After 20 debates Hillary is still, on balance, behind. So her campaign is back to complaining that there aren't enough debates.
This first came up in the run-up to Texas and Ohio, when she wanted more. In North Carolina, Obama agreed to a debate, Clinton wanted a different date, finally the debate was cancelled because they couldn't agree. There's no debate there, no debate set for Indiana, no debate set for the next big primary after that in Oregon.
In a web video, below, Hillary challenges Obama to debate in Oregon. And in the morning press release, her campaign kind of taunts him: "Sen. Obama responded 'call[ing] Clinton’s challenge ‘an old, Washington game.’ ' Since when did debating the issues and giving voters a choice become a 'game?' ”
Since she's bringing it up again, it's worth remembering again that in 2006, when Hillary was running for the Senate in New York, she and her courtiers repeatedly refused debate requests from her primary opponent, Jonathan Tasini.
So, the answer to her question is that debates became a game when public officials like Clinton became dodging them to avoid answering uncomfortable questions about voting for the war and such to their actual constituents, and then hypocritically embracing them as if they had some surpassing civic virtue when political defeat loomed.
Debates are generally good. But in the age of television, people in Indiana and Oregon have had as much chance as everyone else to see the 20 that have already been held, and doing it again in a TV study that happens to be in Portland doesn't automatically add anything. Obama's resistance is purely tactical, but for Hillary -- after blowing off NY Democrats in 2006 -- to act all worried about Hoosiers and rural Oregonians having their own debate is absurd.
The only constant with Sen. Clinton on this issue is that she constantly operates out of self interest, and is constantly disingenuous about her motives. Watch how sincere she looks as she calls for something that she pretty much laughed at Tasini over when he was calling for the same thing:
Comments (4)
Hey Hillary, lets debate this:
Attention Indiana and North Carolina here's an article you might want to read before you cast your vote....
What Hillary Clinton and the media are hiding from the voters
While Senator Clinton is on the campaign trail telling reporters that the use of her opponents' 'bitter' remarks could damage Senator Obama's chances to win the general election if he should win the nomination, a California superior judge will soon be setting a trial date for the historic civil landmark case in Paul vs. Clinton.
Apparently the Clintons believe that the word 'bitter' is far more damaging than testify under oath in a civil fraud trial.
For some reason, the media doesn't think that a historic trial to haul a former President and a Presidential candidate to court for fraud is newsworthy.
A status conference hearing is scheduled for April 25, 2008, just three days after the Pennsylvania primary. California Superior Judge Aurelio N. Munoz is expected to finally set a trial date after delayment back in February.
Judge Munoz ruled back in February that Paul's legal team can begin seeking depositions from a host of big names – including Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton – that allegedly were witnesses to an effort by the Clintons and top Democratic leaders to extract millions of dollars from Paul in illegal donations and then cover it up. Discovery is expected to begin in May.
The Clintons have tried to dismiss the case, but the California Supreme Court, in 2004, upheld a lower-court decision to deny the motion.
The complaint says Bill Clinton promised to promote Paul's Internet entertainment company, Stan Lee Media, in exchange for stock, cash options and massive contributions to his wife's 2000 Senate campaign. Paul contends he was directed by the Clintons and Democratic Party leaders to produce, pay for and then join them in lying about footing the bill for an August 2000 Hollywood gala and fundraiser.
The Clintons' legal counsel has denied the former president made any deal with Paul. But Paul's attorney Colette Wilson has stated there are witnesses who say it was common knowledge at Stan Lee Media that Bill Clinton was preparing to be a rainmaker for the company after he left office.
Read the rest of the story here:
http://www.hillaryproject.com/index.php?/en/story-details/what_hillary_clinton_and_the_media_are_hiding_from_the_voters
So the Bill & Hill are CROOKS & LIARS ( or is it the other way around ? ). This is NEWS ??? !!!
Oregonians: Hillary Clinton will give the State of Oregon exactly what her best buddy, Del Felder, gave The University of Oregon (the shaft). The media isn't talking about the aforementioned case: Paul v. Clinton. They're not telling you much at all. At this stage in the game, if Hillary is your candidate, I won't change your mind. I won't point out that whenever Hillary wants to look sincere, she takes out those steely blue contact lenses. Hillary says you deserve information. However, she doesn't say she's going to provide any. Hillary says she'll work with you; side by side. She makes promises – she's good at it – she'll even help you cleanup the woods. Oregonians, take it from one who knows, do not go into the woods with this woman: http://theseedsof9-11.com
Yes the DemocRATS" are choosing between "MISSPEAK" and "BITTER".
Voters need to look say NO to the "Democ"RATS", and YES to the Republ"ICANS".
This year vote the "ICANS" into office and throw out the "RATS"