Bring on Oregon debates.

Byline: The Register-Guard

Along with its unaccustomed relevance in the presidential nominating process, Oregon is being treated to a well-choreographed debate about debates. A day after last week's Pennsylvania primary, Hillary Clinton challenged Barack Obama to two debates in Oregon before the state's May 20 election. The Obama campaign promptly characterized the challenge as "an old Washington game."

It may be an old game in Washington, but it's a new one here. One or more Oregon debates between the two Democratic contenders would be useful to voters in Oregon, the West and throughout the nation.

What makes this a game is the fact that in any political contest, the candidate who is trailing has the most to gain from debates. Debates bring free exposure and provide an opportunity for the front-runner to make a mistake or fall short of expectations. So when Clinton proposes debates and Obama declines, both candidates are playing their assigned roles.

But debates are - or should be - about the voters, not just about the candidates. And before they cast their ballots, Oregon voters would benefit from hearing more from both contenders.

The Obama campaign points out that the Illinois senator already has faced Clinton in four one-on-one debates. But that doesn't mean the issues of concern to Oregonians have all been discussed. In their most recent two-way debate, in Philadelphia on April 16, the two candidates spent more than half of the allotted time responding to questions about sniper fire in Bosnia and Pastor Jeremiah Wright's patriotism. The other three debates were in Texas, Ohio and South Carolina in January and February - long ago and far away.

No debate has been held west of the Rocky Mountains. No debate has focused on large issues of state or regional concern such as public lands management, the crisis confronting wild salmon populations, or the mandate in Oregon and other states to shift to renewable energy.

Clinton not only proposed debates, she provided a framework for them. Last week the New York senator's campaign released what it called the "Oregon compact" - an 11-point set of proposals dealing with issues of specific concern to Oregonians, such as assisted suicide, and to Northwesterners, such as protection for old growth forests. A number of the points are of national interest. The compact calls, for instance, for restoring states' authority over the siting of liquefied natural gas terminals, and for a variety of improved benefits for veterans. A national audience would gain from hearing Clinton explain those proposals, and from hearing Obama respond to them.

Clinton said one of the two debates she proposed for Oregon should focus "on the challenges facing rural Oregonians." The fact that the Clinton campaign is targeting rural voters does not detract from the merits of this suggestion. Rural Oregonians confront challenges ranging from the decline of economies dependent on natural resources to access to health care. Many of these problems can be found in rural areas nationwide, not just in Oregon. A debate dedicated to the specific and often ignored concerns of rural people would yield important information about the candidates' levels of understanding of conditions affecting large portions of the country they hope to govern.

As the front-runner, Obama may feel he can play it safe by avoiding debates. But he hasn't come this far by playing it safe. It seems reasonable to expect that one or more debates in Oregon could be more substantive and informative than some debates that have come before. And while Obama is considered to be leading in Oregon, Clinton clearly believes she has a good chance. Debates would allow both candidates to explain what they would do for Oregon, and why they deserve the support of the state's voters.