I Think Obama Should Debate Hillary in North Carolina: CULTURE WARS

[redstate_democrat]

and it should be a cultural debate.

They should cover issues like:

LGBT Rights and why it was Hillary's husband that put through DOMA and DADT
Affirmative Action and EPA and both of their positions on that
Abortion and Partial Birth Abortion
Illegal Immigration
Religious Issues and its role in politics/government
Working Poor Issues and Inner City Youth
Entertainment- obscenity in music, movies, television, etc
Family values (the Clintons? lol)
Talk about what Dems have been saying all along, people who are broke and poor vote for the guys who keep them poor because of gays and blacks in the other party.
Bring it to the forefront. The North Carolina race is already polarized, acutely aware of race, and might need some questions answered on these issues.

Obama is trustworthy and he comes across that way. Not so much for Hillary. She can't WONK WONK WONK her way out of talking truthfully, honestly, and sincerely to the American people about very emotional issues.

I think Obama would smoke her in all of these areas. He comes across very even tempered and reasonable, but is quite liberal on these issues. More so than Hillary. Hillary will pander to her racist, homophobic, xenophobic, low information, downscale voter in North Carolina and reveal her true colors...to those left in the party who can't smell the stench coming off of her. This could only help Obama.

GO OBAMA!

[Tunkamerica]

1. they couldn't agree on a date so it was cancelled n/t

[redstate_democrat]

2. I think they should settle on a debate. Next Friday would be great IMO.

He needs to give her tired campaign one more debate. He shouldn't be seen as trying to evade her for risk of looking afraid of her. The last debate basically was a full on attack from both sides - the moderators and Hillary - on totally baseless questions.

I have put forth very substantive issues, not flag pins, and on real substantive issues, especially these issues, he will come out looking much better.

[Tunkamerica]

3. Obama wanted Monday and Clinton wanted Friday

neither could agree so it isn't happening.

[XemaSab]

5. I think right now she's looking like the Black Knight

shouting at the retreating Arthur.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eMkth8FWno

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

10. take it to your "red state" - quit f'ing with NC we don't need your concern

[Rageneau]

6. It was not that "They" could agree on a debate, it's that Obama ran away -- again -- from one.

Obama wants no part of a fair fight with Hillary, now that he knows the press isn't going to defer to him like Tibetans to the Dali Lama any longer. Obama is also running away from letting the voters in Florida and Michigan have their say in the nomination. Hillary offered to pay to have both state primaries repeated -- with voters free to vote as they choose. Obama refused to allow that because he did not want the voters of FL and MI to vote as they chose, because they might not choose him.

Some champion, Runaway Obama.

[Tunkamerica]

7. no, the organizers said exactly what I've posted twice.

schedule-wise, Obama agreed to Monday and Hillary agreed to Friday. Neither one would agree to the other day. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If Obama is running away then so is Clinton.

[terrell9584]

4. That would be a mistake politically

That's just a truthful statement. The last thing Obama needs to do is resucitate the culture wars because the culture wars are what allowed the Republican Party insurgency to get to where it is in the South and it is what was responsible for all those GOP Congresses and the elections of both Bushs. It's a bad idea.

What Obama can hit her on is the fact that the textile industry up and left the state during the 1990s, primarily to Mexico and China, thanks to trade deals. But fighting on cultural issues would be a bad idea. For the reason why, just look at the Democrats that North Carolina tends to elect to statewide office, specifically, Easley.

[Tunkamerica]

9. What are you saying ?

Not disagreeing, just would like a little explanation. How does Easley make cultural issues taboo?

[Leopolds Ghost]

12. I think because the winning formula preached by Frank, Lind et al is found in guys like Webb

And maybe Easley or whoever. Socially moderate, economically populist.

If they are just plain conservative Dems down there in NC, well that sux.

But it certainly wasn't true for Edwards. Then again Edwards started
losing in NC when he became more populist and less of a DLCer.

The ball player who recently won in NC is an example of the mold also.
Anti-free trade (and well he should be.) Cigar chomper (figuratively
speaking). Wants government to protect those mill jobs.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

8. sorry but our (NC's) State Democratic Party says NO THANKS

so take your "concern" elsewhere.

[Leopolds Ghost]

11. If you haven't read Thomas Frank or Michael Lind (not just Kansas but the Baffler) please do so.

Then you will understand why your proposal is maybe not the best idea.

You are framing the issue wrong. The culture war is a distraction
manufactured by the party of the overclass and their allies in the
OTHER party of the overclass -- to marginalize the remnants of the
New Deal and Great Society "uprisings" that atypically gave Dems
the reputation of being a left-populist party in the first place --
a position not commonly shared by the architects of either party.

Your "downscale, low information voter" does not need to be talked
down to. Obama had it wrong in his "bitter" reference -- all he
had to say is that currently, no organized segment of Dems is
advocating for strict populist approach which would meet
working class concerns. If they were, they'd be winning. That's
why Obama starts out so high -- the racist working man you seem
to be insulting starts out with high hopes that an Obama or a Kerry
may turn out to be another FDR. Then their distinctions with
Hillary -- an economically conservative so-called "liberal" who
is only concerned with cultural distractions and nanny-state
Tory business-friendly economic "solutions" -- are minimized
in order to enforce elite party silence on issues that matter to the poor.

A real populist candidate who had a shot would be -- just that.

[Median Democrat]

13. The Problem With Debates Now . . .

Is that the media now has its own agenda. The media will go for ratings, not for substance. This is why we had a debate dominated by side issues, rather than tough questions on real issues. I am all for tough questions, but it was a travesty that the first half of the debate did not touch any substantive issues.

Why? Because the mainstream media has its own agenda, and that is ratings and ratings are helped by controversy. Face it. Real issues are depressing. However, scandal draws eye balls. It is naive to think that at this juncture we will get a real debate, unless it is done by NPR, rather than a major network. If Hillary was winning, the major networks would be bashing her to try to prolong the Democratic primary.

My concern is that both Hillary and Obama are manipulating and being manipulated by this whole process. The election is getting more and more hystirical to the point that a gas tax holiday is now being debated by everyone as a real solution? Please.

What about some real solutions, like telling the Feds to get out of the way of states seeking to impose higher fuel mileage standards. However, are Clinton, Obama or McCain saying squat about this? No, because they do not want to offend the voters in Michigan who work in the auto industry.

So, we have an election where the candidates and the networks actively conspire to avoid discussion of any real issues.

[Hieronymus]

14. Hillary only wants a debate because it will give her free airtime .. she's broke.