Hillary Clinton used to really see the value in debates - Lots and lots of debates.

[Ed Suspicious]

"After 18 debates through early February, approaching an important Wisconsin primary, Hillary Clinton launches her toughest ad yet, attacking her closest rival for only wanting to engage in a mere twenty debates.
The ad begun Wednesday asks why Obama hasn't joined her in accepting an invitation to debate at Marquette University. 'Maybe he'd prefer to give speeches than have to answer questions,' the narrator says...
The call is forceful enough that her rival is compelled to respond reactively, something his campaign has generally avoided doing:
“After 18 debates, with two more coming, Hillary says Barack Obama is ducking debates?” the ad says. “It’s the same old politics, of phony charges and false attacks.”
Nonetheless, more debates are held, not merely as a concession to Clinton's firm belief in their utility, but also because free airtime is precious in an increasingly fragmented media environment where candidates struggle to gain undivided attention from voters. The more debates, says Clinton's campaign, the better.
After 21 debates through early April, Hillary Clinton launches an official petition on her campaign website encouraging all her supporters to push her rival for another debate, emphasizing how critical regionalized debates are to hearing out concerns of rural Democrats:

Senator Clinton has shown she's committed to hearing from voters across the Tar Heel State. That's why she accepted a North Carolina debate.
On Monday, April 21, the debate was cancelled because Senator Obama refused to make time in his schedule. On April 23 he brushed off North Carolinians again saying, "It's not clear that another debate is going to be the best use of our time."

Tell Senator Obama that having a debate in North Carolina is important to you. Add your name. Make your voice heard."

Read on . . .

http://m.dailykos.com/story/2015/08/29/1416509/-Hillary-Clinton-Calls-for-More-Debates-Is-the-DNC-Listening

[Bonobo]

1. Ha ha ha. That's the problem with rudderless ethics...

You wind up drifting or going in a circle...or worse.

[Ed Suspicious]

2. It is precisely what turns people off to politics. If debate is good for all reasons Hillary

mentioned in 2008 when she thought it favored her campaign they should be just as good in 2015 when the shoe is on the other foot.

Ethical consistency is one of my favorite traits in Mr. Sanders. I believe that he firmly believes that debate and discussion is the keystone to this process and I believe he would show up to defend his message as often as he could if he were the frontrunner. He has the courage of his convictions.

[tecelote]

28. "Ethical consistency is one of my favorite traits in Mr. Sanders."

Me too.

'Name another politician who runs on their own beliefs first and could give a damn about what polls say.

[George II]

15. Selfie?

[Bonobo]

17. Nah, I was right behind you, but you were, ummm, occupied. nt

[rhett o rick]

3. It's hypocrisy. nm

[Scootaloo]

4. Surprisingly unsurprising n/t

[Doctor_J]

5. she's evolved

Like on all of those other issues.

[Cali_Democrat]

6. I remember that well

Obama was performing very well in caucus states and because of the way delegates were awarded proportionally, Hillary had very little chance of catching Obama.

Her only hope was to have more debates so as to catch Obama in a major gaffe. Debates can move polls.

This time around Hillary hasn't pushed for more or fewer debates.

It's not her call...it's the DNC's call.

Obama was the front runner in April 2008 when Hillary called for more debates....now she's the front runner and her opponents are calling for more debates.

None of this is surprising.

[whatchamacallit]

8. I see, more debates were useful when Lady Rodham needed them

but now it's "why would anyone ever need more than six?" Team Weathervane making it up as they go...

[stevenleser]

7. Whether she does or not has no effect on the DNC who are controlling this.

And the DNC happens to be right.

6 debates is more than enough for folks to know who the candidates are and what their positions are.

[whatchamacallit]

9. Based on what?

The Steven Leser Election Compendium?

[jfern]

10. You're not fooling anyone

The DNC would have given more than 6 debates if Hillary was OK with it.

[stevenleser]

18. LOL, you are fooling yourself, I didn't have to do anything.

The DNC AND the RNC learned their lessons from 2008 and 2012.

More does not equal better with debates past 5 or 6.

If you spent about 20 minutes researching both of those election seasons and the debates, you would see that.

[jfern]

19. Gosh, the Democrats did so bad after the 26 debates in 2008

They only got the highest percentage of the popular vote since 1964.

[stevenleser]

21. Yes, that's the trite response one gets when you mention that. The problem for you is the debates

past #6 did not change the trajectory of the race at all. All they did was provide an opportunity for the candidates to damage themselves and each other.

No one learned anything about the candidates from debates 5-26. No one said, AH WELL!!! NOW I know. I didnt know from debates 1-5 this thing about one of the candidates. Now I must change my mind.

What you are arguing for is nonsense. As I said, you are fooling yourself.

[JDPriestly]

25. So since addrtional debates did not chamge poll numberrs but we did win in the general

after holding them, they didn't make any difference?

In my view, that is not the only conclusion that can be drawn from those facts, Quite possibly the additional debates made people affirm their sense of certainty about wanting to vote and to vote Democratic

Repetition is so important in learning and remembering, Companies repeat their ads and build product familiarity and name recognition by repeating slogans and ads.

We need more debates if only to reinforce our brand, our ideals and our values in people's minds.

[Logical]

31. Lol, you realize how stupid that sounds when......

We won the election? You are just basically making shit up.

[bahrbearian]

32. The Steven Leser Election Compendium?

[Bonobo]

11. Preposterous. nt

[HappyPlace]

12. Indeed.

It's hard to maintain respect for anyone who can suggest that for millions of busy voters that six debates is all we need.

That's just pure BS. Six isn't enough even for people who might be able to see them all.

Shit, some voters don't even have cable or decent TV service so if they catch just one they might be lucky.

[Logical]

13. Lol, you are entertaining. Nt

[Art_from_Ark]

29. Entertaining, all right

in a FOXy sort of way

[passiveporcupine]

14. OUCH!

[cherokeeprogressive]

16. "Maybe he'd prefer to give speeches than have to answer questions..." reminds me of this...

"Her speech will be her interview."

[SoapBox]

20. I think this is hilarious.

They know that they have to keep her virtually hidden for as long as possible...because when she goes widely public, America will be reminded over and over about how they don't like her.

[stevenleser]

22. Yeah but there was no value. Thats the problem with the argument you are trying to make with this.

It did not help her at all. Those debates were a total waste of time and provided a risk that both candidates would say something that damaged them, a slip of the tongue, a trip and fall, you never know what will happen at one of these.

[JDPriestly]

26. Likr it or not people who support candidares other than Hillary feel this is unfair and blame

Hillary for it. ?hat is not good for Hillary or the party.

[Indepatriot]

23. She has "evolved" on the matter......

[Jim Lane]

24. Clinton hasn't evolved, she's re-evolved, or perhaps just revolved.

In her Senate re-election campaign in 2006, she was the heavy favorite against a progressive challenger in the Democratic primary. She agreed to precisely zero debates with him.

From that anti-debate stance, when she was the front-runner in 2006, she evolved to being pro-debates, when she was trailing in 2008. Now that she has a big lead in the polls, she has evolved again.

My guess is that she'll be the front-runner all the way through this cycle and therefore won't have occasion for yet further evolution. Nevertheless, if by some chance she does find herself behind, she will see the wisdom in debates, and her acolytes on the DNC will do a little evolution of their own.

[Ed Suspicious]

27. She's supposed to be a public servant, but that sounds incredibly self serving if you ask me.

[Indepatriot]

30. Perhaps "Shape-shifted" yet again is a more percise discription....