an imaginative analogy, and you are particularly good at reducing situations to their elementary (pun intended) archetypes - your screed must have had the desired effect, the arrangements have been tentatively agreed to

My only criticism of your analysis is your emphatic demand that debates must be a prerequisite for running for president. Debates are important but in the modern age of politics candidates are so well rehearsed that nothing new & different is ever really uttered by any candidate that has not been repeated in every speech they have given. Also the reason Kerry wants more debates is because he is behind in the polls. Debates can swing opinion. Sadly at times those opinions are swung by insignificant things such as Gore sighing or George 41 looking at his watch.

sadly, the debate format is so controlled as to make the event almost meaningless.

what they really should have are one-on-one debates. let the candidates sit down across the table and discuss the issues.

it'll never happen again.

I'd like to see one-on-one debates, too, because then Bush would have to think on his feet and he has proven numerous times that he cannot do that.

In this current format Bush will have a series of memorized scripts and talking points and will deliver them well.

And as far as the general public goes, Bush is going to win in a walk.

Unless Kerry can be taught that this is not a debate but a pitch to an audience. So far I have seen no indication that he will get that in time.

yep, the prepackaged talking points on both sides drives me crazy.

a question will be asked about topic 'abc'.

the candidate replies with something like "the real question isn't 'abc', the real question is 'xy'"...and then out comes the prepared material.

"In fact, if Bush refuses I WILL NOT EVEN CONSIDER VOTING FOR HIM."

Oh, don't even pretend like you might vote for Bush...

BTW, Bush has agreed to all 3 debates. BJ Clinton, in 1996, only agreed to 2.

But then, we KNOW he was a "wussy"...

"My only criticism of your analysis is your emphatic demand that debates must be a prerequisite for running for president. Debates are important but in the modern age of politics candidates are so well rehearsed that nothing new & different is ever really uttered by any candidate that has not been repeated in every speech they have given. Also the reason Kerry wants more debates is because he is behind in the polls. Debates can swing opinion. Sadly at times those opinions are swung by insignificant things such as Gore sighing or George 41 looking at his watch."

Mink, I agree 100%. Debates are usually just 90 minutes of repeating shit we already know. Occasionally, someone gains from a debate because their opponent committed a minor gaffe, but these minor things should be considered meaningless to a truly informed public.

However, much of the public is pretty much clueless. So Al Gore sighing, or Bush 41 looking at his watch, becomes big news, and slightly alters the voting patterns of the semi-informed.

John F. Kerry wants as many debates as possible. This is understandable. He is behind in the polls, and is a well-known "master-debater." The debates are pretty much the last chance he's got.

Bush is, despite the risk, still going to debate Mr. Kerry 3 times, in three different settings, with 3 different moderators, in 3 different states. Hardly the actions of a "wussy"...

'what they really should have are one-on-one debates. let the candidates sit down across the table and discuss the issues.'

In theory, I agree. Lincoln-Douglas, right?

But, in reality, in the modern age, all you would get is two guys interupting each other every two seconds and repeating the same BS they were force-fed during debate-prep.

Moderators are there for a reason.

you're right rj, that the moderators are there for a reason.

but both parties want them there as a form of damage limitation.

kindof sad. i'd love to see them interrupting each other. at least we'd get to see how they think on their feet as opposed to spewing one-liners.

I disagree that the format renders the debates pointless: what the kabuki-like formalism of the canned responses does is put theemphasis on subtlety and nuance, and many viewers are sophisticated enough to pick that up. But it means you actually have to watch it, the transcript means next to nothing.

I think that they shouldn't let the candidates know what types of questions they're going to ask ahead of time. I think they do that, and it helps generate the canned response problem. They should just ask them tough, unexpected questions, to the extent that anything can be unexpected in a campaign.

And then the moderator should penalize -- by removing time from the next answer -- any candidate who changes the subject and doesn't answer the exact question that was asked. If it's a yes/no question, there had better be a yes or no in the answer, for example.

It should be clear by now that there are two reasons for them not to debate: 1. every sitting president has more to lose than the challenger in a debate, so sitting presidents will try to avoid debates at all cost, no matter if they are named Bush or Clinton; 2. Bush and Kerry have stunning little to say that is of any substance. They say an awful lot in an attempt to mask this fact, but too many debates would lay the fact plain for even the most dense voters.

I think that makes it all the more imperative to have the darned things.