What I wouldn't give to be in the audience for this.

GOP strategist Karl Rove and former Democratic vice presidential candidate John Edwards will debate the issues of the presidential campaign Sept. 26 as part of the university's Distinguished Speakers Series, The Buffalo News has learned.

As surrogates for the parties' standard bearers, the two also could square off more than once at other locations around the nation.

"We're working on something like that for our Distinguished Speakers Series," said Bill Regan, UB's director of special events. "We're not really sure of the format yet. But we do think they are scheduled to do it at least once together before they come to UB."

One piece of advice for Edwards: watch your debates with Cheney from 2004...and do the opposite. I hope we see fierce trial lawyer guy come out against Rove rather than tactful polite but tough guy from the presidential debates last year. This is not the time to be respectful, this is the time to take Rove out.

No pressure though.

I agree with Nate at FiveThirtyEight that the fact that Edwards would agree to what looks to be a series of appearances at all that close to the election is pretty much a sign that we're not going to be seeing an Edwards as Veep redux.

Committing to a series of high-profile and sure to be much-discussed debates with Karl Rove is a great way to stay important in the Democratic Party; it's also a telegraphed sign that Edwards knows the answer to whether he'll be the pick.

While, as all of you know, I was a fervent Hillary Clinton supporter during this campaign. However, if Obama's gonna be the nominee, he's gonna be the nominee. I believe John Mccain is trying to get free media time by throwing out the idea of these debates. It sounds really nice, like a true "new style of politics." However, it is a trap. It is an attempt to get free media and air time. It is a substitute for campaigning, which the soon to be 72 year old is not terrible good at or up to. Obama should not take the debates. We should make McCain attempt to move his old self around the country, because it will be harder for him to do so. He would get more publicity than all commercials and ads combined. Also, Obama needs to perfect his debate skills. We all saw in the Obama-Clinton debates, she commanded the issues, Obama stuttered. taking McCain's offer would be a fatal mistake. He already made a good decision by going back on his initial offer, now not accepting public funds leaving McCain in the money dust. He MUST keep McCain in the debate dust. I strongly urge him against doing these debates. Goldwater wanted to do this with Kennedy for the same reason: because it would have enhanced his chances of winning. Kennedy agreed because re-election would have been tough for him in 1964 because of the Civil Rights issue. LBJ didn't have the problem because of the mourning of JFK.

McCain sent a letter to Obama today proposing a series of weekly townhall-style debates to run throughout the summer.  Here is the relevant passage:

I propose these town hall meetings be as free from the regimented trappings, rules and spectacle of formal debates as possible, and that we pledge to the American people we will not allow the idea to die on the negotiation table as our campaigns work out the details. I suggest we agree to participate in at least ten town halls once a week with the first on June 11 or 12 in New York City at Federal Hall until the week before the Democratic Convention begins at locations to be determined by our campaigns. Federal Hall is particularly fitting as it was the place where George Washington took the oath of office as our first President and the birthplace of American government hosting the first Congress, Supreme Court and Executive Branch offices. These town halls should be attended by an audience of between two to four hundred selected by an independent polling agency, could be sixty to ninety minutes in length, have very limited moderation by an independ ent local moderator, take blind questions from the audience selected by the moderator and allow for equally proportional time for answers by each of us. All of these are suggestions that can be finalized by our campaigns. What is important is that we commit to participate in these history making meetings to join in the higher level of discourse that Americans clearly would prefer.

As a political junkie and a policy wonk, I want to see this happen simply for the entertainment value.  It would be a great debate format and a huge departure from the painfully scripted and lifeless debates that we will probably see in the fall.  However...

More background on this race can be found in my previous diaries here or at the Iowa progressive community blog Bleeding Heartland.

A little more than two weeks before the Democratic primary in Iowa's third Congressional district, Ed Fallon has challenged Congressman Leonard Boswell to shift his support as a superdelegate from Hillary Clinton to Barack Obama.

It's a shrewd move for several reasons.

First, Iowa's third district went for Obama in January, as today's press release from Fallon underscores:

Fallon says, "Even though Hillary Clinton finished behind Barack Obama and John Edwards in the Third Congressional District, Congressman Boswell continues to ignore the will of the majority by saying he will cast his superdelegate vote for Clinton."

Fallon worked with John Edwards through the Iowa Caucuses and then endorsed Barack Obama in February. Fallon says, "Both Obama and Edwards are people whose principles reflect my belief that we need to get big money out of politics and stand up to the special interests to accomplish real change in this country. It's time to come together and focus on defeating John McCain in November."

Most of the Iowa Democratic Party establishment is backing Boswell (including many of Obama's high-profile endorsers). However, the activists who are strong Obama supporters clearly lean toward Fallon.

As I've written before, Fallon yard signs are often seen in the same yards as the Obama "HOPE" signs, while Boswell's yard signs are frequently paired with Hillary signs. Just last weekend I was with a friend who has both the Obama and Fallon signs in her yard on a busy corner. She was an Obama captain in a large Des Moines precinct. Her job takes her to many neighborhoods in the metro area, and she told me she hasn't seen any yards with signs for HOPE and Boswell (I have heard of a couple of those) or yards with signs for Fallon and Hillary (I have seen that combination only once).

Any further publicity that aligns Fallon with Obama, and Boswell with Clinton, can't hurt the challenger and may even sway some undecided Democrats.

Second, Obama is coming back to Des Moines this Tuesday for a victory rally on the night when he is expected to win a majority of the Democratic Party's pledged delegates. This will surely be a big media event.

Fallon spoke at a Nation for Change rally supporting Obama in Des Moines last month. Although Fallon will probably not be able to address the crowd this coming Tuesday, Obama's visit may generate some media coverage about which prominent Iowans are supporting Obama, and which are still with Clinton.

Third, since Boswell has rejected all invitations to debate, Fallon will not have many more opportunities to trip up the incumbent before the June 3 primary. Today's challenge is a way to shift the media narrative toward a subject less favorable to Boswell.

Speaking of debates, Boswell has said he could not spare the time for them because he is too busy working on the farm bill and other legislation. But Congress has already sent the farm bill to President Bush and is likely to be in recess during the last week in May. It's too bad that Boswell can't be straightforward about his reasons for not debating Fallon.

A final note before I end this post: after trying for more than a week, I have so far been unable to get any comment from Boswell's campaign or his Congressional office on whether Boswell was the Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee who on May 8 supported a Republican effort to add the Senate version of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (which includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies) to the fiscal 2009 Intelligence authorization bill.

I am still trying to get someone who works for Boswell to confirm or deny this speculation and will bring you up to date on this in my next post on the IA-03 primary.

Meanwhile, I welcome your comments and questions.

Less than a month before the Democratic primary to represent Iowa's third district, Ed Fallon is trying to make Congressman Leonard Boswell either debate him or pay a political price for refusing to debate.

Join me after the jump for more on that and other recent developments in the race.

I'm covering this campaign more frequently and in more detail at the Iowa progressive community blog Bleeding Heartland.

Just a short diary for those who missed it, story picked up by Politico's Michael Calderone:

Hillary Clinton will appear in a live town hall meeting Sunday on ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopoulos."

Just two days before the primaries, ABC's town hall event will be broadcast live from Indiana, and also include viewer questions from North Carolina. "This Week" host Stephanopoulos is moderating.

ABC News has also extended offers to both Sen. Barack Obama and John McCain, according to a network spokesperson.

I read Jonathan's post on the "Lincoln-Douglas Debate" proposal with a lot of interest. It's a topic that fits into a bigger question on the role of debates. If we put aside the merits and drawbacks of the Lincoln-Douglas format, what's abundantly clear is that nobody has been completely satisfied with this cycle's debates. Republicans were annoyed with the questions selected for the CNN YouTube debate, while Democrats have been consistently unimpressed with the efforts of network moderators. We all remember the famous Dodd Clock, which laid out the lack of speaking time for the unfashionable candidates. Clearly, the debates we're having have a lot of shortcomings.

All of this unhappiness could be resolved if the moderators would just picked better questions. Unfortunately, that's not going to happen. While I'm sure the networks would love to stop catching criticism, the most loyal debate viewers are political junkies who follow the political horse race plot lines. Their ratings are their vindication. For all the criticism of last week's ABC debate, it was the most watched of the election cycle. We need a big rethink on debates.

Some people think the CNN YouTube debates were progress, but their were also some valid concerns that they were only superficially different from the standard MSM fare. If anything, I'd argue that those debates were simply grafting user-driven technology onto a dying medium. The debate format as we know it - two candidates at podiums delivering pre-hashed soundbites while operatives simultaneously spin the press - is nothing worth clinging to. If we're going to go through the effort of putting Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton on the same stage, then we've surely got to make the product more worthwhile then when we're getting right now.

The questions that would be asked of Barack as President are not the same kind of personal attacks he would get at another debate, he is wise to decline!  And, by continuing to say NO, he is showing that he is not going to be Bullied into debating for another show based on sensation rather than real input and problems facing the American people today, and we really do have a myriad of problems to solve, and which must be solved!

And, because Barack was Wise enough and is wise enough to point out how unfair and uneven the questions were directed at him at the last debate, they label him a "whiner" instead of someone who, and rightly so, is defending himself from a "hit job".  But, if he does this, this might expose the ones who are directing the barbs and hits and their Purpose, so they distort the truth (he's whining) with a multitude of voices, all saying the same thing to give it power (brainwashing)!  Most of the corporate media: cable news, ABC, NBC :are owned and Republican controled.  They tell us what they want us to Hear, not what we need to Know to truly inform us as a society, which would "expose{ their deeds, give us power and aid in their demise!

The Clintons and the Republican Spin Machine all aligned against Barack!  Both are fabricators, distorters, engage in fear and smear... there is no truth from either of the Giants only domination for their own selfish gain and not for the good of "all" the people... they have even colloborated together for greater strength, then one will overthrow the other if they get what they want!  They, the Republicans, know the Clintons have ailenated African-Americans so they are now actively courting their support while trying to elevate Hillary and deflate Barack. They MSM are not asking Hillary any of the pertinent questions, not on Iran, not on Mark Penn, although he is still on conference calls to this day, not on a pending lawsuit in California or anything elese that might damage her candidacy in the eyes of the people.  They don't ask why, if Rev. Wright would have not been her pastor, why during Bill's Impeachment trial, they turned to Rev. Wright for prayer and strength?  The Republicans have an "arsenal" of ammunition they Plan and have Planned for years to use against the Clintons if Hillary somehow becomes the Democratic nominee!

They belittle Barack's achievement in Pennsylvania -- to close the enormous gap between him and Clintons was a monumental success and not given any credit by the Republican talking-points media. Instead they ask, "do we really know who Barack is?" -- They slyly ask, "why can't he close the deal?" This after showing him bowling over and over again and stating how he cannot relate to blue-collar workers with such a low bowling score or showing skits from Saturday Night Light which casts him a poor light, along with continuing whipping of Rev. Wrght and his comments on bitter. They do not report the news anymore, they do not inform us of the true conditions in Iraq or other pertinent news but rather pass on Gossip, fit for the Enquirer Magazine or Entertainment Tonight, so far we have fallen!