Unfortunately, while some "Hillary Democrats" may swing toward "Independent" John McCain, no Conservatives will ever be permitted to vote for any Democratic Candidate, now or ever.

The White House/Foxnews/700 Club marching orders will come out and Conservatives, without a single exception, will vote loyally Republican, as they always do.

Add to that the solid lock the Republican Party has on their "Red State" base, almost all of which, if you check with the reports from the Kennedy School of Government reports, receive from $1.10 to $1.75 in federal spending for every $1 in taxes they pay. That "government free money" is how Republicans maintain a lock on those states (West Virginia being one of the few that actually leans more Democratic most of the time, the rest are solid Red).

So 227 is the floor that any Republican can get, no matter what.

That is why it is always an uphil battle for any Demcoratic candidate to be elected president.

But I thought the John McCain for President campaign was designed to make sure there was no post-Bush world?

What we are talking about here is a repeat of the "Lincoln Douglas" debates, where the candidates traveled around and conducted those debates in front of multiple audiences.

That is certain to arouse nostalgia for a "simpler time" (simpler, but not nicer since we are talking about an America that practiced slavery and was on the eve of a civil war).

However in an era of instant communication and pundits, we will see the same sort of fatigue that greeted the “1,175th presidential primary” debate between the Democrats and/or republicans the past year. After about the third one, the debates would degenerate into a Sound-bite contest, with the networks allocating their standard 8.7 seconds of debate coverage to one key phrase, or embarrassing misquote. And the pundit class would, on a nightly basis, be waiting for even the slightest comment upon which they could pronounce “the end of the x-candidacy” over some trivial comment.

However novelty will prevail and the first two “town halls” will be media circuses. The last two one of the candidates might not even show up, and no one will notice.

Re: "I hate to sound like a naive idealist, but doesn't anyone think that idea of townhall debates on substantive issues with limited media filtering sounds, I don't know, good for democracy?"

Only to the extent that these Town Hall meetings would not be a media circus. Or that the questions would not be either "primed" in the audience, or the kind of softballs that what passes for Reporters these days toss to Saint John McCain on a daily basis.

To the extent that the candidates themselves asked questions of the other, these would be nothing other than sound bites themselves, meant to convey a sharp mind challenging the opponent on some key item (wearing the American Flag pin on one's lapel, perhaps).

Can't you just picture John McCain, asking some red-meat question of Barak Obama, followed by the obligatory rousing cheers from the Republicans in the crowd. The the FoxNewst commentator then switches immediately off, before Barak Obama answers, to opine about what an "inadequate" answer Barak gave to this "incisive" question? I certainly can. And I'm sure whatever question was asked would be coordinated with the daily RNC talking points and TV ads going in between spots.

That is what these Towne Halls mean, not some "Lincoln-Douglas" ideal.

"Every time I think I'm getting too cynical, I find that I 'm not keeping up."

Lilly Tomlin

So this is the "Shining Example of Democracy" that we are building in the Middle East?

And Conservatives love it!

Rick Shenkman attributes the ignorance of the American Electorate to stereotypes and biases. One item I missed was outright fear.

Freightened people also stop thinking and ask only that someone promises to "keep them safe". To the extent our current government has exploited that fear for hte past seven years, they have contributed to an electorate that, even if it were capable of rasoned thought, refuses to do so, just "to be kept safe".

John McCain is exploiting that against Barak Obama as we read these comments right now.

Both parties do. But the Whip has to have something (s)he can hold over the Senator. right now Joe Lieberman controls Democratic leadership of the Senate. He can, with one statement, make republicans chair of every Senate committee. And I'm sure he has made that threat clear to the Democratic leadership.

Al it will take is a one sat shift in the Senate in November. Frankly either way. If the Democrats gain one more seat, Joe will be tossed out. He votes with the Republicans all the time anyway (when it counts), so ther is nothing to lose there. If the Republicans take charge, they will also toss Joe aside, since he will have served his purpose and be of no further use to them.

Given the reality of modern business, where "50% Travel" on a job description really menas "100% Travel" and "Zero Travel" really means "Minimum 10% Travel", unless she has it in writing that she would not travel, she had better be prepared to lose her job if she really insists that she will never fly again.

So, why are we reading this hear and not seeing it on CNN? We all know why FoxNews won't report these items: they do not coincide with the White House party line. But why does our "Mainstream media" surpress these stories?