yovargas wrote:Can anybody come up with similarly questionable material on Obama?
The Clinton campaign certainly has tried. The best they have come up with is accusing him of representing slum lord Tony Rezko. But this accusation actually supports soli's assertion that the Clintons are perfectly willing to go the low road by distorting the facts. Here are the true facts. Upon graduating from Harvard Law School, Obama got a job working for a civil rights law firm, Miner Barnhill & Galland (despite the fact that, as the first African-American president of the Harvard Law review, could have named his job at any major law firm or corporate legal department in America), where he represented community organizers, discrimination victims and black voters trying to force a redrawing of city ward boundaries. During his tenure at Miner Barnhill, the firm accepted the representation of the Woodlawn Preservation and Investment Corp., a nonprofit group that redeveloped a run-down property on Chicago's South Side. Mr. Rezko, not the client of the firm, was assisting Woodland with City housing redevelopment projects. As a junior associate, Mr. Obama was asked by his supervising attorney, William Miceli, to do about five hours of basic due diligence and document review. That began and ended his involvement in the case.
No one who has ever practiced law, could argue, with a clear conscience, that these five hours on behalf of a church group that partnered with a man who at a later point in time would be alleged to be a scoundrel equated to knowingly representing a Chicago slumlord. Yet Clinton could not resist leveling the accusation.
The commentators, newspersons and pundits I've heard generally seem to agree that Clinton is better at the debates than Obama, that she has a greater grasp of the issues, facts and details.
The commentary about the debates has been fairly evenly split. The main reason that the Clinton camp is pushing more debates is that Obama raised so much more money than she did in January (over $30 million to $13.5 million, mostly through a mind-bogglingly large number of small donations) that she needs the free air time of the debates to counteract the fact that he will be able to greatly outspend her on ads.
1. Do Obama supporters think voters in the upcoming primaries should have the opportunity to see the two candidates in additional debates?
I'm not a big fan of the debate format, which encourages quick sound bytes rather than extensive policy statements. However it is better with only the two candidates remaining.
2. If Obama refuses to debate, what would Obama supporters think of that?
It depends on the circumstances. I'll cross that bridge if and when it appears. It's an interesting dynamic, though. Because usually it is the frontrunner that wants to avoid debates and the challenger that wants them.
Edit to add: I have no doubt that a lot of the stories that soli is reporting about Clinton are exxagerated to greater or lesser extent, though there clearly is a germ (or more than a germ) of truth in them. And despite my suspicions about her law career and corporate history, she has done a lot of awfully good things over the years. Indeed, she is a good example of someone who has balanced a high-powered (and high-paying) corporate legal career with significant community service, particularly in the crucial areas of children's welfare and women's rights.
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."