Presidential Debates Between McCain and Obama Will Have Extra Importance

Presidential "debates" legality

The Commission on Federal Debates is a fraud and as un-American as rotten apple pie.

Presidential elections are determined by the Electoral College, which is 100 percent associated with state electoral policies. Ralph Nader, Bob Barr, Cynthia McKinney are all LEGALLY on the Colorado State ballot---they have met the criteria needed to qualify for our state election and therefore they must be included in the presidential debates, the 15 percent "rule" (which has no legal meaning) be damned. If they qualify to be on the ballot, they have the legal right to be heard regardless of polls, all of which are generated by the private sector and its foundation affiliates.

Who is this creep who writes that any lawsuits filed by other candidates should be thrown out? Best that USN&WR throw him out of his job for writing such garbage----Rupert Murdoch is looking for a few good men like him.

CPD IS WRONG

This country is getting more and more screwed up the older we get. The CPD is a complete disgrace to every eligible voter out there. These candidate's judgement are not tested (sadly enough) until they are actually in The White House. The CPD Commission of Politcal Debates is a Two Party Committee; therefore, they do everything they can to keep anybody else out of the debates. They consider themselves "Non-Partisan", but one look at who they consist of and there is only Republican and Democrats on the board. I STRONGLY URGE ALL AMERICAN CITIZENS TO READ NO DEBATE BY GEORGE FARAH!!!!! This is a true eye opener to the entire debate system. We were born a Republic....Now we are called a Democracy....But I'm starting to wonder if we are either of those! Stand up and question your Representatives about these issues!

other candidates should be allowed to dabate

It is wrong not to let other pandidates into the dabates if they are on the ballot in enough atates to win the electorial vote. The reason we aren't hearing anything about real issues like illegal immigration and amnesty or the roll of the Federal Reserve and the over use of executive orders and many others is because there is little difference between the tow major parties and they have an agreement not to discuss these issues because it would hurt both parties.

We supposedly have a representative republic form of government. Why then are the minor candidates not allowed to debate? It is because there is little difference between the two parties and they don't want this threatened by independents. This is an outrage and had better be changed.

15% rule

I think the 15% rule is good because if a candidate isn't popular enough to get at least that by now, it isn't worth wasting everyone's time hearing their opinions at the debate.

"fringe" candidates should be excluded from the debates not because it goes against democracy, but because they don't make the 15% threshold in the major polls. what's the point of a debate when you've got 20 people on stage? you really think you'd get a good idea of who the candidates are if you let so many people on stage? look what happened to Ron Paul. you really wanna change a duopoly, get your fellow Americans to vote for someone else. the Obama campaign has pretty much rewritten the rules of campaigning and politics. it's all up for grabs now (well, not the current presidential race, but Obama has proven that an effective grassroots movement is very plausible with an internet savvy and enough ground level involvement).

jim Lehrer

Yes I agree Jim Lehrer is a fair and objective moderator.

The ohters tend to ask irrelevant or gotcha questions.

The role of the moderator is important.

It has an impact on whether I will watch.

For instance if CNN are moderators I won't bother.

They have a liberal biasis

Think for one's self for a change.

Hear, hear ANITA! I abhor the thought of religionazi's shoving their fairy tales down our collective throats, and behaving as though if we are non believers of the talking snake and burning Bu$h, that we are somehow "less than" and in need of their "saving".

That smacks of a certain worst president in history's contemptible alienating proposition of "you're either with us or against us" B.S. that i find as appalling as it is divisive.

Personally, this independent thinker, who was leaning 0bama, is rather disgusted at the new found position that separation of church and state, should be further tangled in hypocrisy with his apparent view of expanding G Dub's idiotic faith based initiative.

So much for separation of church and state. So much for free will and independent thought. So much for leaving religion OUT of politics and of all places, the highest office in the land.

//Chris D.

Subversive for Free Minds.

Lamentable

"The only "debate" that matters this fall is each individual evangelical Christian "debating" whether his (her) own conscience can justify and excuse a vote for 25-year beer sellers (the McCains) to be first family of the United States."

How freaking scary is it that people who believe that the world is coming to an end and other 'interesting' things determine how our country is run?

What's your job?

Mr. Mashek, given that Congress has a disapproval rating of over 80%, wouldn't the voters be better served by including other candidates in the debate? At least this would allow them to make an informed decision instead of voting for the lesser of two evils and hoping that things will miraculously work out.

So how about advocating for the voters instead of shilling for the candidates of those two tired old parties? Do you fear that your inside sources will go silent if you dare to question the CPD's protectionist behavior?

Perpetuating the duopoly

Nader and Barr will indeed be excluded by the bi-partisan (not non-partisan) debate commission. Note that its co-chairs are former chairs of the DNC and RNC. If these poltroons were actually subject to their own laws, they'd be headed off to prison for antitrust and RICO violations.