Adventures of Andrew Lee

CNN reported yesterday that Clinton has challenged Obama to a series of Lincoln-Douglas debates without the media. My debate friends and I have been giggling like school children over how cool it would be to have each candidate debate question the other (just like in our high school Lincoln Douglas Debates).

In general, a series of debates without media questions across Indiana and battleground states would allow a time to shine and to show the discussion about issues. Moreover, it allows the competition to become a constructive discussion about topics versus the usual guerrilla press leak warfare that has been taking place so far.

These debates won’t happen if three serious issues aren’t resolved, though: (A) When will these debates take place? (B) how will the format be useful and still entertaining? (B) Why would Obama accept?

WHEN

They need to know when before May 6th. That’s tough, but without dealing with media schedules, I think it’s doable. The two candidates would essentially be making time in their schedules to campaign/duke it out together.

HOW

The original LD debates had the following format (according to Wikipedia):

Each debate had this format: one candidate spoke for an hour, then the other candidate spoke for an hour and a half, and then the first candidate was allowed a half hour “rejoinder.” The candidates alternated speaking first. As the incumbent, Douglas spoke first in four of the debates.

Current LD formats have shorter oratory and questioning periods for speakers making for a more entertaining and debate-like approach. A combination where each candidate gives a long first speech and time to question each other on their policies would be very interesting. Each candidate should be allowed to receive notes, but since it is televised, it would just look back if they look to be too reliant on their handlers. Unfortunately, the HOW issues ties into the WHEN because details like this take a long time to smooth out.

WHY

If the WHEN and HOW can be resolved, Obama should accept for the following reasons:

1. He beats Hillary on her terms- The most effective way to take out the other heavyweight contender is to have him invite you to a match, and then you win the match. The Hillary troops will legitimately see a candidate that won because he was a better candidate on their own terms. If his polls are already sliding, then taking the opportunity to stop that slide and win over her own folks is a good idea.
2. He can set the context- As a result of her invitation; he has the upper hand in choosing the ring he fights in. The importance of this allows Obama to choose policy issues he wants to air, the format of the debate, and also choose a format he’s comfortable with.
3. Obama’s personal strengths is his oratorical skills- Enough said. He gets to flex and pound.
4. It sets the stage for John McCain- Obama versus McCain in LD debate style…. yeah, my bet is on Obama.
5. It’s Lincoln- For the man who began his campaign invoking Lincoln in Springfield, IL, it seems odd that he would turn away from such a defining feature of Lincoln’s initial candidacy. Forget that historians say that Douglas won most of the debates, but the chance to win for Lincoln adds more to the sense of place/history of Barack Obama.

Of course, there are a lot of reasons not to debate, including giving more recognition to the Clinton campaign. Nevertheless, Obama should accept because I think he could win and why would you turn away from an opportunity to stop the sliding poll numbers and make your opponent look bad in an unmoderated debate.