Would address one issue only and involve a series of extended statements and rebuttals by each candidate in turn. THERE WOULD BE NO MODERATOR (or alternatively, any moderator would only serve a very limited function such as keeping the debater on topic or enforcing time limits).

McCain wants a Town Hall with a right-wing shill as a moderator who can set him up with softball questions for easy soundbites. If there is a town hall element, it should be to select a topic for discussion. Unlike past debates "starring" MM personalities, the moderator should be someone knowledgeable in the subject matter who is not interested in self-promotion.

If it is a classic Lincoln-Douglas debate format, Obama will stomp all over McCain, who I doubt could be able to spontaneously respond with substantive responses to Obama's positions and rebuttals.

How much light does McCain really want on himself? Not all publicity is good. I agree that ten is way too many, but I see debates (properly configured) as opportunities for Obama, not McCain.

People have already voted for the bumbling idiot and seen what it has gotten them. I'm hoping they don't continue to make the same mistake.

Unlike you, I have faith that Florida Democrats (not you) will know who is to blame (the FL state legislature) for their predicament. I also have faith that they have the intelligence (not you) to understand what's at stake this November. Anyone claiming to be a Democrat who does not vote their interests in November is psychotic (you).

He doesn't need her money and hasn't asked for it. She's made the offer.

Obama hasn't even begun to tap his resources. Personally, I for the most part have been "keeping my powder dry" and intend to make a larger donation (for me) very soon. I think a lot of other Obama supporters are of a similar mindframe.

Hillary supporters should help her retire her debt. I'm going to send a few bucks to her if she plays nice.

It's not about loving or hating war. It's whether you think war or military force is in itself an effective means towards the ends of reducing terrorism or promoting democracy (take your pick). McCain has clearly stated that invading Iraq was the "right thing to do" and that the U.S. must remain there until "victory" is achieved.

One of the big issues in this election is about changing this country's Post-WWII orientation to the rest of the world. We are not (and never have been) anointed to rule the world and must seek global solutions to global problems. That means bringing every country, even those you don't like, to the table and sometimes agreeing to solutions that do not perfectly fit into your ideology.

True leadership often involves listening and respecting others' opinions. There hasn't been a lot of that happening for quite some time.

I heard on the radio this morning that Parliament passed by a very narrow margin a law which allows the government to hold suspects for up to 42 days without providing a reason. Many of the opposing PMs decried the vote as overturning the Magna Carta.

Interesting juxtaposition of events.

"I firmly believe that this decision affords enemies in war rights meant for criminals. Terrorists are not criminals. They are enemy combatants during war. we have never afforded our enemies the rights of criminals during war time. This is what we are doing now. There is a totally different standard of rights given to someone planning to carry out an act of war from someone that has committed a crime, and in my opinion, the SC sees no difference. here is how I wrote about it...

http://theeprovocateur.blogspot.com/2008/06/detainees-to-get-habeus-rights.html

-- mikevolpe"

This is yet another example of someone applying wartime rationale to the "War on Terror," a BULLSHIT fallacy which should have been vigorously challenged from the beginning. To anyone possessing critical faculties,the phrase "War on Terror" is a contradiction on its face, as you cannot declare war on a feeling or, in the case of "Terrorism," a tactic or strategy.

In the coming years, laws built on this logical error should be completely deconstructed, as they are enacted not for the public good, but to further the neocon ideology of those behind them. Count John McCain in that group.

The fact that credence continues to be given to this and other amorphous concepts advanced by the bush administration persists as one of the most serious problems facing this country.

Donated some $$$ and spread the word. This is important (but everyone here knows that).

I think he should make a point to meet with these women and bring this issue front and center. The trolls in the slime pits will issue their talking points regardless, and if the MSM decides to run with it, they should be publicly throttled.

Being Muslim does not equate to being less of an American, and anyone who even remotely makes that equation should be savaged.