Hasn't there already been 20 debates? Why do we need more?

The conventional wisdom is that debates don't help a frontrunner much.  The frontrunner almost always wants to limit or avoid debates.  If their positions were reversed, Clinton would be doing the same thing.  To single out Obama for a strategy everyone uses is disingenuous.  Especially given that he has already engaged in a reasonable amount of debates.  The content of the last debate has little bearing on this.  If the last debate had been full of softball questions or arcane policy discussion instead of grilling over trivia, I suspect Obama would still be reluctant to engage in another at this point.

I wish we could stop calling these joint press conferences that candidates engage in these days "debates" too.  Little to no actual debating goes on in any of them.

The ABC debate was the highest rated debate of this political season.  In many markets, the debate beat American Idol.  So, it looks like a lot of people are still wanting to see what the candidates stand for.

I wasn't talking about cost free to the networks, I was talking about cost free to the candidates.  Those political ads cost a whole heaping lot of money.  TV stations don't cut candidates a break on ad costs, it would be illegal.  They pay the full rate for the time period purchased.  As for the networks, they have to spend money to get anything on the air.  It's just the cost of doing business.