I happen to think Obama was wrong, on both moral and political terms, not to take up McCain's offer. The precedent of weekly candidate chats would certainly have been good for the country, and probably would have been good for Obama's campaign, too. But every time McCain offers his good-citizen proposal as an excuse for bad-citizen behavior, I get a little less sympathetic.
Why did Obama not agree to do town hall meetings?
-As I have said before, this is a classic "heads I win, tails you lose" situation. Obama did, after all, make a counter offer, one which was never, so far as I know, considered by the McCain people. what was his counter offer? This makes any claim to have actually wanted more debates or town halls or whatever pretty dubious.
-Naw. Obama was correct in rejecting the town hall meetings because Obama wanted to focus the country's attention like a laser on his debates with McCain by limiting the number of direct interactions, like town hall meetings, with McCain. Too many such interactions between the two would lessen the impact of each interaction and of each debate. Since Obama believes (rightly) he would most likely kick McCain's ass in any debate, Obama's thinking was to keep the number of such interactions low so as to not give McCain too many opportunities to right himself after making a mistake in his interactions with Obama and diffuse the impact of the debates. [woland] hmm. is that so?
-woland is right - ten was way too many. And McCain was bluffing; he knew Obama would reject it, and was banking on it.
TV Barn | Three myths about those town-hall meetings Obama refused to do
[that McCain likes townhalls, that he is better in that format while Obama better in formal debates, that Obama did not stand to gain from direct engagement since he was already ahead in the polls]
...worth asking if Obama will see his failure to spend the summer traveling the country debating the issues with John McCain as an opportunity --and an election-- lost.
If Obama loses, his staff will look back at the town halls as an opportunity lost.
-And when Obama wins the election, his campaign staff will look back on the town hall meetings as an error wisely avoided. The real issues and positions of these two men are readily knowable to anyone with the slightest ability to pay attention.
-If Obama loses, his staff and his admirers won't be looking back at the number and format of the debates for blame. I have to disagree with you. There are so many other factors in this race that will contribute to either Obama's loss, or marginal win. Things like race, supposed inexperience...
The fact is, many of those who (like me) would have watched a fall chock full of bipartisan town halls are exactly the sort of voters who will go out of their way to find out what they need to know to vote anyway (Factcheck.org). And those who won't wouldn't be caught dead watching a town hall over a football game. Which means they're right where they are now: relying on second-hand media commentary, campaign ads, their own gut and their built-in prejudices. [corey]
-Disagree 100%. The townhall meetings McCain wanted would have been stacked with republican operatives softballing questions to McCain while Obama got hammered. McCain tries to delay a real debate, and Obama is faulted for not signing up to be dragged through the mud republican style?
-Just because John McCain wants to set an agenda does not mean Barack Obama is required to comply. In fact, I think there are number of valid reasons for Obama not to take the bait. First, many of the townhall meetings are delivered to McCain faithful, like any event for a particular candidate. Many people with opposing views are discouraged from attending. So who gets to choose the forum and the sites? Will the discussions digress into shouting matches? Will they be in pro-Republican or pro-Democrat regions of the country. Too many questions.
The presidential debates are another story. They are part of the traditional history of the presidential campaign. The debates give the American public a chance to make up their minds at election time. Also, a great amount of money, time and energy is expended to put the debates together. In fact, Haley Barber (R) the governor of Mississippi is not happy about a potential cancellation. Nearly 5 million dollars has been spent to stage the debates and they an important infusion into the economy for the good people of Mississippi. The debates should go on!
-The idea to have the 10 town halls -which sounds like a fine, bipartisan plan- was presented just as Obama had clinched the nomination at the end of tough primary season. Leaving aside the fact that McCain had already set a day & a place for the first town hall, assuming that Obama would be free, and also leaving aside the fact that if he really wanted to make a bipartisan effort he would have reached out privately for the negotiations (is this starting to sound like the recent economic maneuverings?) - anyway, leaving all that aside, as I say, the fact is that the Obama camp did not "turn them down cold." In place of 10 town hall meetings, which in my opinion do favor McCain, who has a snappier, less wordy response pattern than Obama, they offered:
one town hall meeting on July 4th, the three Presidential debates, and one special foreign policy forum.
McCain turned this down, saying,"We all know what American families want to do on July 4th." Agree with one or the other - but there was a negotiation, and a disagreement. Funny how we only hear about the 10, not about the counter-offer. Maybe because Obama has moved on. [julia] good.
-The "Town Hall Debate Debate" was never about the debates themselves, any more than it is now. The reasons McCain wanted Obama to "engage" him in this way, at that time, had to do with
1. crowd draw: Obama had them, McCain didn't. 2. money: debates = free advertising 3. dictating Obama's (travel) schedule: Obama was already stating that he was committed to campaigning on a broader electoral ground than the current 50% +1 strategizing encourages. That means McCain would have to get a different game, and it would demand both more money and more time from him. If he could slow Obama to his pace with "a Town Hall a week," it would keep Obama from making uneven gains in new battleground areas.
I live in North Carolina, and I can clearly see the effects of the Obama campaign strategy here. The "10 Town Hall" gambit would have KILLED Obama's campaign in NC, and McCain knew that. Campaign stops happen where each individual campaign feels they should. So in NC, within 2 weeks we will have seen Obama twice, Biden twice, and Michelle once (plus Gov Sebelius and others on Obama's behalf). We've seen McCain exactly 0 times. NC voters get a sense of who is really looking for their votes. If we got one town hall to meet the candidates, it would be a wash - in other words, advantage McCain, since this is a traditionally Republican voting state in Presidential elections.
It was never about "debating," and the McCain camp knows it. The "Town Hall" gambit was ALWAYS, always, always an attempt to control Obama's campaign schedule and to cash in on his much better turnout at campaign events. [thisniss]
-No candidate would ever agree to let the other candidate set the debate format. That is why they have an independent commission do it. Besides, Sen. Obama draws tens of thousands of people to his rallies. Why should he let Sen McCain share the stage with him?
...the bail out BS going through congress..If the Democrats had any political skills at all, they would have responded to Paulson with: "You want $700 Billion for Wall Street? That's fine, we want $700 Billion for Health Care." The Republicans know they are going to loose the White House and they are rushing to cash in with the bail out. It serves a secondary function of bankrupting the Govt, which means the Democrats can't do anything about health care, the environment, or tax cuts. The Democrats will have to raise taxes, and then they will lose the 2012 election. Putting Wall Street right back in the White House. [karl] huh. that sounds plausible (even though written w some oddities, like lower case of 'democrat' in each instance - & I change it since this is for my reading- but upper case of 'Republican'). hope this is not as likely as sounds. I have some confidence that Obama will be able to avoid this (but I d n know how).
