in fact I am sure the front runners are happy about this, as they "too" would like to spend more time with voters, fundraise, etc.

I have no complaints.  I think people were discussing the politicas of this.  I didn't get a sense cared one way or another personally about whether Obama would participate.

Obviously, since you are directing people who support other candidates, it doesnt REALLY affect us because if Obama spends more time with us, it wont really change our support.

BUT that isnt the point. The point is that there are some constituents who are holding endorsements because they want to hear from candidates, and not showing up will seem like a snub to them.

This ISNT the same as Edwards/Clinton saying they want to limit the NUMBER of PEOPLE to get more SUBSTANTIVE debates.

Clinton and Edwards have managed to make more forums than Obama, while campaigning very hard in town halls, living rooms, and diners.  Add that to Clinton still serving in the Senate, introducing legislation, and having missed less votes than ANYONE ELSE RUNNING WHO IS A SENATOR, it comes off as a little shady and lazy on Obama.

Running for President isnt a cake walk, its hard work. Its time consuming, its taxing on your mind and body.

But guess what, this is JUST THE BEGINNING. Its only the primary, this isnt even the halfway mark.

Its a bad move IMO.

Ask yourself this question,

If Hillary Clinton had done what Obama did what would your reaction have been ?

Don't blame supporters of others reacting the way they did , this is a campaign

Hillary/Edwards took her hit when they were caught discussing changing the format by the likes of the same people who are giving Obama a pass now.

By the way voters watch these debates/forums hence your argument isn't that right. I will suggest that the reason he is limiting also has a lot to do with his performance at these debates.

Debates/Forums are all part of the process and if he feels he has to limit it then it reflects poorly on him.

However I really am not bothered if he limits it , because there is a point to it that these forums are a lot in number , but lets not act like if it was another candidate you won't be ripping into the candidate , it so happens its a candidate you back. This is politics and there is a lot of politicking and hypocrisy to go around.

To read your diary, and especially your poll, one would think ALL non-Obama supporters are angry with him or ar spinning what he's doing, and that's simply not true. When you tar the non-Obama supporters who are ok with his announcement with the same criticisms as you do the spinners, you're no better than those spinners.

I had not even heard about this.  Frankly, I'm glad because I think there have been too many and I think the lesser candidates have been using the front runners to get themselves an audience they not have otherwise and it's not the frontrunners' responsibility to promote the other candidates when it is a burden on them to have so many.  I hope Hillary does the same, she does extremely well but at some point, debate fatigue is going to set in, even for her.  In her book, Hillary points out meeting the voters is the way to go, she doesn't like a lot of ads, so I think freeing up some of her time in this would be good for her.

I am not angry at all. LOL. This will only be good news for Hillary, it gives her the flexibility to go to forums at her wish. Why should I be upset?

I am anticipating the reaction of the other campaigns. If they happen to agree with Sen. Obama what will be the reaction on this website?  I imagine there will be no name calling then.

I remember 4 yrs. ago everyone got sick of the debates.  By the time they were up to 11 or 12, the candidates and the media were just going thru the motions and and trying not to do any damage.  I don't know why they schedule so many?  I can't bear the idea of WATCHING all these debates/forums, and I doubt you can find three people in the entire country who will.  After a while it is boring and repetitive and like anything else, once it's over saturated, it loses it's impact and effectiveness.  If its supposed to be a means of helping voters decide the best candidate(s), less may actually be more.  The DNC needs to have maybe 1/2 dozen 3 hr. debates and have the various constituencies combine their efforts and have the candidates answer the ?'s related to that particular groups concerns 1hr for each group.  ANYTHING is better than this death by a thousand debates torture that goes on every 4 yrs.  Besides, IMO Al Gore and John Kerry clearly won every debate against GW Dumbass and what did it get them?

Hillary has done well at each debate, but I bet if you could be a fly on the wall, she would be more than happy to cut down on some of these things.  I fact, I'm sure they all would.

Stupid decision by Obama.  He is so NOT ready to be President.

And Obama is showing desperation in my mind.  He is going to put all his eggs in 3 baskers and hope for 1 win before he has to give his concession speech (after SC).

First of all I am not angry with Obama's decision. Every candidate has to make strategic decisions and he has decided to limit his interactions in forums/debates. I personally think it is a dumb decision but I am not the one making it. I like that we are having so many forums/debates. I would like to see more of the same.