McCain and Obama Both Refuse ABC’s Offer
American network ABC offered Senators John McCain and Barack Obama to sponsor a town-hall meeting. The meeting would, then, be broadcasted live by ABC. The network would organize it all and, in return, it would be the only channel allowed to broadcast the event live. Both Senators, however, rejected the invitation.
The reason both rejected it is not that both are afraid of town-halls. John McCain asked Obama a while ago whether he would be willing to do ten, or so, town-hall meetings with him and, after initial hesitance, Obama seems to have agreed.
No, the reason is that both campaigns say that if they do town-hall meetings, they want it to be open to all networks at the same time. They wish to do real town-hall meetings, as known from the old days.
There is disagreement about the format though; John McCain wants to do it the way Barry Goldwater and JFK wanted to do it in the 1960s (before the latter was murdered), while Obama wants to copy the style of Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas. The difference? Well, the Obama campaign says that this structure would allow for lengthier meetings, which would be less structured. As I understand it though, the second part of their reasoning is false; McCain’s proposal would be far less structured, and it would leave more room for improvisation.
This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.
Comments are closed.
PoliGazette Comments Policy
PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree.
Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate
these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors.
Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue
publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.
(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly
or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that
respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should
not be posted.
(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.
(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional
reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.
(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not
include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement
the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.
(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements.
Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or
that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat
slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.
Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors
by email only.
Probably for the best. Have it on their own terms, so it doesn’t become the 22 debate debacle of the primary season.