Note, the anchor incorrectly refers to the diner as "Glider's Diner" but it is most certainly the "Glider Diner."  I have been there.  

This is by no means the first time Obama has balked in the face of adversity.  Not only did he grow more obvious in his annoyance with questions and a less than kowtowing press in the final sprint of the Pennsylvania primary, but his indignant evasion climaxed shamefully in the now unforgettable Philadelphia debate.  

Speaking Saturday in South Bend, Indiana, Hillary Clinton sums up the debate experience, touching on factors ranging from his elusiveness and chronic complaining to his naive misunderstanding of the presidential role's fundamental challenges.  

"You know, after the last debate in Philadelphia, Senator Obama's supporters complained a little bit about the tough questions. And you know, tough questions in the debate are nothing compared to the tough questions you get asked when you're president and you have to answer them to make tough decisions," she said.

"So here's my proposal: I'm offering Senator Obama the chance to debate me one-on-one, no moderators. Just the two of us, going for 90 minutes, asking and answering questions. We'll set whatever rules seem fair."

Senator Clinton's strategy is brilliant.  She knows Obama is afraid to debate her because without a teleprompter and a prepared speech, his renowned eloquence is disarmed and exposed as a charade.  He can play President on TV, but can he do the job?  

Rather than falling prey to the typical appearance of the "loser" begging for more debates, Hillary has raised the stakes by issuing a historic challenge.  This clever distinction allows her to make headlines and excite the electorate who would probably be very curious to see how this style of debate would pan out.  Not only will a refusal from Obama affirm his increasing aura of hiding from problems (a theme also well noted by Pennsylvanians when he fled before the results returned) but it will also disappoint anyone excited to see this historic moment.  There will be no one to blame but Obama.

Since the glory days of the Potomac Primaries, Barack Obama was hastily cast as the presumptive nominee of the party.  As one of his partisan supporters Senator Patrick Leahy told the nation a short time afterwards, his nomination was a "foregone conclusion."  With a string of 11 wins, Obama and his dedicated supporters viewed the nomination as something already earned, something in the bag.  Working towards a great goal can be an inspiring journey but working so hard to maintain something you already believe is yours is a drain.  It's boring because at the end of the day, all you have to show for your effort is something you (believed you) already had. This sense of entitlement is part of the reason Obama has been so exasperated of late.  But unfortunately for him, much like the rigors of a complex campaign, the executive job is neither a walk in the park nor is it a constant dash of elevation and excitement.  Hence, it is better suited to the steady candidate who revels in seemingly mundane microscopic policy details rather than the one who functions properly only when inspired by endless praise and thrill.  

This ennui and impatience of Barack Obama coagulated into frustration during Pennsylvania's primary and showed him disinterested in finishing the boring task of what he had previously considered a formality: securing the nomination.  This has produced a cycle where his negative and plaintive public image undermines his core campaign rationale, the romanticized view of a new and harmonious Washington-as-Utopia with him playing the honorable White House Superman.  As his strongest attribute corrodes, it invites more criticism, prompting more public frustration and further undercuts the vague promises of civility and political health, repeating the cycle ad nauseum.  His zombie-like concession speech on April 22 confirmed that the magic was gone.  

This leads us to today.  Obama's an intelligent man and is sufficiently self-aware to realize that only a month after his self-styled coronation as nominee, he has failed to deliver the kind of indefatigable oratory brilliance that would be necessary to keep his cinematic appeal afloat.  Hence, the idea of a no-holds-barred debate with Hillary Clinton is an extreme pressure.  He would in essence have to start from scratch, reweaving the Wizard's curtain that peeled away in Pennsylvania.  His best bet is to accept the debate and perform brilliantly.  No question about it.  It would show he had faith in himself and confidence in his skills to confront adversity.  

If he backs out, the historic and headlines-making challenge of Hillary Clinton will draw immense attention to yet another failure to engage challenges.  It will affirm the "wimp" and "coward" notions that threaten to consume his public image.  Superdelegates and voters will take notice that he's playing into a dangerous stereotype.

To Barack Obama's terrible surprise and chagrin, Hillary Clinton isn't simply going to vanish overnight just because it would make his life convenient.  More and more, she is the fighter, the pragmatist, the modern day Athena.  If he can't engage Hillary Clinton, then I have serious doubts about his ability to confront the GOP and then as president, to confront our nation's problems.

So which is it: the debate or the waffles?