Editor’s Note: Click here to read a dissenting opinion.
Hillary Clinton has challenged rival Barack Obama to a debate before the Indiana and North Carolina primaries.
If Obama is interested in talking to as many folks as possible, he would debate. “I'm offering Sen. Obama a chance to debate me one-on-one, no moderators . . . Just the two of us going for 90 minutes, asking and answering questions; we'll set whatever rules seem fair,” said Clinton of the proposed Lincoln-Douglas style debate.
So far, Obama has said no. But not just to a Lincoln-Douglas fashioned discussion, he’s refusing to debate at all before Tuesday’s Indiana and North Carolina primaries, where he is ahead in the polls right now.
“We've had 21 [debates],” Obama said later on “Fox News Sunday.” We want to make sure we're talking to as many folks possible on the ground taking questions from voters.”
If Obama is interested in talking to as many folks as possible, he would debate. The last exchange between he and Clinton attracted 10 million viewers on ABC–that's 333 times as many people than attended his massive 30,000-person Philadelphia rally prior to the Pennsylvania primary.
It is now arbitrary to set 21 as some sort of a "magic" number in terms of the maximum number of debates. Why weren't 20 debates enough, or 17 or 15? What's so special about the number 21?
Some might argue that there are understandable reasons for Obama to turn down another nationally broadcast debate at this point. After all, more extraneous bickering could hurt the Democrats and Obama, who’s fending off criticisms over his former pastor and his “bitter” comments in San Francisco.
Neither of those reasons, however, are compelling (or honorable) enough for Obama to deny the voting public another chance to hear the ideas of both candidates in an upfront, easily accessible manner before the upcoming primaries. And for Obama to say that 21 debates is sufficient is reminiscent of the current administration's failure to be open and engage in the responsible disclosure Americans expect. One would think Democratic candidates would embrace the opportunity to distance themselves from the president's aura of closure and secrecy. One would think Democratic candidates would embrace the opportunity to distance themselves from the president's aura of closure and secrecy. Although the debates now number 21, Obama and Clinton went head-to-head only a handful of times as the nomination field narrowed. And, as Ohio and Pennsylvania demonstrated, debates in key states highlight previously overlooked issues, such as NAFTA and its impact on state economies.
Our candidates should also realize that lack of transparency is one of the worst problems plaguing our government right now. Debates, regardless of the number, help cure that.
If it takes 22 debates or 23 or 24 for that to happen, so be it. In the end, 21 isn't always enough.
[CNN]
- Editorial Board Member-at-Large Jeff Dubbin and Editor Emeritus Justin Hemlepp, DISSENTING:
We respectfully disagree with the Board’s opinion criticizing Barack Obama’s choice to decline debating Hillary Clinton in a twenty-second debate.
Avoiding a twenty-second debate does not mean Sen. Obama is not transparent any more than a sports player sitting out a twenty-second game means he is not athletic. After two books, numerous speeches and steadfast performances in twenty-one public debates, the man has already proven an admirable dedication to “responsible disclosure” (as the Board puts it).
Furthermore, we do not feel that Obama's decision is, in any way, based on the silly argument that 21 is a magic debate number. In his own words, he simply wants to focus his efforts on “blue-collar workers [who] are less familiar with me” in Indiana and North Carolina. This means “knocking on more doors” and “hitting more events” rather than preparing for yet another nationally televised debate. If this voting block has indeed not been reached directly enough through televised debates, a nobler motivation exists than what is implied by allegations of dodging aggressive questioning, fear of controversy or risking a slip in some poll. Nothing in Obama's history or character suggests that he entertains such cowardly motives.
Indeed, it is possible Obama's reasons for refusing a twenty-second debate include avoiding strategic disadvantage in the final primaries or supplying the McCain camp with strategic advantages in the general election. In any event, if you haven't figured cour the candidates' positions by now, it's probably your fault, not Obama's.
[Fox News]
Executive Editor Dwayne Robinson abstains from all staff editorials.
 |
Conclusions 
