Television has a curious way of revealing truth, especially in political debates. When Kennedy debated Nixon, Kennedy came across as knowledgable, prepared and "presidential". Nixon appeared nervous and shifty. I know there is certainly some skill required to think on your feet, but that is a given in the job. McCain has changed positions so much lately even he will have a hard time defending himself. Obama has been clearly consistant on his policies and plans to change the direction of the country. That level of integrity will come across to viewers.

As you are certainly aware, the Republicans and the Democrats have created an organization called the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) for the purpose of excluding third party and independent candidates from the political process. Every four years, the two major parties negotiate a complex contract which excludes other presidential candidates from the national debates.

This year, the two negotiators for the secret contract were Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Representative Rahm Emanuel (D-IL). In order to protect the the Obama and McCain campaigns from public criticism, the Commission on Presidential Debates has refused to release this back-room contract for public inspection.

In order for all minority party voices to be heard in this important presidential election, it is critical that this contract is made available to the general public before the debates.

Call the Commission on Presidential Debates at 202-872-1020.

Please ask the CPD representative (or leave message) to "please make the debate contract between John McCain and Barack Obama available to the public."

Then ask the representative to please "include Bob Barr & Ralph Nader (and other 3rd party candidates you believe should be included) in the presidential debates."

Note, in 1992, Ross Perot was polling at 7% before the first presidential debate . Mr. Perot was included in all three debates not because of a ruling by the debate sponsor or host; Ross Perot was included in the presidential debates because George H.W. Bush demanded that he be included.

Today, if Bob Barr or any minority party candidate is going to be included in the debates, it will be because John McCain or Barack Obama demanded it. Of the two, Obama should most likely be the one to listen to minority groups hoping for representation.

Pick up the phone and call the Obama campaign at 866-675-2008.

Hit 6 to speak with a campaign volunteer.

Once connected, politely deliver the following message:

"Hi my name is __________ and I'm calling to request that Senator Obama invite minority party candidates Bob Barr and Ralph Nader (and any other 3rd parties you believe should be represented) participate in the upcoming presidential debates. Could you please leave this message with your campaign manager, David Plouffe?

Please make the debates better by petitioning for 3rd party inclusion.

Here is what I think each needs to do, in the foreign policy debate.

McCain. His argument will be strength vs. weakness, Reagen vs. Carter. The problem he faces is a war weary nation that will be none too enthused with a new axis of evil list or humming refrains of bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran. From a strictly political standpoint, Richard Nixon was very smart in always emphasizing "peace" to a war weary nation, even when secretly escalating war. McCain's military family is actually a detriment here: McCain seems to think it just fine when a sizeable chunk of your relatives go off to fight. Most Americans do not. McCain needs to make the case that he will bring peace through strength, not just pick a bunch of fights.

Obama. If I were him, I would forget about WMD, Bush Lied People Died, etc., and basically "go full hawk," to paraphrase a movie line from Tropic Thunder. I would embrace McCain on no nukes for Iran, NATO expansion into Georgia and Ukraine, and downplay differences on Iraq. Then, I would season it with "more diplomacy" and multilateralism (with NATO tough guys, not UN wimps). Why? Because he can't win being Carter. No Democrat since Johnson has won an election in an atmosphere of escalated global conflict. Obama needs to show he is tough as McCain, only smarter. Then glide home on the economy.

Debates are stupid. They are just below interviews with the liberals -- I mean the media. The libs can prepare, ask what they want, and edit. With such an advantage, even Katie Curic can look intelligent-- almost pensive. McCain's refusal to debate is no big disadvantage for him -- but more -- it could be a prelude to a delay of the elections themselves. Fincancial crisis -- nuclear war -- national emergency -- four more years of Bush. Just thinking out loud.

I expect to see McCain's lips curl up into a green grimace

I expect his face to turn beet red

I expect to see a pulsing purple blood vessel begin to bulge in his neck

And then I expect his head will explode on national television.

Thanks for that mental picture! I'm almost ashamed to say that it caused me to snort into my coffee!

I am with you on the first part of your analysis. I think one is hard pressed, other than 1980 and 1960, to find an election where debates really mattered. Reagen was way ahead before, and after, his debates in 1984, while George H.W. Bush was comfortably ahead both before and after his debates in 1988. Same with Clinton in both of his elections. The race was very close in both 2000 and 2004, and the debates did not appear to be decisive, as evidenced by tracking polls leading up to the elections.

I am always amazed at why Republicans allow themselves to be 'root canaled' by liberal panelists at debates every four years. The typical questions are: "Why, Mr. Republican, are you such a stingy, ruthless bastard." And, "Why, Mr. Democrat, if you belive in progressive action as I do, are you not fighting harder against your ruthless bastard opponent." When the MSM is accused of bias, they solemnly point out that they cursed at both candidates and challenged them to break out of their conventional thinking.