Don't accept McCain's invatation!

[fatman]

they would consider a betrayal of the base to be also a betrayal of the country's best interests as well.

Are there any examples where this isn't the case?  The job of the President is to lead, decisively so.  He/She should be the spearhead of American policy and image, and that requires an objective look at issues and policies, without being hamstrung by worrying about what the base thinks.  I understand your point about the duality of the timing, the primary vs. general election, and in general I agree with it, which is why I disregard a lot of the rhetoric in the primaries, it's candidates playing to their base, which doesn't interest me.  This is the main problem with a two party system and a sloppy and incompetent press, we have two candidates who are cast as polar opposites, and press plays on those opposites rather than including common factors.  The common factors shouldn't be exclusive, and some play should be given to the opposing views, but it's sloppy for the press to exaggerate opposites and negatives.

One of the reasons why I would like to see a town hall meeting, with audience give and take, is so that the press and their talking heads could be excluded, and I (and Americans like me) could make up our own minds.

[sirs]

they would consider a betrayal of the base to be also a betrayal of the country's best interests as well....

One of the reasons why I would like to see a town hall meeting, with audience give and take, is so that the press and their talking heads could be excluded, and I (and Americans like me) could make up our own minds.

Well said, Fat

[Michael Tee]

<<One of the reasons why I would like to see a town hall meeting, with audience give and take, is so that the press and their talking heads could be excluded, and I (and Americans like me) could make up our own minds.>>

Let me ask you this, fatman:  without necessarily characterizing either McCain or Obama in any way, positive or negative, do you believe that any live debate format, including town-hall formats, necessarily favour a demagogue who appeals to emotions like patriotism, macho pride and/or xenophobia over an opponent whose appeal is less to emotion than to cold, hard facts, reason and logic?

And regardless of your answer to that question, I also wanted to comment that the town hall debate format would have to deal with (a) the issue of who sets the topics of the debates and actually words the issues to be debated and (b) unless there are no commercial or other breaks permitted in the broadcast, the debater who is more skilled in running out the clock before breaks would definitely have an unfair advantage in a contest of ideas.  In regard to the first issue, my opinion is that unless the candidates themselves agree on the issues and their exact wording for purposes of debate, the question format itself could and would be manipulated to give one candidate (in all likelihood, McCain) a significant unfair advantage.

[fatman]

<<One of the reasons why I would like to see a town hall meeting, with audience give and take, is so that the press and their talking heads could be excluded, and I (and Americans like me) could make up our own minds.>>

Let me ask you this, fatman:  without necessarily characterizing either McCain or Obama in any way, positive or negative, do you believe that any live debate format, including town-hall formats, necessarily favour a demagogue who appeals to emotions like patriotism, macho pride and/or xenophobia over an opponent whose appeal is less to emotion than to cold, hard facts, reason and logic?

And regardless of your answer to that question, I also wanted to comment that the town hall debate format would have to deal with (a) the issue of who sets the topics of the debates and actually words the issues to be debated and (b) unless there are no commercial or other breaks permitted in the broadcast, the debater who is more skilled in running out the clock before breaks would definitely have an unfair advantage in a contest of ideas.  In regard to the first issue, my opinion is that only if the candidates themselves agree on the issues and their exact wording for purposes of debate, the question format itself could and would be manipulated to give one candidate (in all likelihood, McCain) a significant unfair advantage.

To answer the first question:  Yes, the demagogue has an advantage.  But an advantage is just that, an advantage.  This isn't much different than why Nixon "lost" the televised debates with Kennedy, but "won" the radio version.  I know that the American people are generally lazy and undereducated in regard to political issues, but the ones tuning in to watch these debates would probably be the ones more politically aware, the others would probably be watching American Idol or the next Britney Spears trainwreck.  So if the audience is mostly politically aware, I think that they're more likely to see the ducking of the demagogue vs. the reality of the fact producer.  I realize that is an argument based on supposition, but it's (at least somewhat) logical supposition.

As to the second, it was my belief that in a "town hall" forum, questions are asked by the audience?  I've been to town hall forums hosted by my Representative (Rick Larsen) and that's how they're conducted, the audience asks the questions and he answers them.  Why would this be different with candidates?  If I'm wrong on the format then that's my bad, I haven't seen anything to say that I am though.  I'd rather have an open discussion that isn't scripted than one where the moderator gets to do all the talking.  I think that an audience questioning the candidates would be more favorable to giving actual policy ideas than soundbites, but I could well be wrong on that.  I'd at least like to see the idea put in motion though.

[Rich]

>>McCain has been a demagogue for some time now.<<

Remember folks, this is an Obama supporter lecturing about demagogues.

Liberals are the silliest people.

[Michael Tee]

<<As to the second, it was my belief that in a "town hall" forum, questions are asked by the audience?  I've been to town hall forums hosted by my Representative (Rick Larsen) and that's how they're conducted, the audience asks the questions and he answers them.  Why would this be different with candidates?  If I'm wrong on the format then that's my bad, I haven't seen anything to say that I am though.  I'd rather have an open discussion that isn't scripted than one where the moderator gets to do all the talking.  I think that an audience questioning the candidates would be more favorable to giving actual policy ideas than soundbites, but I could well be wrong on that.  I'd at least like to see the idea put in motion though.>>

You're right about the essence of the "town hall" format, my bad, I just lost sight of the essential element.  But an excellent reason NOT to debate one-on-one.  You can't trust the Republicans not to seed the audience with questions.  If they can steal the Florida election, seeding an audience ought to be child's play.

[Amianthus]

You can't trust the Republicans not to seed the audience with questions.  If they can steal the Florida election, seeding an audience ought to be child's play.

Might as well say: "You can't trust the Democrats not to seed the audience with questions.  If they can steal the Illinois election, seeding an audience ought to be child's play."

[Michael Tee]

<<Might as well say: "You can't trust the Democrats not to seed the audience with questions.  If they can steal the Illinois election, seeding an audience ought to be child's play.">>

Point taken, but given the media bias towards the war and the military (including the use of ostensibly neutral military "analysts" who were actively pushing the military's official POV on MSM "news" shows) I'd say the Republicans are the likelier party to pull it off.  Either way, I think Obama would do well to avoid the "town-hall" style debates.  He's got better ways to get his message across.

McCain still gets his chance to shine in his own special comatose way through interviews with fawning and deferential MSM "news reporters" and his own special cable TV network, Fox Snooze.

[Plane]

   I am just fascinated with the notion that having a stage to oneself is less advantage to a demagogue , than a face to face challenge.

[Michael Tee]

   <<I am just fascinated with the notion that having a stage to oneself is less advantage to a demagogue , than a face to face challenge.>>

I'm not.  When McCain's on his own, he looks weak and pathetic and old.  He has to advance his own ideas and they are so obviously bankrupt that it's pathetic.  If he has Obama to attack in "debate" he has the option - - don't advance your own idiotic and bankrupt dead-end ideas which even schoolchildren can see through, and your own tired and senile persona - - attack the other guy.  "Why don't you wear a flag pin?  Why are you betraying our troops?" and these are highly charged emotional issues.  So Obama either goes on the defensive ("I DO wear a flag pin, LOOK!" "I'm NOT!!!"  "I LOVE our troops." etc.) which makes him look like a wimp and an idiot, or he challenges McSame head-on, "The flag pin's only a cheap symbol!  It's for phonies and morons!", which is not going to do him any good.  HE CAN'T WIN, FACE TO FACE.  Because McCain's a liar and a demagogue, and besides, it looks cruel in public to shame an old man.  McSame can whale away at Obama but Obama has to treat the little weasel with respect.

Maybe in a perfect world, a thoughtful, intelligent and insightful candidate could take on an unscrupulous war criminal, liar and demagogue and win a public debate with him, but in the REAL WORLD this just cannot happen.  Obama would be nuts to debate McSame, town-hall or otherwise.  Especially when his campaign has the momentum and McSame just stumbles from gaffe to gaffe.  He's stupid, so he'll fuck up plenty on his own, and meantime Obama gets to craft and hone his own message to perfection.

[Plane]

   <<I am just fascinated with the notion that having a stage to oneself is less advantage to a demagogue , than a face to face challenge.>>

I'm not.  When McCain's on his own, he looks weak and pathetic and old.  He has to advance his own ideas and they are so obviously bankrupt that it's pathetic.  If he has Obama to attack in "debate" he has the option - - don't advance your own idiotic and bankrupt dead-end ideas which even schoolchildren can see through, and your own tired and senile persona - - attack the other guy.  "Why don't you wear a flag pin?  Why are you betraying our troops?" and these are highly charged emotional issues.  So Obama either goes on the defensive ("I DO wear a flag pin, LOOK!" "I'm NOT!!!"  "I LOVE our troops." etc.) which makes him look like a wimp and an idiot, or he challenges McSame head-on, "The flag pin's only a cheap symbol!  It's for phonies and morons!", which is not going to do him any good.  HE CAN'T WIN, FACE TO FACE.  Because McCain's a liar and a demagogue, and besides, it looks cruel in public to shame an old man.  McSame can whale away at Obama but Obama has to treat the little weasel with respect.

Maybe in a perfect world, a thoughtful, intelligent and insightful candidate could take on an unscrupulous war criminal, liar and demagogue and win a public debate with him, but in the REAL WORLD this just cannot happen.  Obama would be nuts to debate McSame, town-hall or otherwise.  Especially when his campaign has the momentum and McSame just stumbles from gaffe to gaffe.  He's stupid, so he'll fuck up plenty on his own, and meantime Obama gets to craft and hone his own message to perfection.

I have a far higher estimation of Barak Obama than you do.

[Michael Tee]

<<I have a far higher estimation of Barak Obama than you do.>>

I've always been a realist, plane.  But my estimatio of Obama is actually far higher than yours.  I think he's smart enough to know his own limitations and to realize honestly and humbly that he can't win a "debate" face to face with McCain.  Some of us know not to get into a pissing match with a skunk.   The fact that you think Obama's smart enough to out-skunk the skunk is nice, but the facts tell us otherwise.

[sirs]

LOL......scary question here, but what "facts" pray tell?

[Plane]

<<I have a far higher estimation of Barak Obama than you do.>>

I've always been a realist, plane.  But my estimatio of Obama is actually far higher than yours.  I think he's smart enough to know his own limitations and to realize honestly and humbly that he can't win a "debate" face to face with McCain.  Some of us know not to get into a pissing match with a skunk.   The fact that you think Obama's smart enough to out-skunk the skunk is nice, but the facts tell us otherwise.

You think that a face to face comparison is more prone to "skunk" than remaining seaparate is? Skunky stuff can happen anytime , I don't think it is as easy to do and get away with with your target right there to answer.

Placing them in juxtaposition will help make a real appraisal happen , Barak Obama will come off second best in my estimation because he isn't as sharp and experienced McCain has more to offer and in close comparison this will show, but not because he will look like a deer in headlights , no, I believe he will make a good show of it.

[Michael Tee]

<<LOL......scary question here, but what "facts" pray tell?>>

Just that Obama's had to back-track on some of his statements when faced with the demagogic rejoinder.  He wasn't able to hold  his position and in fact it would have been very stupid to have tried, so he had to back-track which of course makes  him look bad.  (Examples?  "bittergate," Michelle's "proud of my country for the first time in my adult life . . . " and talking to bad guys.)  The alternative is worse - - tell the truth and piss off legions of moronic red-neck thugs.  It is virtually impossible for a man who is honest, dignified and principled to hold his own in a face-to-face public debate with a demagogue.  The demagogue is pitching his "argument" to the morons in the crowd, who "think" i.e., respond, emotionally and (becuase these are gut reactions) very quickly.  He's also able very easily to keep Obama on the defensive with a lot of irrelevant issues (flag pin, "supporting" the troops, etc.) where Obama can't win.  A guy on the defensive is never attractive in a leadership race, and if he goes on the offensive, he'll offend all the rednecks who for other reasons might be prepared to give him a chance now.)

A reasoned and logical reply doesn't break the redneck audience's committment to the first (emotional) response.  IF Obama were smart enough (almost nobody is) to come up at lightning speed with a reply that is intellectually honest AND emotionally appealing, then he might have a chance of regaining lost ground, but that's really expecting too much of almost anyone.  Fortunately (I hope) Obama will be to smart to be lured into that kind of a trap.

So for the foregoing reasons, my advice to Obama is to avoid face to face debates with McSame as much as possible.