[ellery]

I'm not an either-or supporter ('specially since I don't live in CA). It was just a statement of principle -- I think it's lame for politicians to only participate in debates when they get the questions beforehand.

[FairOpinion]

The pint is that this would not be a "debate" but an orchestrated "let's gang up on Arnold, all together now" feast. He would have to be crazy to participate in this.

I am glad to see that he is smart enough to NOT bow to the pressure.

[Warren_Piece]

I'm not an either-or supporter ('specially since I don't live in CA). It was just a statement of principle -- I think it's lame for politicians to only participate in debates when they get the questions beforehand.

I disagree. Please explain to me how extemporeneous speaking skills translate to being a good Govenor. Yes, it may demonstrate a mastery of the issues, or it may show the politician has good "zinger" writers. However, that doesn't mean doodley squat. I've known may good managers who couldn't spout out minutia about what the people below them were doing, yet they were darn good managers. Gore was a wonk, but he would have been a Terrible president. Knowing policy minutia and saying zingers aren't near as important as the ability to assemble a good team, give them a vision and let them do their jobs.