The Clinton campaign's call for a series of non-moderated debates in the style of the Lincoln-Douglas debates seems to be a nice move as it puts Obama on the spot.

On MSNBC's "Morning Joe" today, Howard Wolfson described the debates:

We'd have a huge audience. There's enormous interest in this. So, Barack Obama, if you're listening, let's do it. It'll be fun, it'll be informative. It'll be important for the American people, a good discussion of the issues, no difficult questions from moderators. Just real issues.

Everybody wins! Except, does anybody, when they really consider this, expect the Clinton-Obama debates to get anywhere near the the level of intellectual depth that was the hallmark of the Lincoln-Douglas debates? Lincoln and Douglas were debating slavery, but more specifically, the spread of slavery into new states, the intention of the founders with regards to slavery, and the future of the union.

Now, what would define the Clinton-Obama debates? When previous debates focused on the "issues," viewers were treated to the same argument over the minutiae of the candidate's painfully similar health-care proposals. On Iraq, more of the same. On foreign-policy, with the exception of Obama's willingness to meet with America's enemies, where's the difference?

So what we would be left with are questions of character, as in questions about Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers, and whatever issues Obama wants to mention about Clinton. As Obama has admitted, these are legitimate issues -- but Lincoln-Douglas?

It's smart for the Clinton campaign to call for more debates, but when it's clear what they're really after is not a high minded discussion of the issues but another chance to whack Obama and watch him stumble, it's an insult to invoke a comparison to Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas.