1) A candidate who is faltering like the earlier Clinton campaign (you can have the opinion it is faltering now, but let’s factor that out) needs to challenge Obama to more TV debates to grab air time. This is what she did earlier this year. The candidate in the lead can shoot them down and say no as part of their strategy of saying, “Naw, we’re good. Thanks.” Obama did that.

2) A candidate who is damaged by earlier debates can refuse providing a counter by the opposing candidate, which might be “smug.” Or the candidate saying, “see look at that. Is candidate Y able to face the fire?”

I think both camps and those not aligned to camps can honestly say that over 21 hours of debate air time, really!? Really!? Is that needed?

Speaking to you point re: Stephanopoulos, it would take a fool to admit that George’s intentions were not nefarious at best. I would, however, like to point out that earlier debates, hell I can’t even keep count anymore, were hard on Clinton because of pro-Obama moderators (I am not saying media conspiracy). The debate sponsored by Politico.com and CNN put a pro-Obama Politico.com writer as a moderator who was all over Clinton.

This is what happens, sadly, especially in a ratings driving media culture.

Nevertheless, thanks for your follow up!

I feel that THIS particular debate, in isolation was a character assasination. Especially given the past history of George Stephanopoulos and Hillary Clinton. Furthermore, the fact that a Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly gave kudos to Stephanopoulos makes me further leery of the debate.

And you’re right: this was debate number 21, I mean seriously, there’s no need for them. I was actually quite mad that Obama agreed to these last two, I fail to see what else can be accomplished. It seems to be a Clinton strategy to do debates and then come off as smug when a debate is denied.

Most of the campaign for the nomination has focused on Hillary’s qualities.

20+ prior debates Obama had the chance to talk about issues, but demurred.