Obama should debate

Carl Leubsdorf writes that by refusing to debate, Obama is intent on "running out the clock":

Outwardly similar to Ohio and Pennsylvania – where she scored recent notable wins – Indiana's electorate is younger and less Catholic and includes Republicans and independents. A Clinton win there would be a further warning sign about Mr. Obama's appeal beyond his base of liberals and minorities.

In this circumstance, Mrs. Clinton's requests for debates in Indiana and North Carolina may find a receptive audience. While most pundits suggest that the public is sick of debates and believes the issues have been discussed thoroughly, that makes the mistake of viewing this more as a six-month national campaign than a series of one- or two-week races.

Now is when Indianans and North Carolinians are paying attention. What happened before may be less relevant to them.

Mr. Obama might be right politically in trying to run out the clock. But that strategy could leave him vulnerable if the unexpected occurs and he lacks a high-level forum in which to respond.

Clinton challenged Obama to a one-on-one debate a week ago:

“What I think the people in Indiana deserve is a real one-on-one debate, where Sen. Obama and I discuss [the] issues.... Unfortunately, Sen. Obama has not agreed yet, and he’s turned down every debate that has been offered. So here I have a proposition my campaign sent his campaign today. You know, after the last debate in Philadelphia, Sen. Obama’s supporters complained a little bit about the tough questions (awwwwwww heard in the audience). You know tough questions in a debate are nothing compared to the tough questions you get when you are president.”

Clinton challenged Obama, saying, “And they complained about the moderators asking tough questions. So here is my proposal: I’m offering Sen. Obama the 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. I think it would give the people of Indiana -- and I assume a few Americans will tune in because nearly 11 million watched the Philadelphia debate, and I think they would like seeing that discussion. Remember that’s what happened during the Lincoln and Douglas debates. Now we have had like four debates between Sen. Obama and myself.”

We've never had this in American presidential politics before. The candidates have always insist on moderators. This means that they have not really been debates. In a real debate, you can ask your opponent a question. But in presidential politics we have had only sham debates, with moderators who can be blamed for lousy questions.

Think about it. The moderators could, from Obama's perspective, engage in scummy dirty gotcha questions for the first 40 minutes of the Constitution Center debate because they are moderators. They're just journalists, totally unaccountable when compared to politicians for whom every vote matters.

But if Hillary had taken the low road for a full 40 minutes, well, there would be consequences. There would be backlash. So she wouldn't do it.

Instead we would have a debate on "issues." What would this look like, a debate without moderators? It would certainly be on a higher level. The two would have a vested interest in looking like they get along, and are in a common quest for a better America. This would be unlike the Lincoln-Douglas debates, which were between politicians of two different parties.

The format of the Lincoln-Douglas debates would be interesting--a long speech by one candidate, followed by a long speech by the other, followed by a response from the first candidate. But in today's television age there would have to be give and take. Who's quickest on their feet? Clinton's behind, so she has everything to gain from debating, which is why Obama doesn't want to.

It would be good for the Democratic party to have such a debate. And it would be a great precedent to set for American politics.