CNN

There is nothing to debate about. Obama has stated his views and opinions on issues. People who want to know where he stands can read his webstie or watch previous debates. What good does debating do anyway? Arguing with other people never gets anything accomplished.

There is no good reason for a political candidate to pass up free tv time.

Maybe...just maybe with the August recess nearly over, he's going to spend more time at the job he's paid to do (remember that Seante thing) and less time 'interviewing' for the job that he wants. That alone would show some stewardship of the tax-payer's dollar.

Of course, if he were as experienced as the others, he'd know he could get away with not performing in his current capacity?

Who knows the real reason? But, to opine and then call him names based on this decision is wrong.

My $0.02,

Chip

So Barack Obama wants to spend more time talking to people than to cameras.

How is that bad for the voters?

Smart decision.

Obama is limiting his future televised appearances because he knows it is hurting his campaign. Peoeple are starting to catch on to his college-student-aged rhetoric and see him for the well spoken 19 year old he really is.

Lance- You're either a plant, or just a simple-minded cheer-leader. From your latest;

"Clinton is so two faced".

"Hillary is truly becoming the "fear" candidate, even as Obama becomes the candidate of reason and shows that the true experience he has is real world experience, social experience. Not only is he the strongest leader on the stage, he's the most well rounded."

"Obama represents the best hope we have for the future. He's current. Hillary, frankly, is a relic of the past, still living in the cold war."

"Obama won the debate today hands down, as he does every debate."

Maybe you really believe the things you post, maybe you're getting something for posting them. Either way, your rhetoric is too pro-Obama in every way, to be taken as serious political thought. Obama has not won every debate hands-down, or otherwise, and no reasonable person, Obama supporter or not, would agree with that statement. It exposes your inability to consider any information that doesn't support your pre-conceived beliefs.

Obama has the same Washington insiders in his campaign that everyone else has in theirs, he gets his money from the same places the others do, his voting record on the Iraq war, since his election to the senate is the same as Senator Clinton's, with only one exception. There is little to distinguish him in his actual political career, where, without exception, he is the least experienced in national politics of the candidates. He is a fine man with a compelling personal story, and is a welcome addition to the political scene. He is very much like his major rivals in the campaign, in policies and positions on the issues, most of the democratic candidates are similar, but he is less seasoned, untested, and unproven on the national stage. Perhaps the campaign will transform him into the person you so fervently believe him to be, but as things stand, he is not, and your praise of Obama, and denigration of Senator Clinton and the rest of the field, is at best, overzealousness.

Van

Evan Esteves-

Well, as far as voting for someone other than a Democrat, I am impressed. One exception to the rule, I have misspoke. Now for the meat of your response. Recently, a notable Democratic Representative was asked if good news comes from Petraeus in September, what will that change. His response, "We are in deep trouble". The "we" in this sentence is defined as Democrats. I was implying that was your mentality. Nothing more than that. By the way, it was Rep. Jim Clyburn. I never accused you of hoping that American soldiers die. If you read my note as something other than that, then I apologize for not being specific. I am confident however, that you do root against Republicans, hoping that they mess up, so that your beloved party can control. I repeat, this is not a sporting event. It is our lives!

PS- I am sorry to hear about your friends. It is truly sad to see so many die for most likely, after withdrawal. . . nothing.

I am so impressed that his team has realized that since noone knows him in the country, and we are about 4 months from the reality check, that he needs to stop wasting time on debates. Well, how many people does he get to address at a time on a debate compare to visits and meeting voters face-to-face?

This world is full of excuses and since it has been clear that everytime he opens his mouth on a debate, interview or in front of a camera he digs his hole deeper, he needs to get out of the camera A.S.A.P at least to maintain his dignity.

It is such a shame he didn't wait one or two more terms, learn, understand what would have been required and then clean the house in 2012 or 2016.

I am 100% Democrat and think we are missing the chance to have had him in office for sure by him campaigning too early in his political career. Just because we think the democrat nominee will win in 2008 he saw as the chance.

He should have waited.

Clinton is so two faced. She's said almost exactly the same thing Obama has said. I feel every debate she just stands there binding her time saying as little as possible to not open herself up to either her real views or attack.

Obama is actually out there swinging. He's so absolutely right that the time for posturing and fear mongering is over. Look at what Clinton said, "I believe we face the most dangerous time of any president…" She's playing off fear in the same way Bush does. That's so pathetic. Things have always and will always be dangerous. She knows this and yet she goes for the quick and easy soundbite while Obama actually shoots to the heart of the problem, which is that America can never afford to be isolationist and consumed by its own paranoia and fear.

Hillary is truly becoming the "fear" candidate, even as Obama becomes the candidate of reason and shows that the true experience he has is real world experience, social experience. Not only is he the strongest leader on the stage, he's the most well rounded. He admitted what the other candidates have said before the campaign, that he'd go into Pakistan to get Bin Laden. The others were too scared to stick to their own words.

Obama represents the best hope we have for the future. He's current. Hillary, frankly, is a relic of the past, still living in the cold war.

Obama won the debate today hands down, as he does every debate. But I agree with his campaign that he should limit the debates to only the sanctioned ones, because none of these politicians are accomplishing anything other than the same usual soundbites at these debates. I'm hearing the same comments about the same conversations over and over. Only Obama is trying to bring some fresh air to the debate and he can do that in longer discussions and town hall environments with real people.

The last crowd that can tell anything like it is is a bunch of politicians on the stage.

Obama 08.
Posted By Lance, Monrovia, CA : August 19, 2007 3:12 pm

"Evan Esteves-

You, my friend are what is wrong with this country. This is not a sporting event. You do not root for your home team and hope the away team messes up. If the away team (in this case for you, the Republicans)mess up, then our country is messed up. I bet you are hoping we continue to hear bad things out of Iraq so that your team wins the White House. You are that blind citizen who votes "D" all the way down, without any idea of what people stand for or believe. And by the way, the President is not all powerful. There is something called the Congress. They have a good amount of say in what happens. It seems to me, many Democrats during the Clinton administration blamed alot on Congress then. Now, they are blame free. Very interesting. As a citizen of the US, we should all be hoping that we find the best candidate that can put our country back on track. When are we going to start to realize that in the grand scheme of things, we should be rooting for a successful political system!

Posted By JB Boston MA : August 19, 2007 11:06 am"

No you my friend are what's wrong with this country. You say I vote "D" all the way down the ticket is inaccurate. I voted for Charlie Crist, the Republican Governor of my state in the last election because I thought he offered the best opportunity for progress in my state. Even more incorrect and rather distasteful was for you to say that I hope we lose in Iraq. I stopped reading what you wrote after I read that. I lost two of my best friends who served in the marines during this war. Don't ever question my support for my country or the soldiers who put their life on the line for this country. You have absolutely no right to question me on that. You are way off base with that remark.

Hillary's Poll Numbers should be examined and questioned. Don't know IF any great percentage 'lead' should be believed. These numbers can easily be crafted to fool the public. What the Public has seen is a Very Sharp Rise in Hillary's Polls......WHY, all at once? Don't believe it.

Joe -

Actually Senator Clinton has been a Professor as well, a Senator, a President's wife which involved her meeting with numerous heads of foreign countries, a Governor's wife while holding down a job as a lawyer the entire time, like, she has also worked on Community organizing projects for children's rights, as well as headed up numerous committees on children's rights, education, and healthcare, and she worked on the Nixon impeachment campaign, and worked on other political campaigns.

She's actually quite accomplished, if you'd take the time to learn about her other than making assumptions.

I think that it is important for obama to appear at the debates because people who will not have an opportunity to see him in person can watch it and draw their own conclusions based on how well he does in the debate

Obama is done, stick a fook in him. Hilary quickly stuck the blade in his back. He was a flawed canidate from the start. All flash, but no dash.

A Clinton Democratic nomination will get put a Republican in the white house. An Obama nomination puts Obama in the White House. There are two many people that really dislike Clinton. If she gets the nomination, you will see many more people voting to keep her out.

They say that those who do not study the past are doomed to repeat it. When I read the conflicts between the Obama and Clinton camps on this board I can’t help but think about the mistakes we Democrats made in running against Nixon during the Vietnam era. The parallels are clear: we were mired in an ill-considered war and by the seventies we had a corrupt and out of control Republican administration trampling on American civil rights and doing anything and everything it could to maintain power. And we let them get away with it.

So let’s consider why the Democrats lost twice to an unappealing and obvious crook like Richard Nixon. In 1968 we had two inspirational outsider candidates in Eugene McCarthy and Robert Kennedy, and an establishment candidate in Hubert Humphrey (a great man on social issues, but he supported the war). Of course Kennedy got assassinated and McCarthy lost at the turbulent Chicago convention. When the general election came around, many of the liberals and young people who had been inspired by McCarthy and Kennedy stayed home in disgust and we got Nixon. And the war dragged on.

By 1972 Nixon had not only the war to defend, but the beginning of the Watergate scandals. The left wasn’t ready to take no for an answer. We nominated George McGovern (a liberal war hero who promised peace) and Nixon played the fear card better than Karl Rove ever could and we got beat in a landslide. And the war dragged on.

Now don’t get me wrong. I was a little hippie kid who “got clean for Gene” McCarthy, and I worked my butt off in the McGovern campaign. I think either of those fine men would have made far better Presidents than Nixon, and I don’t see how anyone who reads history can think otherwise. But we lost. And because we lost, thousands more died in a foolish war. We can’t afford to let history repeat itself.

I believe that either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama will be the Democratic nominee. I believe either of them can win the general election. I believe either of them can be a great American President. But if their supporters tear each other to pieces, if the Clinton people paint Obama as a naive fool (which he isn’t) and the Obama people paint Clinton as a corporate tool (which she isn’t), it just increases the chance that we’ll end up with Mitt Romney or Rudy Giuliani in the White House. And the war will drag on.

Once again the Obama camp thinks out of the box. After all he already looks more presidential than any other old hat candidate, and he won most of the debates already not by slick canned answers but with heart felt truth on the war and domestic issues. He must concentrate on closing the campaign with the people who love him – the grass roots of this nation.

AMERICA HELP IS ON THE WAY!!

BaROCK THE VOTE!!!

Evan Esteves-

You, my friend are what is wrong with this country. This is not a sporting event. You do not root for your home team and hope the away team messes up. If the away team (in this case for you, the Republicans)mess up, then our country is messed up. I bet you are hoping we continue to hear bad things out of Iraq so that your team wins the White House. You are that blind citizen who votes "D" all the way down, without any idea of what people stand for or believe. And by the way, the President is not all powerful. There is something called the Congress. They have a good amount of say in what happens. It seems to me, many Democrats during the Clinton administration blamed alot on Congress then. Now, they are blame free. Very interesting. As a citizen of the US, we should all be hoping that we find the best candidate that can put our country back on track. When are we going to start to realize that in the grand scheme of things, we should be rooting for a successful political system!

There simply doesn't need to be a debae ever other week. The candidates are asked the same questions and give the same answers. The moderators always find a way to focus the debate on the MSM dicated "first tier" candidates. And no matter how good any candidate does, the "front runner" will always be the "winner" in the eyes of MSM "experts."

Therefore, I agree with Senator Obama's decision. Although some of the campaigns comments did worry me. He's going to focus on Iowa votes, NH voters, and the Feb. 5 states because they are the most important. So what does that mean about us here in Maryland?

These political blogs and message boards are only designed for angry people who only care about their candidate of choice winning! These comments board do not debate or talk about what the candidates say or believe in a civil manner. When will the American people wake up and realize WE are the ones who are causing our own problems by how we conduct ourselves, don't work together, can't discuss issues with dignity and non bias. WE voted for the politicians in office and all they are doing is reacting to us by playing on our fears and biases. Let's not forget the AMERICAN PEOPLE voted Bush and the rest of the politicians on both sides of the isle in office and look at where we are as a result. We are just as much to blame for the problems in this country as the politicians! Not to say all is bad but it can be better this is all that Obama is saying! In the end none of the candidates have to answer to each other with their back stabbing remarks to one another or the headline crazed media. It is the AMERICAN people who decide the path we take. The question is, do we continue on our current coarse or choose a different path? Time will tell…

BTW: My bias for CHANGE tells me I support Obama!
May God bless America.

Lance, thank you so much for so eloquently saying everything I have been thinking and feeling. If Clinton does win, we will end up with the same old government and course of action that the past six plus years have given us. We cannot afford to stay the course anymore. The country I have known and loved has become one I fear at times. I really think that we are being prepared for another possible war with Iran. Bush just scares me. His neocon ideology has done nothing but damaged the credibility our country has always aspired to. We need someone who can unite us again, and not someone so divisive as to call our country red and blue. We are one! This past administration was so successful at dividing us. If people really took time to know the issues and the candidates, and the experience, they would have more credibility with me. Obama has been very successful at uniting people with his work in Illinois. He stands for so much good. He has heart, where nearly all of the other candidates have just learned how to play the game...say what they know others want to hear and yet no clear action of how to get there. I want someone in the white house who truly loves their country, not just someone who loves power.

I am not an American but I'm a very anxious Canadian given some of these comments on these blogs! This one for example referring (I think?) to Senator Obama.)

Julie, Columbia, MO
"our last gasp of belief in this country and some measure of rationality and courage in the govt. on you. Please do not let us down. We don't have too many more chances left."

Julie I hate to add to your anxiety but YOU DON'T have any chances left!

Julie's plea, is truly a message of dire hopelessness, fear and anxiety. Not the best set of emotions for electing a competent President.

And in view of the Candidates running, I can only hope Americans will just once put EXPERIENCE, COMPETENCE, INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMACY, INTELLECTUAL CONTENT, AMERICA'S ECONOMIC FUTURE and CREDIBLE IMAGE ACROSS THE GLOBE, First and Foremost thus bypassing the clearly, inexperienced, unproven, unqualified, questionable agendas of the pretensious power seekers in this race. Not only for the preservation of America but the World!

Is time Julie to replace Fear and Anxiety with Prayer in All Languages in the Hope that the only true All Powerful, All Loving, Leader can hear your pleas. As given these blog comments, it is certain your pleas will otherwise fall on deaf ears throughout America.

If Obama limits his future debates:

a) how can he improve his past debate mistakes?

b) how can the american public know his personal position on issues, without seeing the carefully drafted versons from his campaign office?

c) how can he, if nominated by the democrats, expect to win the debates against the nominated republican candidate in the general election? Remember JOhn Kerry's verbal boo boo that some day costing him the election.

This is similar to a student who has failed his exams saying he will not go to school anymore. He is burying his head in the sand.

I'm a little confused when the so called experts say Hilary has the experience to be President. Lets see, 8 yrs marrried to a President, 2nd term Senator, a lawyer. Hmm.. that qualifies you to be President. Laura Bush should get the Republican nomination because she has a current White House experience.

Now lets see about Obama, 12 years as State Senator, 1st term in Senate, a lawyer, a Professor, a Community organizer. So he has over 20 years experience at both local and national level.

Senator Edward, a one term Senator, a lawyer. Yet nobody is talking about his experience.

Folks, let recalibrate this crap the media have been shoving down our throat. The Republican party can not wait to get a hold of this lady.

Some of us after the last treacherous and nightmarish 8 years, praying to know how not to be the silent masses, as some German citizens were, (not knowing either what to do), pin our last gasp of belief in this country and some measure of rationality and courage in the govt. on you. Please do not let us down. We don't have too many more chances left.

I am only an Observer but, if Obama is so Great and Popular as a Candidate – why does this site not depict those ratings?

And if Hillary is so "hated" according to many bloggers on this site, how come the comments for every Hillary topic doubles and triples the comments for the Obama Topics?

I have nothing against Obama but I don't feel he has the experience presently to lead a Nation. I have nothing against Ron Paul but I don't feel he has the Strength or Stamina to lead a Nation.

NO doubt the people who are SO sure Obama is the wrong choice for our Nation at this time in History. They are the same ones who KNEW there were WMD's in Iraq and thought it ok to go to war (HILLARY included) At the time they would have demanded your deaths as a traitor if you disagreed with them. Now time has proven them wrong !!. But they still think they have credibility. Now they want to tell you that Hillary is the best thing for our country. (Sometimes one needs to just SHUT UP & let thinking folks run things !!) GO Obama 08 !!

Don't fall into media hype. This is one of them. Read and comprehend. Don't just regergitate what the media says. Obama 08

AmericanWoman and all the republintons here needs to stop drinking the cool aid from the MSM. Take your time to read the full text of Obama speeches before you open your ignorant mouths. American would be so much better if some people were disqualified from voting.

To American Woman....Get Real!!!

Obama is a confident, intelligent and fair human being. He is the candidate the most represents what the average person has gone through, the one who has lived life the way that the majority that we have lived it and he relates very, very well with people – especially in one on one situations. He is not saying he will not debate, he is just limiting it because he has a lot of people to meet – to get his message to in as close to a one-on-one format as he can. This is what is important. The "debates" so far have been a joke in format and content, they have not been fair in any way, shape or form. You have eight candidates taking questions over a one and a half hour period – how can that possibly be a fair forum. Barack isn't backing away from the debates because of things he has said – he is making a decision to deliver his message his way which is one-on-one as it should be. This makes me trust and respect the man for continuing to take his message to the people through the people.

Really good.
all the time hillary has been declared the winner after the debates over and over Ithink it was getting too much. she ten calls apresidential candidateirresponsible and naive then she cries foul when he responds.

Can we please agree that Obama does not know the issues; he needs time for schooling? Will the campaign make video available of all these questions he'll be taking from the campaign trail? Will the media report that, in fact, he takes very few questions?

Obama hs been accused of being a lightweight...this confirms it. The debates are a joke, because each candidate has less than a minute to explain a very important issue. Therefore, when there are more debate opportunities, it is GOOD for voters...not bad, as his statement implies. He is simply not up to the task at hand, and I shudder to think what he would be like as a general election nominee.

I am a Hillary supporter but I am not here to speak bad;ly of Obama. I just feel that if he does not attend the debates he might be forgotten.

Nothing generates comments on the political ticker like ANYTHING to do with Barak Obama.

The Barak Obama truth/spin squad is so virulent in their attacks on Hillary Clinton (even though this article was supposedly about Obama) that I truly wonder where their support will be on election day in November of 2008.

Their tactics are so Republican that I would hate to think they are all or nothing "Barak or nobody". They need to snap out of this personality cult and realize the country cannot take another four years of a Republican president.

I am voting Democratic in November of 2008. I have already made my mind up about that. I hope it is Hillary Clinton, but if it is Barak Obama, or John Edwards, or Bill Richardson then so be it.

This is another example of either lazy reporting or just plain dishonesty. Obama is not refusing to attend the debates, he is calling for a pause on scheduling any NEW debates until late December. He still has 8 more debates between now and late December, which comes to 2 debates per month. He wants to focus a little more time talking to and taking questions from voters.

This sort of dishonest headline is the problem with the media. This is almost as bad as the media falsely reporting that Obama said he would "invade" or "attack" or "bomb" Pakistan...I mean...c'mon people! Did any of you actually even READ the article? Obama is honoring the remaining 8 debates but is saying hold off on scheduling NEW debates.
In typical fashion, this has been distorted by the headline "Obama:Enough with the Debates", which is NOT what Obama said.

Lastly, some people have made the point that Obama made "foreign policy gaffes". Well...if that's the case, then why did CNN bury the video of Hillary Clinton saying the exact same thing about striking at Al Qaeda targets within Pakistan? Candi Crowley asked her what she would do if we knew where Bin Laden was inside Pakistan and she said the same thing Obama said. Then the next day her campaign started attacking Obama. Also, just today, John Edwards said if elected, his first act as president would be to meet directly with Iran's president.(check it out on the NYT website). Will Hillary call Edwards "naive" tomorrow? Somehow I doubt it.
Last week it was finally reported that in 2006, Hillary said nukes would be off the table in terms of Iran, yet she attacked Obama for saying nukes were off the table.

So explain to me how Obama "made mistakes", but Hillary did not when she said the same things?
Never mind, I know you Hillary supporters will NOT address these examples.

You people are sheep indeed.

American woman,

Hillary was a first lady "a few years ago" too and claims she has "experience". So what's your point?

Obama you just lost my vote.

Lance, I really don't know what else needs said. You laid it out beautifully,.....very well done!!!!!

Hey Lance from Monrovia, CA – what a lucid discussion, really astounding and brilliant! I can truly sense the obama passion in your writing! You are an example of what this guy can, will keep doing, and what will indeed take him right into the whitehouse. That day which is surely coming, America will never be the same again!!

Barack Obama is a nice guy. He means well. But a nice, well-intentioned person does not a President make.

Islamic terrorists want a nice guy in the White House, and I do not mean to instill fear. Im just being a realist.

Excuse me, uh... American Woman, can I speak to you for a moment in the corner... uh... guess what?

Bush, Clinton, et al HAVE ALL SAID THE SAME THING ABOUT PAKISTAN. Bush has said he'd go into Pakistan if he had "actionable intelligence" so many times it's been drilled into our heads. Clinton has said the same thing Barrack said as well.

You're being played American Woman, plain and simply played. They're trying to use the same political swift boating they used on Kerry.

The difference, is that Obama refuses to be painted into a corner and actually used the fact that every other candidate backed off going into Pakistan to make himself look like the only strong candidate, the only one that would not cow-tow to foreign interests if American security was at stake.

Noticing that someone sounds more and more inexperienced the more he talks, even to the point of starting an international incident with Pakistan, is not being mean or bitter. It's being conscious and honest. We're voting for President of the United States, here, and some of you people are acting like it's nothing but a Survivor or American Idol show on tv. He's charismatic, he's bright, that is not a good enough reason to vote for someone in that office. He was only a state senator a few years ago, he's just starting out.

However, what do you mean "as in the polls, Hillary's people seem to have the upper hand?"

I've been sitting at the Obama table on and off for three weeks at the Monrovia street fair, and we've outpaced the one guy at Hillary's table many times over. Sometimes people will go first to Hillary's then to Obama's table to check out the info or buy a bumper sticker, as they're still sussing out the candidates, but by far people are more curious about Obama than Hillary.

Why is it that people just don't seem as curious or passionate about Hillary and yet the media constantly tries to crown her as the winning candidate by default, like it's her birth right? Who are these people they're polling anyway? I haven't met them.

I've been trying and trying to think and articulate why I and so many others like Sen. Obama so much and what my major problem with Hillary Clinton is... I've really struggled with this, as I think she'd be an okay president, far better than Bush anyway.

But over the course of my time hanging out at that Obama table at the street fair, its hit me. Now I know why I don't like her nearly as much as Obama or even Edwards.

The reason is...exactly what I said. I think she'd be competent, she'd be okay. We'd skate through the next 8 years without attacking anyone blatantly and there'd be some incremental good done. But...THAT'S NOT WHAT WE NEED!!!

Our next president must be a visionary. We need a leader in the truest sense of the word. It is not the time to be cautious or meek or reactionary about our next President.

Instead of reversing 8 years of damage, I think Hillary Clinton would be too tempted to keep the status quo, keeping things like the patriot act and the overall "war on terror" humming along nicely if it made things as easy politically as it has for Bush.

We don't need another family dynasty playing the same political games our country has suffered from for seven years. That wouldn't serve the country well. We need somebody to come in with an almighty bulldozer and overhaul the system.

Our literal survival is as stake in this next election. We are facing ice caps that are melting, healthcare that's a joke, a world that shows us no compassion and a lot of hate, corporations and foreign interests out of control in large part due to our own acts or lack thereof. We have a culture of greed and instant gratification driven only by profit even at the expense of our kids.

I don't honestly believe that Hillary Clinton has the sheer vision and courage to make the kind of major changes that need to happen. I see it on the faces I see week after week, in the conversations around "the water cooler" and on the internet boards.

She doesn't inspire action.

Even if she logically sees what needs to be done, even if she can talk about it, she can't inspire others to pull it off. I don't believe she'll unite the Congress much less the States. She is not taking on the right, she will drive them to act because despite good intentions that is what she does.

I don't believe she'll overcome her lobbyist buddies to give us all equal and fair healthcare... she couldn't do it before, why now?

I DO believe that Barrack Obama could do those things, especially Obama. I sense a kind of fire in the air around him.

People are exited, motivation is coming from areas inside people they didn't know they had, people that have never engaged in politics, ever, including myself.

He is almost singlehandedly creating an environment that makes voters feel inspired enough to throw down against the system, to finally, gloriously get involved with a broken system and fix it once and for all.

Frankly, Hilary is old school politics and corporate interest in a pink suit. Where others have spoken out loudly against corruption, cronyism and the loss of our rights in the last seven years, she has gotten by, said just enough and no more, and I say that's not enough.

I want to be inspired, I want to be told that Americans can sacrifice with the best, take our knocks and handle the truth. I want the world to know Americans are reasonable and well reasoned people with heart and toughness to spare.

Frankly, Hillary feels like my babysitter instead of my president.

Obama understands the vibe of the 21st century where Hillary is still living in the 90's. She cannot help but be a product of her husband's times, as divisive as they were. I'm so weary of that...

I cried when I heard Obama speak during Kerry's convention, because he was so right, there are no blue or red states, we're all The UNITED STATES.

I don't want the country I love to be known as an imperial empire, a dictatorial regime bringing democracy on the backs of missles and bullets.

I don't need another president that will rationalize and divide with statements like, "if you want to take on the right, I'm your girl." or "I'll get us out of Iraq...unless Al Qaeda is still there."

I'm sick of half speak. Listen close and you'll see Obama isn't doing that.

I want the world to know the good people I know, the honesty I know. I want the sort of knowledge, class and courage that the best politicians in history have given this country. It's time for another Abe Lincoln, another JFK, because only a leader of that caliber can harness the belief currently lying dormant in this country can pull us safely into the future.

I never, ever want to be known as the generation that lost our freedoms to fear and lost our world to neglect and greed.

The worst thing that can happen to the next presidential election is that it’s close. If it’s close, the RNC can use caging, intimidation and voter apathy to steal it yet again. If it’s Hillary, it’s gonna be close, and I'll do what I can to help her too, but I feel it'll be politics as usual, and I'll be scared... as usual.

I do, however, believe that Barrack Obama can inspire what needs to be done. He can not only inspire it, he can pull it off. He can bring a million people to the polls that have never even bothered to vote before.

The Clintons had their chance, lets not live in the past, lets figure out what will make the future.

Obama in '08.

You can start by showing up at Library Park's cardshack tomorrow Sunday August 19, 3pm, in Monrovia, and also by reading Audacity of Hope in your spare time.

The more you learn, the more you listen, the more you'll see.

i think the time has come for the u.s to prove to the rest of the world that they have come of age as regards color or race of an individual so please i want all americans to surpport barack obama because the rest of the world are watching..........

Seems smart to skip forums or debates that limit your speaking time. Obama is a highly intelligent man who understands POLITICS, current and history. He is admired by many people, in and out of politics, many people say he is capable of achieving great things. We need to show Washington and the politicians we are serious about our country, if only Ross Perot would of stayed in we could of giving them the boot in the *** then! I support Obama, we could do no more harm than Bush has done, don't be afraid people!!

Glad Obama made this call – what a charade those "debates" are. To call them "debates" is ridiculous – there was no debate -it was all about sound bites(e.g. Hillary at the AFLCIO "I am your girl"; Hillary at the LGBT "I am your girl"). The "debate" forums so far work well for a candidate without substance but with the great ability to pump a room with hot air. Obama's thoughtful responses are not a good fit for that circus so why waste his time. So good for Obama for skipping many of them and going to the voters instead. I feel quite confident we are going to see a copy-Hil-cat follow suit just like we saw her parroting Obama's comments on Pakistan. BTW, I know someone said earlier that we shouldn't throw rotten tomatoes at Hillary but I am a Republican(supporting Obama) so I don't count. She is just plain awful.

I haven't heard any negative here about Obama that makes sense. There are people who favor other candidates over Obama. Fine. But I haven't seee any thoughtful argument that makes me think the negative comments are coming from thoughtful informed critics.

For sll you crazy nonsense people on here trying to dog Obama.I guarantee you he will walk away with victory in 08. The media is trying so hard to twist his arm they are so bias. I thinki it is true leadership to go out and talk to the voters face to face than continuosly keep on debating the same issues 3-4 times a week. I bet that Hillary will jump ship also. Oh let the Washington Establishment rip one another apart. talk to the people Obama.

Obama is smart. Good move! I know there are a lot of haters, but looking at the most unexpected trajectory that this guy's political rise has taken, I seriously believe we are witnessing history. This guy is the real deal. Wake up America!

this is not surprising. after every debate people are reminded how inexperienced he really is and then he's numbers start to drop.

im sure the 'debates' are just conventional washington ways to him. hahaha it seems like everytime this guy messes up or does something wrong he uses that excuse.

I think the strategy is a good one. Getting face to face with the people prevents what I see in comments on here all the time....people making decisions based on media "sound bites" and what the "talking heads" opinions are, not basing opinions on actually researching the candidates, reading their speeches or taking the time to read what their policies and ideas are. There are so many candidates on the stage that in these debates we only hear from each candidate for about 5 minutes and they aren't all asked the same question.

All in all, making a decision based on sound bites, talking heads and a few minutes in a debate seems ludicrous....most of us would spend more time than that and certainly face to face time before we bought a car. Sometimes the media spin is no better than a smooth talking used car salesman.

Why am I not surprised? Oh, because his debate appearances thus far have been disasterous! I was excited when Obama entered the race. I had high hopes for him. But after seeing him in numerous debates, I must say that I am unfortunately disappointed. Given his performances, this was only a matter of time. The truth is, he just doesn't have the experience (fact) or the policy knowledge (my opinion) to hold his own and we've unfortunately seen it time and time again.

I do think that the response he is getting (from Hillary's camp and others) is legitimate. "So he'll meet with dictators but not the black caucus or seniors in Iowa?" Hard questions like these are ones that Presidents and Presidential Candidates face everyday–and so they should!

This is a shameful tactic. He realizes that this is the only way to avoid another screw up so he better hide. What a coward. He has so many strike outs and this confirms his being a naive nincompoop.

I am encouraged by the continuing openness of Barack Obama, and so happy to see his wife also on the podium yesterday. I also like the approach planned with the campaign. I am convinced it will be the individual voters who will elect Barack Obama. All the best. Audrey Markle

Where are all the people who dissed Gov Romney for not "accepting the invitation" for the youtube debate?

Now that Barack is not "accpeting the invitations" to debate, will you diss him, too?

I feel sorry for Bumbler Obama. When he blurted out that he'd like to invade our ally, he pretty much assured his defeat.

It amuses me that people are pointing out that Hillary Clinton is beating Giuliani 46-43%. People are so disgusted with the Republicans that Hillary or any democrat should beat any Republican by a very wide margin. Those polls can't be right. How can she not have a huge lead?

This is concerning. I am all for political lines (it was how the founders wanted it) but there is a limit. This comment shows neither knowledge of the issues or concern for the overall health of the country. To group people together like that is naive. If your problem is the Bush administration say that. If your problem is against the republican base perhaps debate and conversation would be more beneficial to learn respect for others opinions. However, you seem to be shouting down what a large percentage of people in this country believe because they are titled "republican" and that you think that this title deserves anger is not only foolish but is also close minded.

Let's face it Joliene..."republicans" are responsible for forcing this country through one of the worst terms of any President that has presided over this country (Bush 04-08) by electing him for said term. I think you all have earned the anger of the "rest" of us.

I am surprised by the degree of ignorance shown by many comments in this blog. Please read, think, and then comment. The Obama compaign will participate in several major debates (at least one per month) and a few forums in the next four or five months. That is already a lot! Anything beyond that would be too much. I think the campaign is showing leadership by limiting the debates and forums. The more interesting and important interaction should be listening to the people and directly addressing their concerns rather than competing for forgetable sound bites. The media and some other campaigns are very good at twisting words and distorting sentences to generate "fabricated controversies." After following the presidential campaigns for a few months, I have realized that not only is politics dirty, but also is the media (or run by people who actually do not read and think but only write to attract eyeballs). That is sad!

You have to wonder if Senator Obama has campaign people who sit around and just post comments on CNN. Most of the comments are postive to Sen. Obama and appear to be in the same voice. They should simply come up with a better strategy; like supporting a more experienced candidate.

Obama doesn't do it for me...he's unsure of himself. I feel he's just not ready. He's overrated in my mind.

He protects himself by limiting his debates, but when the field is smaller he has to step up and I think he'll have a tough time.

I support Ron Paul.

I can understand this decision.
Some of these forums really don't reach the broader American people like the CNN/YouTube debates and others; it makes sense to stick to the DNC debates and a smaller variety of others.
The grassroots does need to stay a priority for every campaign.

Why the Obama hate among some people recently? Honestly, why do people practically think he's stupid or naive? He surely isn't, even though he has less experience than some of the others.

People should stop being so bitter toward him, Hillary, and the candidates from both parties. We have to get along with one of these people as President within a year and a half.

This step away from so-called debates will limit the audience for 'Bama's foreign policy gaffes, and cede the lead to What's-her-name. OK by me, so her electable detractors can tear her a new credibility gap.

I was a Obama fan on the beginning; more the i knew about him and more i hear from him i started to question about his ability. He and his campaign spend a lot of time attacking Hillary than telling people about his policy.

I totally agree that if he doesn't participate debate he will be big looser and if he participates too he is always looser anyway.
My vote to Hillary!

I can see the reasons Obama limiting his future debate attendance because (a) he made critical mistakes in front of the national viewers; (b) the polls on the debate candidates peformacne did not give him a good score; (c) he lost his ranking in the immediate democratic polls after the debates.

He does not want future debates to further deteriorate his donations and "fresh and new" image, which some people adore (as towards a baby).

By the way, are we choosing a president or adopting a baby?

Sounds to me like they are afraid like he'll hurt himself by opening his mouth and saying something that will hurt his image that has been created by the media and Obamamites. Smart strategy? I don't think so. The more Clinton is seen in the media and debates, the more people like her:

"The latest poll from Quinnipiac University shows that Hillary Clinton is leading Rudy Giuliani. This is the first time that she has been in the lead. It is a small, margin of 46-43% but the poll also shows that she has increased her favorability rating."

"Clinton leads Senator John McCain by 47-41% and former Senator Fred Thompson by 49-38%. Senator Barack Obama is in a tie with Giuliani at 42%, leads McCain by a margin of 43 – 39% and Thompson by 46-35%."

Clinton is CLEARLY the candidate that can beat the Republicans.

The Debate in Iowa had the focus group, which the powers that be put together to vote on who won that debate. At the conclusion they voted Barack Obama won the debate. The NEWS Media then spun it and said Hillary won. They buried the story that the focus group picked Obama. Had the focus group picked Hillary the powers that be would have shown each focus group members face FOREVER on the news touting that Hillary won. Good move Obama. You see that winning the peoples votes. As in the focus groups example is what counts. The media is playing a “they want Hillary to win game”. LET THEM PLAY BY THEMSELVES. You win were it counts THE PEOPLES VOTES !!

Personally, i think that 99 % of the people posting messages in here are ridiculous. Many of you play into the hand of the media, who give you a portion of the story and spin it to benefit specific people. I doubt many of you read beyond CNN's website, and if you think that makes you an informed voter, you are sadly mistaken.

And Obama has a degree from Columbia in Poli-Sci with a focus in international relations... so what qualifies anyone in this blog to classify him as inexperienced in foreign policy? Clinton's experience led her to vote for the Iraq resolution and AGAINST the Levin resolution.... She's a phony.

"All I said is to point your anger at the people that really deserve it…The republicans."
~Evan Esteves

This is concerning. I am all for political lines (it was how the founders wanted it) but there is a limit. This comment shows neither knowledge of the issues or concern for the overall health of the country. To group people together like that is naive. If your problem is the Bush administration say that. If your problem is against the republican base perhaps debate and conversation would be more beneficial to learn respect for others opinions. However, you seem to be shouting down what a large percentage of people in this country believe because they are titled "republican" and that you think that this title deserves anger is not only foolish but is also close minded.

This is counter-productive to me. When you're in a debate that appears on televisions nationwide, I think your chance for success in the polls will increase slightly IN EVERY STATE(including the important ones), as long as you perform well. That, and what better way is there of knowing which candidates are more distinctive than the other? You put them on a stage and have them debate each other.

And yes, declaring Hillary Clinton the winner debate after debate is a little retarded, unprofessional, and unfair on the media's part. A lot of people are too lazy to actually watch the debates and will just check with the news to see who won, hence an unfair advantage to the candidate that has the most media outlets singing their* praises.

I mean, if more people actually WATCHED the debates, they'd notice that even the low-tier candidates have their fiery moments(Kucinich at the labor debate, Biden has had many times outshining the others even in the CNN ones, etc) that can win some people over.

In a nutshell : Give all candidates fair credit/coverage, and not in ascending to descending based on what their spot is in opinion polls.

*her.

Good idea! That way he won't have to spend so much time pulling his feet out of his mouth.

It appears Hilary supporters and Republicans on this board have problem with comprehension. He said he will attend 5 DNC and 2 Iowa debates between now and December. Come on your idiots READ AND COMPREHEND

I am not surprised by Obama's decision. Obama made two huge mistakes for the Foreign Policy, also Anti-Hillary video, memo about Hillary and attacked another candidate from same party. He lied or denied to us, he didn't realize his big mistakes for a month, now he knew what he did wrong, so shut his mouth and escape from all of attacks about his inexperiences. Now he is trying to be careful about his speech I think but it is too late, everybody heard and talked about it. You can't make yourself great, your experience and career will. Obama needs at least 10 more years hard work at IL Senator and then may be...

Ron Paul Also Wins Big in New Hampshire
8/18/07

Ron Paul won big earlier today in Alabama. He also won big in New Hampshire this afternoon.

Dr. Paul received 208 votes (73%) for a landslide victory against Mitt Romney today at the Strattford County, New Hampshire straw poll. Romney received 26 votes. Mike Huckabee came in third with 20 votes.

Tancredo (8 votes), McCain (7 votes), Cox (5 votes), Hunter (5 votes), Thompson (5 votes), Giuliani (3 votes) and Brownback (1 vote) finished the field.

As noted earlier, Ron Paul received 216 votes for a commanding first-place finish in a straw poll today sponsored by the West Alabama Republican Assembly. Mitt Romney came in second with 14 votes.

The poll was open to Alabama residents.

I am not American. So I cannot vote. I do not express my opinions.

I have noticed, reviewing your comments, a peculiar trend. Comments directed to Mr. Obama's are definetly sympathetic. Those directed to Ms Rodham-Clinton are mixed, but, in number, always quadruple or quintuple Mr Obama's.

I think this is great. You have to prioritize or else you won't get anything done. The way the media spins things Hillary will win the debates anyway, but I have news for you, especially the media. The general masses of folks could care less about who wins a debate. The general masses are hungry for change, NOW! Winning a debate and making false promises is more of the same.

By now what they all say is fairly predictable. I can see cutting back on the debates, at least until the field is narrowed a little, which will happen with or without debates.

Obviously, the Obama clan realizes that he has no idea what he's talking about, and they need him to keep his mouth shut and prevent further screwups.

Predictably, Hillary Clinton's camp is attacking Obama on this...wow...such a shock!

From Time.com:

The spinning has already started. A source close to the Clinton campaign fired a zinger off quickly: "So he'll meet with dictators but not the black caucus or seniors in Iowa?"

Hillary's people are beyond absurd.

Well, of course he's done debating. He's an empty suit. Obama seems like a nice dude, but I need to hear some hard policy and not all these useless platitudes about how we need "change" and "unity." Anybody can win votes telling people that we should just all get along. It takes true guts to really step out and weather controversy. Where's the beef, Obama?

Hey I'm not a big Hillary fan, but I as a democrat know that any democratic candidate is better than the republican field that is out there (including Fred Thompson), but you have pointed out to the fact that you don't like Obama supporters in another thread as well...Yet you will ask them to come together for Hillary if she does win the nomination. All I said is to point your anger at the people that really deserve it...The republicans.

Keep on keeping on! I am on your side.

Everyone else is free to attend all of the debates they like. What will be interesting is how many will there be and how many people will come with out him there.

Biden and Dodd didn't attend the Gay and Lesbian debate, Mike G didn't attend the AFLCIO and nothing was said. If he is such a loser then his presence shouldn't matter.

Afterall didn't Hillary and John say they wanted smaller debates with fewer people on the stage? be careful what you ask for

Hold on a minute there, Senator!

It's OK for Barack Obama to turn down an invitation; but Gov Romney declines Communist News Network – oops I mean CNN's loser debate and he gets ripped apart.

Obama is not a real contender. He's a pretender. After his immaturish remarks about sending US troops onto Pakistan soil and strike targets to catch Bin Laden, the guy really shows his lack of international affairs acumen. Even fellow Democrats were shaking their heads on that one. He's a great senator and local politican, and let's keep it that way. I don't think he has the seniority or political pull to gather and lead the nation.

I learned that tactic in elementary school. It was called "Duck and Cover."

Chip & Alex -

I don’t think Mike Gravel is a “whack job” at all, and I shouldn’t have singled him out. I have great respect for his courage and accomplishments, particularly the filibuster you mentioned, the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act and his efforts to bring the Pentagon Papers to light. Here is a link to his campaign web site:

http://www.gravel2008.us/#

But I do think there are too many podiums on the stage and we have to draw the line somewhere. There are literally thousands of minor Presidential candidates. I want equal opportunity for everyone to get their voice heard, but ultimately we need to compare those who might actually get elected. I recognize this is tricky business and I’m not sure of my own opinion on this issue, but please know I’m not trying to limit democracy.

I enjoy both your postings. And once again, my apologies to Senator Gravel.

"Van…every thread you post in about Obama you seem to hate on him..."
Posted By Evan Esteves, Boca Raton, FL : August 18, 2007 3:46 pm

Where do you read, "Hate", in my post?
Where are you when the Obama supporters heap real hate on Senator Clinton on this site every day? I look forward to seeing you tell the Hillary-haters to cease and desist, because, "we're Democrats.". It isn't just republicans who hurl hate-speech at Senator Clinton. I will keep defending her and pointing out the double-standard that exists when it comes to comments about the two candidates. I invite you to join me in defending ALL the candidates from hateful rhetoric.

Van

David said: I like having lots of debates, but I do think there are too many candidates on stage. There has to be a cut-off somewhere and I’m not sure it serves us as voters to give Mike Gravel equal time with candidates who might actually become President.

Way to limit voters options there, David.
Too many candidates on stage? Simple solution. Have 2 debates on the same day. Both debates should be 2 hours, contain half the candidates (drawn by lottery). Then do it again the same day with the other half.

This way you don't "shut-out" candidates that should be heard. Every candidate running for the democratic nomination is more than qualified to be President.

Mike Gravel? You mean the Senator who waged a one-man filibuster for five months, forced the Nixon administration to cut a deal, effectively ending the draft?
The same guy who released the Pentagon Papers (the secret official study that revealed the lies and manipulations of administrations that misled the country into the Vietnam War)?

Yeah, let's not let him speak. Let's get rid of Richardson and Kuchinich, too. We don't need any choices in candidates.

Finally someone steps up and says something about this crazy schedule. I'm a diehard, but this was becoming way too much.

Thanks Senator Obama! Leading the way once again.

BTW, even the Republicans were making fun of all the debates the democrats were doing....I totally agree.

I flipped C-SPAN on a little earlier and they were showing Obama at a campaign event in Iowa. I'm sorry I turned the show on too late to see his speech, but I did catch him walking through the crowd.. He was late to an appearance somewhere else but took the time to stop and talk to the people and the stuff I heard him saying was reasoned, and he didn't talk down to the people. The best quality of his that came through to me was he actually listened to the people and replied based on the question, not in sound bites.

David, Salinas, I enjoy your posts but must wonder about your statement "I’m not sure it serves us as voters to give Mike Gravel equal time with candidates who might actually become President".

You may think he's a whack job (or not) but how will you know until you can compare and contrast?

Have a great day,

Chip

Obama Goodby – So long do not let the door hit you in the --

Van...every thread you post in about Obama you seem to hate on him and his "DEMOCRATIC" supporters...what's your beef man? Lighten up, we're Democrats, the Obama followers aren't Republicans...save your attacks for them

I agree with the sentiments preceding my post. I watched Obama's appearance in Cedar falls this past wednesday (thanks CSPSAN!), and the best questions do come from regular people. He took questions from republicans, democrats and independents in the audience, and his responses were very thorough, direct and unscripted. More of that kind of candor is what we need, not soundbites from debates that the media will tell us Hillary won even when actual voters in focus groups say otherwise.

I like Obama, (and the rest of the Democratic candidates as well). But I don’t see this as a good strategy. If Obama is in the lead and doesn’t debate the other candidates get to take free shots and call him chicken. If he’s trailing, the others ignore him and the voters forget he exists. Either way he loses.

Personally, I like having lots of debates, but I do think there are too many candidates on stage. There has to be a cut-off somewhere and I’m not sure it serves us as voters to give Mike Gravel equal time with candidates who might actually become President.

I think this is an excellent decision. It's unfortunate that no matter if Hillary gets booed or focus groups have decided that Sen. Obama was the clear winner, MSM so-called politcal pundits (former Clinton adversors) will continue to say Hillary won. Now watch Hillary follow suit as she always does.

I am sure that if this headline said, "Clinton to Limit Future Debate Appearances", that the same people posting what a great idea it is, would be singing a different tune.

He didn't do very well in an unscripted format, lost every debate to Senator Clinton, and is now seeking to cut his losses. Good for him.

Van

I am proud the Obama Camp. This debate mess is so bias for HIllary. No matter how many mistakes she make the media is going to say she won.

Hillary is a Joke. Let her destroy herself.

Good.

There are way too many debates anyway. Obama should limit his debates to just the meaningful ones and the DNC sactioned debates. That's all. This other stuff is meaningless and before the debate get's going, the Media has already decided that Hillary won despite the polls after that show that Obama or Edwards won. So, why be in them? Hillary has already won them all according to the Media.

This is a good strategy by the Obama Campaign. I think it's important to spread out the different campaining methods because not everyone is able to view or attend events and they deserve to hear from the candidates too.

You can't poll and debate your way to the White House. At some point, you have to talk to the actual voters one on one. I expect to see other canidiates scale back on debates as well. In the mean time, Hillary and Edwards should be happy that they now have an additional 5 to 10 whole minuets to debate seeing that they wanted to limit the mumber of people in the first place. LOL

What a great idea. Mr. Obama can indeed spend quality time getting to know the voters up close and personal. He can also not be as concerned about the nitpicking which has become quite irritating and noticeable. Finally, overexposture will not be an issue since by now, real political observers practially know what each will say as soon as the question is asked. The question is, how will his non-participation affect the other candidates since they all seem to want to make him the punching bag. I applaud Mr. Obama for this strategy.