Clinton challenges Obama to one-on-one debate

World ( 26 )

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

Back to top

Order by Time Order by Popularity

26 Comments

Login to comment

  • 0

    jeancolmar

    McCain understand American's needs? Ha, ha, ha, ha! McCain does not give a squat about Americans' needs. He is a warmonger who only sees Americans as potential soldiers.

    The joke is that while Clinton and Obama squabble and plan their little debate, the Pentagon is getting ready for a war with Iran. Bush will give McCain another war. It will assure McCain a victrory because the Democrats will be divided and two-faded in their response to that war and alienate the public.

    McCain is a warmongering neocon monster. Either Clinton or Obama, whatever their failings, are light years better than McCain.

  • 0

    jeancolmar

    Americans' needs.

  • 0

    redacted

    Hillary wants debate.

    Barack just wants to eat his waffle.

  • 0

    Sarge

    After losing to Hillary by 10 points in Pennsylvania, Obama's offering to make her his vice president.
    xD

  • 0

    greenteaonsens

    I'd rather Clinton win than Hussein Obama. He despises white America, especially those who aren't liberal urban hipsters. He's an elitist AND a racialist. He also has strong islamic tendencies and won't stand up to the threat of islamofascism.

  • 0

    SuperLib

    McCain understand American's needs? Ha, ha, ha, ha! McCain does not give a squat about Americans' needs. He is a warmonger who only sees Americans as potential soldiers.

    I think a large number of Americans would disagree with that.

    McCain actually has a shot at winning the White House, and those odds will increase when it comes down to a two-person race. Right now McCain's policies and positions aren't getting much exposure since the media has largely been focusing on the Democrats, but as we get closer to the election I think a lot of people will be in a better position to see that he's a not the same person the radical Left and the foreigners make him out to be.

    McCain is a threat to Democrats because he can capture large amounts of independent voters. In my opinion that's what makes Clinton more of a threat to Democrats. I think she has the potential to alienate a lot of the same voters.

    Info on McCain:

    • He supports closing Guantanamo Bay
    • He supports banning the use of torture
    • He is against drilling for oil in the ANWR
    • He supports stem cell research
    • He is against any constitutional amendment to define marriage
    • He supports giving illegal immigrants a path to citizenship
    • He opposed the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 (although he switched positions recently since the economy has been hurt)
    • He supports taking action against global warming
    • He supports campaign finance reform
    • He supports reducing the US's nuclear arsenal

    For all of the above issues I think McCain looks appealing to independents and undecided moderates.

    He's often criticized by people that moderates and independents hate, such as Rush Limbaugh. It's well known that he and Bush hate each other. He was booed at the last APEC convention. He's criticized the Religious Right. I think when he is vilified by these types of people it actually makes some people more likely to vote for him.

    Even Iraq isn't as much of a liability to him. He has a track record of supporting the invasion, but he also has a long track record of criticizing Bush and Rumsfeld for how they handled it.

    He supports a ban on abortion, but most moderates know that it's a meaningless position since abortion will never be banned in the US. At least that's the way I see it.

    When the Democrats go up against him they have to realize that they aren't going up against Bush. They aren't going up against the NeoCons. They aren't even going up against someone who can claim he's a true conservative. All of the hot air from radical liberals and foreigners will bounce right off of him, and it actually could work to increase his support. He doesn't need to win all of the Republican votes to win like Bush did. In the end I'd rather not have Clinton be the one who has to go up against that, especially since the splintering of the Democrats will be greater than the splintering of the Republicans, who will mostly lose only their far right members.

  • 0

    dr_jones

    If the people of America want war, then they will get war. It all just depends on how many rednecks in back country US go vote for McCain. One could say world peace just depends on some American arch-conservative rednecks.

  • 0

    realist

    greenteaonsens Barak Obama will make a GREAT President. Surely you cant be serious in preferring that awful woman Hillary Clinton over such an intelligent, decent guy as Obama? She has delusions of grandeur,she imagines that she solved the Irish problem and also the Balkans war, and her husband was impeached for indiscretions. She was also involved in the Whitewater scandal with her disgraced husband. You would seriously have such an awful woman as President? Please! I hope the Democratic Party make the right choice, for once in their lives. If they choose Clinton, they will look on as McCain is sworn in as the next US President.

  • 0

    dr_jones

    I salute you, realist! In fact if Clinton becomes the new President, things will get worse. It also has shown in several questionings that she is ducking 80% more times from questions asked to her than with Obama. In fact Obama is a pretty downright guy, that's what I like about him. So either go vote Obama or McCain (if you prefer more war) but not Clinton!

  • 0

    Zaphod

    MacCain is called a warmonger because he correctly says that withdrawing from Iraq would cause the place to erupt in civil war. That is simply stating a fact, but stating facts is probably not a high priority in an election. Oba and Clinton both say they want to withdraw, but they both claim that that would mean peace. That is a ludicrious suggestion. Obama has already said he wants to withdraw, but go back in once Al Quaida appears -- in other words, he is going to conduct a massive, wasteful, military U-turn. What idiocy!

    Withdrawal can be discussed, but the candidates should be honest about the consequences.

    The soundbyte about a "war with Iran" is equally silly. There won`t be any. The ressources are simply not there. But what do facts matter... all that counts is the glib label "war monger".

    Cheap sloganeering on all sides.

  • 0

    redacted

    "One could say world peace just depends on some American arch-conservative rednecks."

    One could also say that endlessly and mindlessly parroting the cliches and labels like "back country rednecks," "arch-conservatives," "neo-cons" and "warmongering" that reverberate in the echo chamber the far Left constructed and crawled into after 9-11 is why Democrat party bigwigs, who only months ago expected they'd see their nominee waltzing uncontested to the White House in November, are now worried that a brokered convention or their undemocratic super delegate system could sunder their party.

  • 0

    sailwind

    Two American arch-conservative rednecks weigh in on this one.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Mc3GQmGGms

    Like they say hurry up and pick one for gosh sakes so they know who they are going to vote agaisn't, they are even more frustrated at the democrats then the rest of us.

  • 0

    SezWho2

    I don't think Obama should get involved in an unmoderated, no-holds barred contest with Clinton. She has basically issued a sucker's challenge here.

    There is no need for further debate, but there is some value in it if it is moderated. The chief value is that it allows both contenders the opportunity to listen and learn regarding the accusations that will be used against them in debates against McCain.

    I think this will probably help Obama more than Clinton. It seems to me that Obama has been infinitely more charitable to Hillary than she to him. Unless Obama adopts her tactics--which I think is a losing move for him--Hillary gets very little practice in fending off the real accusations that will emerge if she should win the nomination.

  • 0

    redacted

    The idea of either frontrunner in this Identity Politics Sweepstakes that the Dem race has now devolved into offering, accepting or even considering to partake in a "Lincoln-Douglas-style debate" is obscene irony, when you recall which side their Democrat predecessor took on the slavery issue:

    "I do not regard the Negro as my equal, and positively deny that he is my brother or any kin to me whatever."

    • Senator Stephen Douglas (D-IL)

  • 0

    RomeoRamenII

    Makes since that barack won't debate hillary without a moderator. The empty suit had his ass handed to him in the last one. Those of us who saw it know that without a teleprompter, barack is not even an average politican.

    RR

  • 0

    Sarge

    We can always vote for Ralph Nader.

  • 0

    RomeoRamenII

    For a guy who has been whining that the voters just don't know him well enough, you'd think barack would jump at the chance.

    RR

  • 0

    RomeoRamenII

    Wonder what TV organization would just turn the show over to them? Comedy Central? The Cartoon Network?

    RR

  • 0

    RomeoRamenII

    Mr. McCain doesn't need a campaign manager. He has the democrats working for him.

    RR

  • 0

    SuperLib

    MacCain is called a warmonger because he correctly says that withdrawing from Iraq would cause the place to erupt in civil war.

    Yeah, the promise to withdraw seems now like cheap theatrics than a solid plan for both Obama and Clinton. If they do withdraw it could create more bloodshed in Iraq which would sink them. In the end they'd probably be forced to back off on their pledge to withdraw and that would sink them. They lose either way.

  • 0

    Badsey

    Hillary has no freestyle ability, and her evil calculated tactics are slow to change. How does Hillary expect to play one-on-one when she never hits the boards? I am expecting an Obama triple-double on this.

  • 0

    RomeoRamenII

    A good move by hillary. barack either goes for it and gets thrashed again or he comes up with an excuse, backs out and proves to the American voters once more that all he wants is to be left alone to eat his waffle.

    It's a lose-lose for barack and a win-win for America.

    RR

  • 0

    SezWho2

    RomeoRamenII,

    I don't think you understand Indiana and I'm sure that Hillary doesn't. You have to ask yourself, "Who would Kurt Vonnegut have picked and why?"

    It doesn't much matter who wins between Obama and Clinton in Indiana. Unless McCain strokes out or suffers cardiac arrest before the Republicans can mount a replacement, Indiana will vote Republican in November. Its popular Democratic Senator notwithstanding, its popular Republican Senator is even more popular.

    Hoosiers have more in common with Iowa than they do with Pennsylvania. They're unlikely to be beguiled by either wonkish policies which will never be implemented or by passionate rhetoric if rhetoric is all that is on offer.

  • 0

    keech2

    After all their arguing about who is the most religious, how about a science debate between these candidates so the voters can get an idea about how they stand on scientific issues since the public already knows their views on religion?

    Oh, and for redacted.

    A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation but as an immediate separation is impossible the next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together. Abraham Lincoln(R-Il) June 1857.

  • 0

    skipthesong

    keech, what are you trying to imply?

    Oh, and "best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together." As person who is "multi-ed", this is not really that bad of an idea, once people take the race problem bait out of it.. The Dems have been so bad at forcing multi-cultural ism down people's throats. They are more the problem than the solution. Let people live apart and come together naturally. Eventually, people will. But force?

  • 0

    keech2

    skip,

    No, that part of my post was in response to redacted's post where he quoted Stephen Douglas and made a point of showing that he was a Democrat. I simply thought that it was fitting to quote a Republican, and the man Douglas debated, to show that the attitudes that Douglas expressed 150 years ago were not held only by Democrats, but also by most whites, including the Great Emancipator. No offense was intended and my apologies if offense was taken.

Back to top

Login to leave a comment

OR

More in World

View all

View all