A fair amount of debate is kicking up over Obama's decision to accept McCain's offer of "unmoderated debates" between the two in the months leading up to the election. Noam Scheiber, writing in The New Republic's "The Stump", thinks this bodes ill for Obama.
McCain has several big disadvantages vis-a-vis Obama. He faces a massive enthusiasm gap and will have trouble attracting large crowds. He's in all likelihood going to be massively outraised and outspent, making it hard to get his message out. And, possibly as a result of the previous problem, he'll be cast as a right-winger determined to continue George Bush's policies.
The unmoderated debates would help him overcome all three problems. They'll draw big crowds and generate lots of buzz. They'll help him get his message out for free. And, just by virtue of appearing frequently at Obama's side and having a civil debate, they'll make him look much more moderate than the Obama campaign wants him to look.
Couldn't this work the other way around? Obama is faulted for his supposed inexperience and lack of substance. These debates would afford him the opportunity to add steely pragmatism to his oratory, precisely because they will be focused on issues and not flag lapel pins. McCain would look foolish and petty if he raised bogeymen like Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers in such fora. Debates - as public, visual spectacles - play to Obama's strengths: his charisma, his eloquence, his youth, his smarts.
If Obama does well and truly believe in casting aside the "old politics", he cannot refuse this offer. Some quarters of Team McCain were probably wishing in secret that Obama would follow Scheiber's reasoning and distance himself from the debate. It would have discredited Obama's rhetorical commitment to his vague "new politics" of inclusiveness and engagement. These unmoderated debates could be a space in which Obama's politics become more real. By agreeing to the debates, Obama can return the poisoned chalice to McCain.