Suggestions
Clea Conner
CEO, Open to Debate
Clea Conner is the Chief Executive Officer of the Open to Debate Foundation, a non-partisan, non-profit media organization.12 Her mission is to restore critical thinking, facts, reason, and civility to public discourse in America.2
Professional Background
Clea has an extensive background in producing debates and public policy programs:
- She has produced over 150 award-winning debates, with a focus on geopolitics and international affairs.1
- Conner has created an award-winning weekly radio program, podcast, and streaming platform for diverse perspectives on pressing foreign policy challenges.1
- She has developed television programs such as "Up For Debate" and "That's Debatable" for networks including Bloomberg, PBS, and Newsy.12
Achievements and Recognition
- Named one of Crain's New York "40 Under 40".12
- Produced the first debate between AI and a human debater in collaboration with IBM's Project Debater.12
- Holds more than two dozen awards for excellence in public affairs programming across radio, television, and podcasting.12
Education and Previous Experience
- Holds a B.A. from The New School with Dean's Honors.2
- Studied political science at American University.2
- Previously served as a Strategic Advisor to Eurasia Group's GZERO Media and other startups at the intersection of media and technology.1
Clea Conner's work at Open to Debate focuses on addressing the extreme polarization in America and fostering a more constructive public discourse through debates and various media platforms.2
Highlights
I had the pleasure of joining Washington Journal on C-SPAN this morning to discuss Open to Debate's new study on reforming presidential debates. It was engaging and informative, with listeners from across the nation and across the political spectrum calling in to share their questions and concerns about this week's presidential debate and the broader state of American public discourse.
One question that stood out to me was: "Can you imagine if the candidates switched sides and argued in favor of their opponent's ideas?" My answer: an emphatic yes! Arguing from an opponent's perspective showcases intellectual humility, intelligence, and empathy—qualities that are often missing in our political conversations.
A hot take on the new debate rules was: "More moderator intervention is a bad idea. Biden setting up these rules where cutting off Trump's mic is going to be to Biden's detriment. It is going to make Trump appear more reasonable and composed." (While I respect this viewpoint, I still support the use of a mute button to ensure a more orderly and respectful debate.)
I was thrilled to see such enthusiasm for Open to Debate's work and for our moderator-in-chief, John Donvan. Thank you to everyone who participated and contributed to a lively and thoughtful discussion.
My take in POLITICO on how to prevent another “hot mess inside a dumpster fire inside a train wreck” of a presidential debate.
“A new report out from the nonpartisan organization Open to Debate and shared first with POLITICO Nightly, shows that our eyes are not deceiving us: debates have gotten materially worse in the last decade. Interruptions have skyrocketed, moderators have lost control and the formats of the debates have allowed candidates to dodge questions.”
