it.

  • anon (unverified)
    (Show?)

    is christines a thug?

    No free air time for Clinton. Saddle up, Hillary.

  • Phil Norfwill (unverified)
    (Show?)

    The majority of America won't elect a black President. Like it or not, that's a well documented fact - check Zogby.

    So, if you want to loose yet another Presidential race - you must support Hillary. It doesn't matter that she's a liar & cheat, and that her 'husband' is a womanizing, rapist. You must support her or loose - again!

  • (Show?)

    Okay anon (if that is your real name),

    I didn't answer because your premise is so silly and you are mixing apples with oranges. My point was about the general election and the truth be told, California with 55 electoral votes is more important than Oregon with seven electoral votes. Just as Oregon with 7 is more important than Wyoming with 3. These are winner take all contests (except NE and ME, IIRC), so size does matter.

    Primaries are a completely different matter, because both size and margin matter as does timing. So you did not manage to score some big point.

    For the record, even though I volunteer for the Hillary campaign, I do not speak for the campaign, only myself.

  • anon (unverified)
    (Show?)

    christines : mydd.com ran a front page photo showing Obama did not do as you say. How is it that you missed it?

    How about a debate - just not televised. You have to be there in person or Hillary can pay for the air time.

  • (Show?)

    "Obama’s invocation of Jay-Z’s defiant “Dirt Off Your Shoulder” battle anthem during the same speech adds evidence to the claim that he gave Hillary the finger."

    Uh, no. The expression there is not, "fuck you," but "whatever, wack-job."

  • Larry McD (unverified)
    (Show?)

    So much of this is soooo profoundly parochial.

    Is the idea that the candidates should debate local issues in each state? 50 debates? Perhaps we should throw in Puerto Rico, Guam, and Washington DC? 53 debates on local issues?

    As if Oregonians (and other Americans, including those in foreign countries) don't have TV sets? Radios? Teh Internets? That they haven't had the opportunity to hear debate after debate after debate?

    The whole debate by Clintonians smacks of desperation and Clinton's national negatives keep climbing at an accelerating rate.

  • Sid Anderson (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Hey, I've noticed Obama doesn't have a yellow "support the troops" decal ribbon on his campaign bus. There needs to be a debate in Oregon so he can answer this very important question that those of us here in the Northwest need to know before the ballots are sent out. I won't be able to vote unless I can get this questioned answered.

  • Katy (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Paddy, Anon also goes by ghfdif, joweif and eehgid.

    I don't think the idea is that the candidates SHOULD debate the local issues in each state - I think it has more to do with the fact that this campaign has gone on so long that it's a great opportunity for those voters in remaining states to hear the candidates talk about local issues. Personally, I think it's an exciting one at that. I'm a little perplexed by the "Hillary should pay for the debates!" rhetoric being tossed around. Both candidates would get equal exposure. Unless, of course, the real worry is that your candidate might not do well?

  • joel dan walls (unverified)
    (Show?)

    McGuire sez: In the Compact, Hillary took a stand on protecting Oregon’s right to determine the siting of LNG terminals....

    There was a full page advertisement (not cheap) in The Oregonian recently, paid for by a bunch of labor unions and the Oregon AFL-CIO, promoting one of these LNG terminals near Astoria (at least, I think it's near Astoria). Meanwhile, at Clinton's event in Hillsboro a few weeks ago (which I attended), she brought on stage a woman--an organic farmer--whose land is supposedly threatened by use of eminent domain to lay a pipeline. This would effectively put the farmer out of business. So whom is Hillary Clinton going to support here: the farmer or the labor unions? I'm fairly sure she cannot do both.

    As for debates, yawn. Those I have seen--whether the last absurd one in Philadelphia ("Do you still beat your wife, Senator Obama? Do you and Rev. Wright still smoke crack together before you go trolling for young children to molest?") or otherwise--have told me practically nothing about the candidates' credentials and ideas. Here's what I actually got out of the debates: everyone gets rattled at times. Big deal. If you're going to decide your vote on that basis, good gawd. A true debate--I like the League of Women Voters' ideas--would be interesting. But some nonsense moderated by the likes of George Stephanopoulos? Screw it!

  • James X. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I would rather the candidates be interviewed about Oregon issues than have them address flag pins and Bosnia while standing at podiums. What we call debates are just contrived interview formats that tend to be the least informative.

  • Jonathan (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I'll reiterate my earlier point:

    Are policy memos, statements in the voter's pamphlet, rallies and town halls, and questions answered from individual voters not enough for us in Oregon?

    Do we really need a nationally televised debate for the candidates to hold forth on timber counties, LNG terminals, Death With Dignity, and the Burnside/Couch couplet, to the utter boredom of everyone but slightly more than half of the state of Oregon?

    This smacks of parochialism in the worst way - I could never abide the state I hold dear subjecting the rest of the country to that!

  • j_luthergoober (unverified)
    (Show?)

    So Oregonians, it all comes down to a LNG terminal.

    Whatever happend to Hillery's Iraqi War vote?

  • undecided (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Why are there so many people that don't want an Oregon debate?

    I want an Oregon debate. Any candidate that isn't interested in having one will not get my vote. Oregon has its own issues and we deserve to be heard, especially since we are never heard from because we vote almost dead last in the primary.

    We must demand a debate of the candidates. Its not about them its about "us" we matter for a change and are long overdue to be heard.

    We can get the League of Women Voters to sponsor it. Their debates are always the most professional.

    For full disclosure, I am an Edwards supporter who has not yet decided who to vote for, I need this debate.

  • Harry Kershner (unverified)
    (Show?)

    It's wonderful to hear you "progressives" arguing for the importance of debate. I hope you'll remember your arguments during the general, when at least one true progressive will be available. I want to hear Obamary and McCain debate in favor of:

    increased military spending; maintaining a large military presence in or near Iraq; refusal to treat Palestinians and Israelis even-handedly; refusal to support single-payer-universal, non-corporate health care; nuclear options "on the table" for Iran; refusal to crack down on corporate crime and end corporate welfare; refusal to cut the bloated, wasteful military budget; refusal to oppose nuclear, and place solar first; refusal to push for impeachment of the war criminals in the White House; refusal to adopt a Wall Street securities speculation tax; refusal to work to end corporate personhood.

    Nader/Gonzalez will gain a lot more than the five or six percent they have now if the American people know what they and their opponents really stand for.

  • (Show?)

    With the 2 debates offer, surrogates on Blue Oregon and elsewhere pushing for the debates, (thank you Paddy), asking voters to sign the Oregon Compact and Bill running around in small town Oregon for the next 2 days we have the Clinton's campaign strategy pretty clearly mapped for us. Run to the margins in rural counties but not in Eastern Oregon..try to thread the white working class needle that worked so well in PA. Appeal to older women voters who might be stuck in the Gloria Steinum time machine.

    If you trust the Clinton's I've got a bridge for you to buy.

  • (Show?)

    Notice also the framing of the "issues" of the supposed Debate here in Oregon by the Clinton folks?

    I am voting for President. Not Governor or Senator. Why I certainly care deeply about their position of salmon recovery and LNG terminals siting I also recognize that this is a national election with national issues at stake.

    Hillary would love to sit here and filibuster all day on the role of FERC in the siting process for LNG terminals. Why? Cause she can pander and she doesnt have to answer questions about things like say....her vote for the Iraq war!

    Also - one thing I picked up on today when watching her response to a question about Bill Clinton's pardons of two Weather Underground murderers. Whenever Clinton is asked a tough question and she is about to lie she starts laughing and then after a bit she lies. She did it with Snipergate she did it with Colombia and she did it today with Weather Undergound pardons.

    In poker terms it's her "tell". So if there IS a debate then watch for her and her laughing.

  • (Show?)

    Paddy, did you pay any attention to the fact that ballots drop in a little over a week? think you can have a couple of debates by then, or should we be doing this in the middle of an active voting period? tell people, Wait don't vote! these 2 debates will absolutely make you change your mind!!

    actually, we can simplify it by having Hillary explain how her vote for the war is something she need never take responsibility for. 21 debates, and she's never answered that one yet.

  • (Show?)

    Now the Clinton campaign has Governor Kulongoski running around the state holding up a copy of the Oregon Compact and begging for 2 debates. Shameless shilling. The Guv should know better.

  • joel dan walls (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Perhaps Barnhart will know: didn't Hillary Clinton once state that if voters wanted a candidate who would admit to error in voting for war powers against Iraq, there were "other options"? Or words to that effect? I want to find the quote!!!

  • anonymous (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Maybe while the Governor is running around the state he can answer these questions:

    If Barack is such a bad candidate, and he is so unelectable, and it is such a bad idea to have him as the Democratic nominee, why can’t Hillary beat him?

    Why is she behind him in every conceivable metric? Why is she behind in pledged delegates? Why is she behind in the popular vote (and don’t insult my intelligence by trying to pass that sheer nonsense the morons at certain pro-Clinton blogs are lapping up)? Why are super delegates flocking to Obama, while Hillary has picked up only a handful in the past few months? Why has she won fewer states? Why is she trumpeting her narrow delegate pickup in PA, when it is less than the number of net delegates Obama picked up in a variety of other states? Why is she behind in fund raising? Why was she unable to turn her double digit lead a year ago into any actual primary wins? Why, with her starting financial advantage and name recognition, was she held to a tie on Super Tuesday?
    
    Why to those questions and a hundred more like them. If your candidate is so much better, why is Obama kicking her butt? Why?</blockquote>
    
  • d (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Who says an Oregon debate on our issues will have nothing to do with the rest of the country?

    Salmon, I seem to recall that California, Alaska and Washington all have salmon as an issue. I think that the people in the other states like to eat the Salmon as well.

    LNG, there are at least 4 other states getting LNG terminals forced on them as part of Bushs "energy policy".

    Poverty, yes we have it here. I think all 50 states have this and we all know its on the increase.

    If you don't want a debate then you don't have to watch it. I won't force you to, so why do you want to prevent me from having one comrade?

  • anon (unverified)
    (Show?)

    As noted above Hillary's past performance indicates she is not interested in Oregon issues but in smears, Rovian gotcha politics and sucker punches - and Paddy's attitude in this post certainly backs that up.

    Change you can xerox! Denounce AND REJECT! Why do I get the first question? Will anyone offer me a pillow? She has zero credibility here. What a joke.

  • anon (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Lucy promises not to pull the football away THIS time...

    Yeah right.

  • caj (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Kicking her butt? Hmm...Last I heard the actual votes amounted to something close to 14.3 million human votes for her and 14.7 million for him.

    That's not exactly a kicked butt. The reason you think he is kicking her butt is that you don't read much outside of your own tunnel vision. Blue Oregon for you is tunnel vision. For me it's branching out to see what others are saying. The actual human votes are quite evenly split. The caucus vote counts are not individually accurate. They are assumed numbers based on whatever formula each state chooses. Superdelegates must count all individual votes, including what Michigan and Florida will do in the general election. And if you do that, Hillary has a slim lead; but I wouldn't be presumptuous enough to say she was kicking his butt.

    Try going to Hillary's site and see what the other 14.3+ million progressive Democrats are thinking.

  • anon (unverified)
    (Show?)

    spare me your bogus math and your rude insults. Typical.

  • (Show?)

    I'd say having more than half a million more votes than Clinton is kicking her butt, yes. I'd say winning twice as many states is kicking her butt too. As obama says her record wouldn't have even gotten her into the NBA East playoffs...

  • Tahler (unverified)
    (Show?)

    If Obama runs away from this and turns down thew challenge he will have lost my vote. The two Oregon debates would be great for the Pacific Northwest!

  • (Show?)

    With a number of states using a caucus system instead of a primary, the "I got more votes than you" thing is completely ridiculous. How do you compare a state with a caucus where maybe 10% of people turn out to a state with a primary where 50% turn out? That's why the "popular vote" is completely irrelevant to the primary.

    I've watched a few of the debates, and the last ones have been terrible. I have little doubt if we held one in Oregon that it would be the same. Because of that, I have a real hard time supporting a debate in Oregon. The moderators ask the questions the press wants to hear about (because they're ones they can write stories on) and not the issues the average person cares about.

    I mean, look at some of the absolutely ridiculous questions that have been asked of candidates in Oregon by the local media. All that time that WWeek spent on trivial issues could have been spent getting into the issues with the U.S. Senate candidates (as well as others). We have great candidates, and the differences are really down in the details on the issues. But when they spend all their time on fairly irrelevant stuff, we don't get to hear those differences.

  • (Show?)

    The debate challenge is campaign tactic a gimmick. Clinton's tactics are exactly the same in Indiana..bait and switch. Let's debate..we've debated 21 times..see you won't debate..I'm so victimized..whahhhhh. This ploy is so obvious you can drive a truck through it. See Pat Ryan's column that's up on this topic.

  • anonymous (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Tahler - troll!

  • Katy (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Geez, can we please stop with the "troll!" comments. I've said it before and I'll say it again, just because someone disagrees with you does not make them a troll. It's really difficult to follow all these "anon" pro-Obama comments. Whose saying what when? I can't keep up. Just please pick a name and stick with it, I don't care if it's your real name - just for the sake of consistency?

  • Grant Schott (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Why on earth would any D want Obama and CLinton to debate again and tear each other apart more? They are starting to pander as they claw and scratch for those last votes. If you have a brain in your head, you can decide without yet ANOTHER debate.

    The Ds started going overboard with debates in '87/'88 when the "Seven Dwarfs" had something liek 20 debates before Iowa. We need to reverse that trend.

  • SDG (unverified)
    (Show?)

    This is what I mean by pretending-to-not-understand-the-issue snarkiness from Katy.

  • (Show?)

    Does anyone know who would be deciding the format, setting the rules, asking the questions or moderating a debate?

    Whether or not it could be a substantive debate and / or an Oregon debate would depend a great deal on those questions.

    Among other things it would be crucial not only to have moderator - questioners who would not be asking the tit-for-tat questions that Clinton supporters have mislabeled "tough", but who would be committed to calling the candidates out when they gave non-responsive answers.

    As this seems unlikely, given that it the folks who consider the travesty in Pennsylvania to have been "tough questions" who are calling for the debates, I'm not buying.

    However, if the Clinton folks agreed to put say the League of Women Voters in charge and let them set the format and groundrules and choose the moderator / questioners (if any) and to abide by their decisions, I'd at least think about it.

    Darrel's Science Vote suggestion also has an appeal.

    The main thing that might be slightly interesting would be to see if Obama is willing to call Clinton out on her expressed willingness to commit nuclear genocide against Iran. Who was that you said you wanted to take the call at 3 a.m.? But I bet Obama wouldn't do it.

  • SDG (unverified)
    (Show?)

    No one will be deciding the format, because Obama isn't falling for Hillary's baiting and bullying.

  • (Show?)

    Although a debate would be interesting to me, since I am still undecided, I think Clinton and Obama should be invited to headline Candidates Gone Wild!

    THAT would rock.

  • SDG (unverified)
    (Show?)
    Posted by: no name | Apr 24, 2008 5:04:51 PM The debate challenge is campaign tactic a gimmick. Clinton's tactics are exactly the same in Indiana..bait and switch. Let's debate..we've debated 21 times..see you won't debate..I'm so victimized..whahhhhh. This ploy is so obvious you can drive a truck through it

    Well said.

  • Katy (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Stephanie, Omigod that would be so cool!

    I hope the debates will be moderated by the league of women voters. Grant, I don't see how highlighting the issues that the Democratic party stands for can be bad for us? The more we say "universal health care, leave Iraq in 60 days, etc," the more it becomes the part of the vocabulary of the nation.

    SDG, Anal cancer.

  • Nick from Eugene (unverified)
    (Show?)

    We should have a debate in Oregon...but it would be great if it was between the two candidates still with a chance to win the election. Hillary is a side-show at this point, with no actual route to the nomination. So, lets set up a debate between Obama and McCain right now.

  • trishka (unverified)
    (Show?)

    chablis?

    ZOMG!!!! seriously?

    CHABLIS?

    where did that even come from?

    ::falls off chair laughing::

  • Lou (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I am deeply disturbed by Senator Obama's refusal to answer questions in Oregon and other States with upcoming elections. It smacks of the same cavalier, high-handed, domineering, and condescending attitude we've taken for 7 years from the G.W. Bush/Cheney administration. So much for politics of change, it'll be more of the same with Obama.

    Perhaps as a Senior Lecturer in Constitutional Law (not a full professor as he falsely claims), he might recall that we have what is called a representational democracy in this country, which means we get to question our (proposed) leaders about their plans, beliefs, ideals, and positions. If Obama can't stand the heat, tough cookies, get out of the kitchen! His unilateral decisions, his elitist attitude, his anti-democratic positions are obvious. Let's stop the voters in FL and MI from being counted, let's not debate for the voters of the remaining States, in fact let's not have them vote at all and declare me the winner goes his rhetoric. Apparently there's just too much democracy going around for Sen. Obama. What does he want to be, a president or a king like G.W. Bush?

    As far as who is a true leader in terms of protecting the rights of voters and encouraging debate and discussion of issue, it's Senator Clinton hands down!

  • trishka (unverified)
    (Show?)

    YEAH! what lou said!

    cuz 21 televised debates sure don't amount to answering any questions!

    sheesh! the arrogance of stonewalling the public with only TWENTY-ONE debates when he could do TWENTY-TWO or TWENTY-THREE!

    who does obama think he is?

    GOD or something?

  • Lou (unverified)
    (Show?)

    One more thing...

    To those posters who keep falsely claiming Obama has more votes, guess again. Did you miss the fact that after Pennsylvania, Hillary took the lead and has more of the popular vote than Obama.

    Oh that's right, you Obamanauts support disenfranchising and ignoring two key States (MI & FL). Yeah, right, good luck with that...

  • LT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Sid, are you being sarcastic? "Hey, I've noticed Obama doesn't have a yellow "support the troops" decal ribbon on his campaign bus. There needs to be a debate in Oregon so he can answer this very important question that those of us here in the Northwest need to know before the ballots are sent out. I won't be able to vote unless I can get this questioned answered."

    Or are you just unaware that St. Rep. (and Iraq vet) Boquist said in a speech during the 2007 session that "support the troops does not mean car magnets, it means hot meals, cold drinks, vehicles adequate to the assigned task for actual military troops overseas".

    I realize this is the silly season, but for voters who care about serious issues, I doubt such distractions as the kind of questions (about an hour, as I recall) in the first part of the ABC debate.

  • (Show?)

    LT, he was being sarcastic.

    "To those posters who keep falsely claiming Obama has more votes, guess again. Did you miss the fact that after Pennsylvania, Hillary took the lead and has more of the popular vote than Obama."

    Yes, we did, because it's bullshit. It includes two states that did not have an election for the nomination (MI and FL), and excludes at least four states that did. It's pathetic.

    Clinton is behind by at LEAST 600,000 votes last I checked, and stands to finish down as much as a million when all is said and done. The suspense is over, and Obama is the nominee. There is no path to the nomination for Clinton, short of party civil war.

  • trishka (unverified)
    (Show?)

    what lou said! just because obama's name wasn't on the ballot, it doesn't mean clinton doesn't deserve those votes.

    what is obama anyway? a great big WHINY CRYBABY?

    wanting his NAME to be on the BALLOT? that's absurd!

    sheesh! who does he think he is?

  • (Show?)

    Lou Old Son,

    Your argumentation is pathetic in this venue. To address one minor point, Cointon is on the record from months back, signing the pledge not to campaign in states that violated party rules, and specifically metioning Michigan as a state that would not count.

    Forget disrespecting the intelligence of the voters, you guys are insulting the actual superdelegates that you're trying to steal.

    To quote an old Arkansas politician, "That dog won't hunt."

    The spin is embarassingly transparent to anyone who's been paying attention, but I guess it's all you have left........

  • trishka (unverified)
    (Show?)

    oh yeah?!?!

    well if obama were TRULY the MESSIAH, he wouldn't need his name on ANY ballot!

    how come your GODLIKE candidate can't walk on water^h^h^h^h win elections where his name isn't on the ballot?

    GOD doesn't need to campaign in a state to win votes, now does he?

    answer me that, crazed obamatrons?

  • DAN (unverified)
    (Show?)

    WWW.OBAMATRUTH This is what he calls the future of alot of other things he has done.Hia wife as well.

  • dan (unverified)
    (Show?)

    And North Carolina.You know I have not heard anything much of what he plans to do..I just hear health care,war,hosiptal.well now I get it.He's talking about himself www.obamatruth.org there is to many things that he lies about and then say well...........you know maybe i lied alittle.A Little. We will not get our country back together if he is president.He can't even debate in real issues. And it wasn't the "bitter" part that really upset the people not just in PA.I don't cling to guns or my religion or don't like someone because they are in a different color. I go to church because of mu faith in god.I have a gun to hunt.I have many friend of different race and color.

    My children have many friends of race and color,Tall,short, you name it.And to boot in a fundraiser behind close doors no reporters allowed you can hear the billionaiar laughing.

    As well in another fundraise closed doors with the billionaired. obama said that Hillary claims she has been to 80 counties and she has not yet to show me that.I been to many counties where the do the navtive dance and walk through placece.you know,angain the people laught.

    What's so funny? Middle class people or that you and the big corps take it all away and close down shops and leave the people out in the cold who worked sweat everthing they had for you!

    Tell you what.go to the libeary of congress and look at his records.as to look at Hillary's no wonder why she beats him in a debate.Hillary knows her job in congress and was as ted kenndy said.she was the driven force of a one man army!

    Hillary is for the people and has been. Obama is for the big wigs who as well as obmam and his wife tak 350% you charge over in what a person who goes to the hosiptal where obama's wife works to people who are uninsured!chicago hosiptal. It's all out for people to see.and evnr the profit from 2005 taxes. Is that why Obama will not put his 7 yeras of taxes out for people can see.I like to see 1997-1998-1999 2000 2001 2003 2004 2005 2006 these times people needs to see what can of person him and his wife are.and Treehose and bay valley foods where your wife worked and was paid 100 thounsand of dollar as 200 hundred thoundsand for the hospital.But then bay valley and treehouse closed leaving the imingaints with out a job and when they were working was paid a very low pay.No wonder why it closed they worked their tail off for so litte for you all to take the large profits and put in your pockets.which cause the plant to close and leave 157 people without jobs.

    Obama everything he says health,wages,prescriptions,college,war, that's all about comes out of his mouth.He doesn't say how why or anything.He does not like the press only at his chossens of which ones.why? because the question are ask in his campaign office.and he knows the people.

    rezko and the bommer he knew.I was just 8 at the time when i knewn him.yopu can't blame me for when i was eight.BUSTED.HILLARY BUSTED HIM AT THE PA DEBAT .EVEN AFTER THE BOOMER AND SAID HE WIHED HE COULD OF DONE MORE DAMAGE. YOU AND HIM WORKED TOGETHERE BEFORE AND STILL AFTER HE BOOMED. HILLARY BUSTED YOU>THAT'S WHY YOU WON'T NOW DEBATE HER.WELL THE PEOPLE NEEDS TO HEAR MORE ON A DEBATE.CAUSE THAT'S WHERE YOU GET BUSTED THE MORE.HILLARY WON ALL DEBATES,HIS LIES ARE THERE AND THEY ARE COMING OUT MORE,AND WILL.

  • (Show?)

    Please tell me Trishka is being sarcastic.

  • (Show?)

    "BUSTED.HILLARY BUSTED HIM AT THE PA DEBAT .EVEN AFTER THE BOOMER AND SAID HE WIHED HE COULD OF DONE MORE DAMAGE. YOU AND HIM WORKED TOGETHERE BEFORE AND STILL AFTER HE BOOMED. HILLARY BUSTED YOU>THAT'S WHY YOU WON'T NOW DEBATE HER.WELL THE PEOPLE NEEDS TO HEAR MORE ON A DEBATE.CAUSE THAT'S WHERE YOU GET BUSTED THE MORE.HILLARY WON ALL DEBATES,HIS LIES ARE THERE AND THEY ARE COMING OUT MORE,AND WILL."

    So we know Pavel Goberman endorses Clinton. Oh, wait, that's not him?

    ;)

  • (Show?)

    Trishka is being parodic. It is telling about a few of Clinton's supporters (not most) that it is a question to someone who hasn't seen her posts on other threads.

    Katy, if I thought the debate could confidently be expected to be about "hightlighting the values the Democratic party stands for" I'd agree with your point. But unfortunately the comment about Lucy and the ball up above has all to much truth to it.

    I simply don't trust Hillary to approach the debate that way. She's done otherwise far too often. When she herseld and her campaign refer to the non-issues used to hector Obama in the last debate as "tough questions," either the offer to have a common values, somewhat approaches to issues focused debate cannot be trusted, or if those comments were honestly meant, it means that she doesn't know what real issues, real tough questions or real Democratic (& democratic) values are. Actually I'm certain that she does know those things. Unfortunately that pushes me back to the point that she can't be trusted.

    She's burned her bridges with her prior choices of modes of attack.

    And I'm not a strong Obama guy. It had been my intention to sit out the primary, because mostly I don't see much difference on issues between the two, and on style and character and history each gives me reason to distrust them.

    Or, I have to say now, I didn't see much difference.

    At this point Hillary's militarism has pushed me into being a reluctant Obama voter. I will not vote for anyone who expresses a willingness to commit nuclear genocide against a country of 60 million people (Iran), and feel I have to vote against that person.

    I know Hillary was trying to out-pro-Israel Obama. But the fact of the matter is that Israel has its own nuclear deterrent.

    Hillary's reckless willingness to play politics with nuclear threats gives me my definitive answer to the question of who I want answering the red phone at 3 a.m. And its not the person whose ad posed the question.

    However, Barack has not criticized Hillary's reckless, outrageous, genocidal comments. Which is what's wrong with him. Hope for change in foreign policy? Not much.

  • trishka (unverified)
    (Show?)

    um.

    what dan said?

    good lord.

    i couldn't parody that if i tried.

    signed, humbled.

  • (Show?)

    Well, you gave it a good run Trishka. Thanks for the laughs.

    The odd thing is that no one on the Clinton side ever seems to suggest that someone like Dan is plant, or an Obama troll, or anything to distance themselves or her.

    Yet surely if Obamites, & MoveOn-ers like me, are out intimidating caucus goers ("You gotta believe ... Or Else" -- tapping my nightstick against my palm), planting stuff to make Clintoners look like insane fanatics wouldn't beyond them/us?

    But nope. We don't doubt that Dan is real. And neither do the other Clintoners. How embarrassing.

  • Harry Kershner (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Grant Schott said: "They are starting to pander..."

    And the bears are starting to shit in the woods.

  • Gio (unverified)
    (Show?)

    People be rational. It is laughable how some of Senator Obama's supporters react like children having a tantrum. What do you think is going to happen when faces the republicans? Unless you are a first time voter, you know they will be vicious...this is a child's play.

    Presidential candidates have always endured GRUELING SCRUTINY, so why should it be any different with Senator Obama. Is he the "Enlightened One?" Give me a break, he has to have a backbone and stop whining if wants to beat Senator McCain and the GOP in November. He won't be competing against a cash strapped campaign like Clinton's and if he performs like he did during the PA debate because of a few questions, then we are doomed in Nov.

    While questions about policy and voting record are very important and fare game, so are questions about family, judgment,associations etc. since you are running for the highest office of the nation. And let's get real,he has had a pretty good ride until very recently; mostly positive press and a pro-Obama media so try to remain objective and stop the hypocracy. I don't remember anyone complaining when Clinton was on the receiving end.

    They are both politicians so the question should be: Who has the leadership and political acumen to perform the "job" and is more likely to forge vision into real progress?

  • trishka (unverified)
    (Show?)

    what gio said!

    YA BIG BUNCH OF CRYBABIES!!!

    (whew)

  • Craig in Oregon (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I

    WANT

    A

    DEBATE!

  • Git (unverified)
    (Show?)

    The facts are that four states moved their primary/caucus to an earlier date. NH and NV were approved by the DNC while FL & MI were not therefore, they were penalized with the DELEGATE #. Still, whether you agree or disagree with delegate issue, the popular vote is a different topic and the fact remains that over 1.5M people voted in FL and similar in MI and made their choice. Furthermore,they will do it again when it will actually MATTER,Nov. What do you think it will happen if they feel they were ignored and their vote didn't count? They will vote for McCain. Do you remember 2000-Gore and 2004-Kerry? Some people here seem to have a very short memory. This is just the battle; the aim is to win the war.

  • Northshorewoman (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Every state, or at the very least region, should have a debate and be able to focus on issues of concern to them. (I am not in agreement that the last ABC debate was a failure. I believe the issues raised were the issues the voters were and are talking about in Pennsylvania.) But, it is even more important than any states in question, it is important to all of us. Campaigns are fluid. Issues change. New information comes to the forefront. And, I would like to see new issues and information addressed as the race proceeds.

  • belinda (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I watched the candidates for senate and the candidates for OR Govenor Debate...I have watched Hillary and Barack debate 21 times...There was no debate in many states. Hillary will need to advertise and campaign in Oregon if she wishes to win here. Her husband is campaigning in Oregon like he is after a 3rd term (a way around the 23rd ammendment) a president can only serve two terms. The Clintons' brought disgrace to the office of the white house. They had their turn and Universal Health Care did not happen. Nothing that they promised going in happened. NAFTA happened and welfare reform took place and children across this country were without welfare. No the Clintons' became Republicans once they got into the white house. They sought financial gains and made deals with China and other countries. The favors that are owed by the Clintons are to deep and to great and I refuse to elect them for a third term to use the white house for their personal agenda. I don't trust Hillary she turned on a fellow democrat and she will turn on America. Obama 08

  • (Show?)

    I don't doubt that rural Oregon on the whole will go for McCain in November. But that's not the question for the primary -- it's what the part of the rural electorate eligible to vote in the Dem primary will do (20%? of whole?).

    Do the generalizations about rural Oregonians as a whole apply neatly to rural Oregon Democrats, who by definition are not typical in at least one politically significant respect?

    How are Oregon's rural Democrats similar and different from their neighbors, whether R, NAV, Constition Party, Libertarian ... ?

  • (Show?)

    Please ignore previous post, it doesn't belong here.

  • Diane (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I wonder why all these Obama supporters don't want him to debate. Maybe they don't have confidence in their own candidate? I really think that each state should at least have one debate. Everyone deserves a chance to hear from the candidates. Obama is just upset that Hillary beat him last time. If you do not want to debate on the issues, maybe you shouldn't be running for the highest office in the country.

  • (Show?)

    "If you do not want to debate on the issues, maybe you shouldn't be running for the highest office in the country."

    <h2>Oh come off it. This is just ridiculous considering the extent that Hillary has focused on non-issues in previous debates. She's lost all credibility and reason to trust that she won't do it again.</h2>
guest column

connect with blueoregon