Good.
The more discussion of issues effecting us all, the better.
As far as I am concerned, they should have discussions/debates after a nominee is selected, and after a president is elected. We need something much better than a president who makes decisions without the public having any real idea of what the president is thinking.
Bush's press conferences have been mostly propaganda mills, devoid of the give and take of a discussion.

These debates are more tolerable if you read HP's blogs on them. Neither BHO nor HRC speak as rapidly as some of us can read a transcript of a debate, analysis or a summary of a debate. I plan to miss listening to or watching the debates as usual. Print always beats the ever so slow audio.

"Senator Clinton, do I have your permission to ask you the first question? I promise it will be about healthcare, and if you let me ask you the first question more than once, I promise to shut off Senator Obama's microphone everytime he tries to mention your vote on Iraq".

WORD from Bill Clinton's former counsel:

Craig: The point that I am making is that her claims of the nature of that experience are overstated. The fact is she did not sit in on national security meetings. She did not have a security clearance. She did not attend meetings in the situation room. She conducted no negotiations. She did not manage any part of the national security bureaucracy. She did not have her own national security staff. That's the fact. Now the experience that she did have -- watching and sometimes sitting in the room where discussions were going on and also meeting heads of state and foreign ministers -- that is good experience, and it's invaluable to understanding how the world works when it comes to international organizations as well as international negotiations.

It is known that ABC is in the bag for Clinton, think Stephanopolus and the Como, so watch for the favoritism poised towards Clinton, who of course will play the gender victim card in her favor.

The only one I trust at ABC is Charlie Gibson, who seems to be a man of honor and integrity and will make every effort to have a fair debate. A debate of fairness is all we ask.

This is absolutely ridiculous.

These will be debates #21 and 22. That is at least 27 hours of footage for any viewer to review. It's pointless to watch them debate for 45 minutes on an insignificant dispute as to how to attain universal health-care, and pander to the individual states only to retract the statement a week later.

"We love NAFTA" in Texas, but "We hate NAFTA in Ohio." They are both guilty of this and insults the intelligence of all that watch.

Here's an idea: let Geraldine Ferraro debate Jeremiah Wright - in a tub of grape jelly. THAT I will watch.

I live in a suburb of Philadelphia. Our county paper has a feature where people can call in anonymously and the paper will print what they say. Yesterday someone called in reminding republicans they can register as democrats and vote for Hillary in the primary and then re-register as republicans for the fall. The republicans want Hillary as the nominee. They dont want to run against Obama. The newspaper screens these calls. I cant believe that they printed this Limbaugh strategy crap. I hope someone asks Hillary about this during the Pa. debate.

Frickin' weasels!!! BASH!!!

NO! NO MORE DEBATES! WHAT IS THE POINT?! We already know everything we need to know about each of their positions on all the issues.

Instead: DUEL IN PENNSYLVANIA

PISTOLS IN NORTH CAROLINA

Even 500 rummy would be more interesting...

Hello-o-o-o-o-o?

Hillary just wants a place to ambush Obama.

Hi Kev, hi Chi, been over on the PRO-OBAMA GOVERNORS CHALLENGE HILLARY thread for a while, hot for about an hour, big fight, was here about two hours ago, have you seen AdLib, don't like this new Obama-Clinton debate idea, bad.

Hey Bots.........

I bet All this MSM coverage of the "racist' Rev. Wright will shake up the Iowa County Conventions re-allocation of delegates on Saturday........Anyone wanna take that bet??

You do know that Iowa is EXTREMELY religious and i am sure Rev Wrights comments about White people [iowa is mostly white ya know] will definitely not sit very well at all ....... : D

( rubbing my hands together in anticipation for saturday!! )

Hillary does not have anything new to offer and that is why she has stooped so low to an attack mode to divide this country, to win at any cost dragging down the democratic party with her. I can't stand watching two days of debate with this monster.

anyone who thinks al gore has any clout to tell hillary to quit is crazy. no one in the party can tell her to drop out. there is no goldwater to hillary's nixon. gore, pfffff, who would gore be in this party if not for bill clinton? he tried running for president in 1988, and after everyone finished laughing, he dropped his bid. he was a going-nowhere senator who got as far as he did because of his dad. until clinton plucked him out of thin air, gore was a nobody. so who else you say? ted kennedy? hahaha no chance. first, he is biased because he endorsed obama, and second, he challenged a sitting president and went all the way to conventon bashing him all the way. he is in no position to open is mouth. kerry? nope, he lost, the clintons are winners, he has zero credibility with them. jimmy carter? well maybe if he wasn't the worst democratic president ever he could, but no, not when she is married to the far more successful democratic president. speaker pelosi or leader reid? ahahhahahahahahaha might as well throw in chairman dean and make it a loser trifecta with those two. can you imagine howard freaking dean telling the clintons what to do. this time, the dean scream will because bill clinton just threw him out of a window. in the end, only bill has the stature in the party to tell her to quit, and he wouldn't dare. after everything he's done to her, he better just stay supportive and be quiet, and really do you think he can even deal with the idea of living with her if she loses? yikes! he is gonna fight harder then she will. face it guys, no one can tell her to quit. NO ONE. only one person can do the job, barack obama. he must beat her, soundly and convincingly. nothing else will do. she will not give him the nod. he has to take it from her. he failed in new hampshire. he failed on super tuesday. he failed in ohio and texas. looks like he will fail in pennsylvania, and again and again in a michigan/florida re-do. that leaves one last battlefield: denver. he's gonna have to win the convention floor fight, rally the superdelegates in a huge bloc, or give a speech ala 'the west wing' that gets all the delegates together on the second or third ballot. he's gonna have to beat her, not lead her. until he does, she's going nowhere.

Interesting insider story about the three Senators return to the Hill today. Check out the link:

"In his recent appearances in the Senate chamber, Mr. Obama is often surrounded by the two senators from North Dakota, Kent Conrad and Byron Dorgan, both of whom have endorsed him. Indeed, he was chatting with them when Mr. Reid the majority leader came up behind him and jokingly body-checked Mr. Obama, knocking him slightly off balance. Mr. Obama then put an arm around the leader’s shoulder. Mr. Obama has also spent a lot of time during his recent appearances on the Senate floor conversing with Senator Barbara Boxer of California, who has yet to back a candidate. At one point, Mr. Obama playfully tapped the much shorter Ms. Boxer several times on the head of with a rolled up batch of papers that he was carrying."

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/13/multitasking-on-capitol-hill/