Uhm, yeah, because holding a campaign rally for a few thousand people is a better way to reach voters than having a debate watched by millions. Right.

Further, Clinton "accepted an offer" from FOX, where the public will be guaranteed vapid questioning about meaningless things. Maybe they can ask Obama if he salutes the flag.

Clinton is in a weak position now, something that Big T and others couldn't imagine a few weeks ago. To impose your definition of how Obama should act to help the flailing Clinton campaign as some test of his themes of hope and unity is laughable.

Obama has lost his momentum, and has acquired a negative direction at least temporarily. Hillary can easily afford to go to the states that she deems most strategically valuable. As we've seen with Super Tuesday - winning the most states isn't necesssarily the most important thing.

The fact that he is refusing to debate is going to resonate with a lot of people in the upcoming states. And she can hammer him with that for as long as he refuses to do so; most people don't keep up with what the candidates decided as per Fox earlier, just us internet junkies. They'll just know that Obama is 'too busy' to debate Hillary, or 'thinks that's enough', or 'sees a desperate move', and all of those sound like excuses for not facing your enemy.

I don't even understand your argument that not debating for the millionth time is a tactic to press his cash advantage. How is that the case? Have debates somehow become a way to raise large amounts of money? What are you basing that on???

I also love the irony of seeing a screen name of "Big Tent Democrat" attacking Obama for trying to appeal to more people. Newsflash: we won't get any progressive policies through government if we refuse to work with Republicans, or draw support from Independents. Are you suggesting Obama should isolate and alienate large groups of Americans? Haven't we seen how that works under Bush and the lap dog Republicans???

1. the last two series of debates (on CNN) were the most watched ever.  So, unlike what BO says, the people do want to see more debates.  

2. remember how great we all felt as Democrats after the last HRC/BO debate?  I think the party needs that sense of unity (assuming it stays as civil and is about the issues).

I could see also maybe one debate at the beginning of April, if this thing is still going.

Past Pennsylvania, I don't see a point in further debating.  There's only a handful of contests left after that, and it won't have much impact.

Ditto for national polling--why are we still doing national polling, when 28 states have already voted?  Makes no sense.

Said as a strong HRC supporter.

At this point, she looks like the underdog, but she still has a slight edge if she can stay even up to OH, TX, and PA.

Will debates help her? Not so sure. I'd prefer her to work on her online fund-raising ability. Her web site could use an infusion of pizazz, especially her blog and add some way of showing her $ contributions. Then more and better ads, and as many town halls, Q&A with voters, etc., less staged. She does extremely well off-the-cuff with real people. She should do more of it and find a way to get it out in the media.

Plus, she needs to find some surrogates (NOT Bill!) to point out Obama's weaknesses - on substance not personal characteristics.

I can see why he doesn't want to debate, but saying flat out something that is demonstrably false (people aren't interested in debates, oh really?), plus something which will negatively impact the talking heads (which had been in the tank for him) at a critical time is IMHO not shrewd.

And unlike in virtually every other area, she might get talking heads to support her.  A debate a week is a lot of $$$ for the television networks and more airtime for their talking heads.  So it might be an issue where she can get some traction.

Meanwhile, HRC is allowed to literally practice politics as usual and none of them criticizes her for that.

A new kind of politics does not mean that you allow your opponent to get away with dirty tricks, underhanded tactics, etc. It does not mean you appease your opponent when their broke by going on TV once a week so they don't become the forgotten candidate. It doesn't mean pretending that your opponent is not vulnerable to attacks, or that they are not a divisive figure in American politics.

A new kind of politics is one where you recognize that you can lay out a 1,000 point plan for the war in Iraq but that Congress is going to make that largely unrecognizable in the end. It means you admit that don't know all the issues in minute detail, and that you'll rely on the best talent available (which would include HRC, as he has said) to help you gather the facts. It means that instead of making people dread your opponent, you make them admire you. It means making people believe America can be great, free, and peaceful, instead of convincing them to vote for you b/c otherwise they'll be beheaded on national TV by terrorists. That's what Obama is about, and that's why he has supporters who are fervent, are emotional, and are involved in a process they have previously despised.

So, yes, Obama is a pol, but he is a new kind of pol. If you don't recognize that, you shouldn't be pretending to understand politics. If you do recognize that and you still choose to belittle him, then simply admit that you like the usual method of campaigning. That's what this race has come down to. Some people like our battle royal politics, and that's fine. That's why we have campaigns to begin with.

In the end, though, a lot of us are betting that America is ready to turn a corner, and soon we'll know whether we're right or wrong.