Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!
An 'urgency': Sensing threats to institutions of society, church leaders make declaration 
Click to Print
Include Comments
No debate in N.C. or for CBS
North Carolina Dems will have to go to the polls on May 6 without a debate in their state between the party’s top two front-runners. The state Democratic Party announced today that the face-off between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton scheduled for this coming Sunday evening on CBS has been called off, mainly because Obama would not commit to doing it. It also means that CBS anchor Katie Couric will likely go the entire primary season without moderating a debate.
Topic: Campaign 2008, WorldMagBlog
Keywords: barack-obama, CBS, Democratic Party, Hillary-Clinton, Katie Couric, North Carolina Primary
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
back to top22 Comments to “No debate in N.C. or for CBS”
(In N.C.) That ought to be enough to give Dems pause about the frailty of their favorite man for the job. If Obama can’t hack debates, what will he do in office? Oh, wait, that’s right…get kid gloves and/or be worshiped. I forgot for a moment that we were dealing with the divine.
)
Report comment to moderator
How does one type that chicken sound? You don’t think he felt beaten up by a girl this past time, do you?
Report comment to moderator
CBS ought to advise the Obama campaign that they wikk go ahead as scheduled.
If Obama dos not wish to particupate, Mrs. Clinton will have the whole slotted time to herself.
Report comment to moderator
Err, that should be “will”, and “participate”.
Report comment to moderator
Now that’s an idea, KRM!
Report comment to moderator
Who needs another so-called debate anyway? Nothing new has been learned since the second or third one. Besides that, Katie Couric does not seem like the type to ask the really tough questions like Charles Gibson did last week. (And I doubt Mr Obama wants to answer them.)
Report comment to moderator
Maybe I’m missing something. But it seems to me that even one debate between the Republican and Democratic candidates is relatively new. In recent years, we’ve had two or three debates. Now suddenly we have multiple debates in the primaries, and someone who doesn’t really want yet one more is considered cowardly? Or am I wrong? Have we had several election cycles with debates during the primaries?
Admittedly, a debate or two during the primary seems to make sense–that’s when one really is torn about whom to support. But why so many? (Not getting cable, I haven’t seen any of the debates so far this year, though I would have liked to.)
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer (#2),
Have a go at this.
We need some creative farmer minds here. After reading Drill’s recent story on his tractor, maybe he could help in translating these Obama sounds to type.
Report comment to moderator
Hopefully Clinton withdraws from the race after not picking up enough delegates in Penn. As for South Carolina, why would Obama subject himself to what passes for a debate in America? He will win South Carolina even if he campaigned from a beach in Hawaii. The last debate did not discuss Iraq, health care, the environment and the economy, instead it focused on a flag pin, a minister, a 60s radical, etc.
Report comment to moderator
If Obama can’t hack debates, what will he do in office?
I guess the 275 debates he’s taken part in up til now don’t count?
(That number may be a bit of an exaggeration, but it certainly isn’t much of one!)
Report comment to moderator
The debates now really won’t win any undecideds, assuming there are any. I do feel however that debates do serve a valid purpose: they draw attention to otherwise bare-bones underfunded state party organizations.
I think state parties should also put more “non-binding” resolutions on their primary ballots. Its a great way to guage support or opposition to various platform planks.
Report comment to moderator
Debates of the old variety (a solemn faux scholarly Bernard Shaw or Eric Sevareid going one on one with the candidates) just don’t resonate with the YouTube generation.
But give us a SpringerDonohue-style debate with a “moderator” going out into the audience to solicit questions from Joe Avg?? Now you’d have not only better ratings but also better questions. The audience could even write their questions down and the moderator could go back to being merely a glorified timekeeper.
Report comment to moderator
Michael Martin!!! I clicked and the chicken coop played. You should have seen my cat’s reaction!!! He came running out into the room looking for the chickens. Then his ears went back. You never saw a cat so excited! I can’t stop laughing! Thanks!
Oh, now I have to stop laughing. He’s embarrassed, and his feelings are hurt.
Report comment to moderator
HRW,
A friendly reminder to my friend up north–it’s North Carolina we’re talking about here. South Carolina voted way back in the winter.
Report comment to moderator
Whereas there have been over 20 Democratic debates,
And
Whereas the debates have devolved into an “Access Hollywood” farce,
And
Whereas the debate moderators have done such a lousy job of late,
There is no reason for any further debates.
Obama is right not to participate in the farce anymore.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir,
You might want to check out the “Candidates on WWE” thread…I think you might be a little disappointed.
Report comment to moderator
Sounds like CBS is in the tank for Obama to me.
If they wanted to force him to participate they could easily do so by putting the word out that he was too scared to show up after the beating he has been taking lately which only means that the woosie likely wouldn’t show up as president when the going got tough say if the press asked too many questions he couldn’t answer or perhaps if a group of Islamic terrorists or the Hamas, lead by the newly converted Jimmy Carter, blew up Fort Knox or something
No. CBS is trying to protect their wounded, if precious, messiah from being killed by Hillary before the convention at all costs.
Report comment to moderator
If there had been too many debates for the lefties to handle. They want to talk about everything forever, covering every possible angle over and over, so they never have to actually do anything. Any normal person would have put an end to them at 12 of them or possibly 18
No, it’s not the too many number of debates that has caused the ending of them.
Report comment to moderator
I think Clinton and Obama should duel, just like Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr did. It would be great drama – I would certainly watch it.
It is likely that neither of them can shoot worth beans, so there would be no real danger to either one of them. Now bystanders, of course, would need to take cover.
But then they might wind up shooting themselves, accidentally.
So maybe this is not such a good idea.
Report comment to moderator
drill- They could do paint ball guns at twenty paces. Sounds like an idea to settle most wars as well!
Report comment to moderator
Obama doesn’t want to debate because all the hidden stuff is coming up. Ayers wasn’t “just a guy in his neighborhood.” Ayers was on a board with Obama and they approved two grants for the AAAN – for a total of $75,000. The AAAN is pro-PAL and not in support of Israel. Add that to Ayers was a terrorist. He is very liberal. Americans don’t elect very liberal presidents–they are too far towards commies. Oh yes, Frank, in Obama’s book, that guy was his mentor and he was a bonafide communist. http://www.aim.org/aim-column/obamas-communist-mentor/ check it out . Obama’s communist mentor. Add that to Obama thinks if you make over a certain amount of money the government should take it from you because “you don’t need it.” Well, now. Americans may think because they make a lot, they should pay a larger share, but we don’t like putting it that way–we like to think that we give it and not that it’s taken from us because “we don’t need that. ” Wonder where that Freudian slip came from. Obama said it. Guess it was all those commie mentors he had. Oh, and his wife’s thesis and her “not being proud of America until now” — it’s a Marxist deal–so they locked it up so we can’t see it now during the election. Really American , huh!?
Report comment to moderator
Drill – You wanna give the guy who bowled a 37 a gun? Are you crazy? Besides, Hillary would’t shoot him, she’s rather beat him at free throws.
This isn’t a guys game anymore. We don’t shoot people or go around beating them up. We just win the election, that’s all. We pass the laws that get kids health care and a good education and we stop all the misogynistic stuff. We treat people equally . That will be much harder to do than to just shoot somebody. It take’s a women’s touch. Tell Keith Olbermann he has to get off the air and give him a nice job changing diapers in a hospital or something so the shrink can keep an eye on him everyday.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!