debating Baron Hill

Lesley Weidenbener in the C-J on the most recent installment of the "9th district's debate on debates"...

When I ran in 2006 against Hill and Sodrel, they tried briefly and lightly to keep me out of debates. Sodrel was the incumbent and allowed two debates and a forum. Both engaged in some antics during the negotiations and Sodrel canceled a debate in New Albany for a lame reason.

When I ran in 2008 against Hill and Sodrel again, they didn't bother trying to keep me out this time. Hill was the incumbent and played games with the process again-- and so, we ended up with only one debate.

These things are irritating. But it didn't seem to be personal or partisan, but rather, the prerogative of an incumbent.

Why recount the history? This time, Hill is cooperating moreso, allowing two debates, not delaying, and aggressively inviting both Republican Todd Young and Libertarian Greg Knott.

Why the differences this time? Hill is a savvy politician and knows that he should do everything within his power to appear accessible. And whether correctly or not, Hill also believes that Knott will help his cause by siphoning votes from Young. (He was apparently worried about debating me and/or Sodrel last time.)

I think Hill will still be hard-pressed to hold his seat in a year like this. But he'll certainly try to do what he can to maximize his chances.