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?

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.

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?

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

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?

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

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!

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.

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.

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...

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

Perhaps she should have said "arugula"?

"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!!!

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

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.

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

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

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?

paddy - answer my questions please

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.

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.

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???

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???

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

Obama/Schweitzer '08

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.

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.

paddy - answer my questions please

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.

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.

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.

is christines a thug?

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

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!

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.

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.

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.

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?

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!

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.

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!

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

Whatever happend to Hillery's Iraqi War vote?

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.

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.

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!!!

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>

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?

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.

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

Yeah right.

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.

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

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!

Tahler - troll!

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?

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

chablis?

ZOMG!!!! seriously?

CHABLIS?

where did that even come from?

::falls off chair laughing::

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!

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?

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...

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.

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?

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?

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

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.

um.

what dan said?

good lord.

i couldn't parody that if i tried.

signed, humbled.

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

And the bears are starting to shit in the woods.

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?

what gio said!

YA BIG BUNCH OF CRYBABIES!!!

(whew)

I

WANT

A

DEBATE!

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.

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.

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

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.