What would my debate look like?

1) No interrupting by either the moderator(s) or the other candidate.

2) A townhall-ish format, where the participants are chosen (half and half to each candidate) via a lottery and they are required to have a question. Then their questions are chosen at random. (vetting for boxer or brief questions would be nice)

3) When discussing policy like health care and education, the candidates have three to five minutes to describe their program, and why it is better. Then there is a two-minute rebuttal time for each.

4) Both candidates have time for opening and closing remarks that will last three minutes each.

5) Limited commercial interruption.

Drew Haile

Henderson, Ky

It took genuine courage for Senator Obama to seize the moment--in real-time, in front of millions of citizens--to tell the "interviewers" how inappropriate their tawdry tabloid tactics really were. How gratifying to see Nation columnists signing onto the journalists' letter of protest to ABC, and how dismaying--though unsurprising--to see (as of April 21) not a single name representing the networks or, for that matter, the NY Times or Washington Post. Gibson and Stephanopoulos do us the service of demonstrating what we should expect from the mainstream media.

Neil Elliott

White Bear Lake, MN

A real debate would consist of policy experts from across the spectrum asking the candidates or their advisors to defend their policy proposals. Instead of a series of general questions, the debate questions would focus on specific flaws in the policies and try to determine what they do if things don't go as planned. It's important that the experts come from across the spectrum rather than involving people who are on the same basic side. A debate like that doesn't have to be a big production, especially if the candidates themselves don't take part and it's uploaded in video form to a video-sharing site with a transcript provided. In fact, that's something that The Nation could put on, if they want to see what a real debate is like. Details here.

Chris Kelly

Los Angeles, CA

It appears that most of the previous comments came from folks who are unaware of the 469 previous Democratic debates that were held over the past year.

There has been some substantive debate interspersed between too many puff questions throughout the campaign season; thank god someone found some new ground to cover.

Worse yet is that this criticism of the moderators seems to be nothing less than bald-faced attempts to intimidate, muzzle and censor ideas and information that may finally dispel the messianic aura around Obama. If you are an Obama supporter, then you really should be thankful that these types of issues can be exposed now and dealt with, rather than at the eleventh hour of a campaign, when the ability to respond might be limited or unavailable.

Ask Obama supporters why they are supporting him and you get a wide variety of answers, many of which are nebulous or conceptual. These lofty expectations are sure to disappoint if Obama wins without thorough scrutiny.

Lighten up, free your mind and recognize that those who want to limit the discussion to certain topics that are OK with them don't approve of each one of us making up our own minds--they want to make it up for us.

And if you want real change in DC, replace the Congresspersons of either party who have been there more than eight years. They are the ones who maintain the status quo more than anything or anyone else.

Jonathon Guild

Wheaton, IL

With all the serious issues facing this nation and all the dangers stalking our future, we cannot allow ourselves to be sidetracked by small-minded individuals and short-sighted news organizations. If we refuse to grow up and start facing the important issues in an open-minded and level-headed way, it will be at our own peril.

This is our defining moment. The actions we take in the coming months will echo for decades to come. With feeble and misguided news media, how can a disconnected populous ever reconnect? It was our persistent lack of clarity that allowed an under-qualified man of average intelligence to be elected to the White House for two terms. Unfortunately, this tragic error ended up costing the lives of 4,000 US soldiers and countless Iraqis.

"The rich and the well-born have learned how to dance with the dirty dancers. These dirty dancers have created in Washington, DC, and in every capital city in America a government of the money, by the money and for the money, and this circumstance will soon deprive us all of the blessings of liberty."   --John Jay Hooker

The stakes are far too high. A swift return to common sense, decency and reason is now our only option. I repeat: A swift return to common sense, decency and reason is now our only option.

Steve Ford
Crush Infamy Productions

Las Vegas, NV

The character of the man or woman who would be President matters a great deal. So while isolated incidents that raise the eyebrows of voters and pundits may not initially be worth pursuing, when a pattern develops, those incidents are worthy of journalistic pursuit.

Re Mrs Clinton, the Bosnia incident played into the storyline so well illustrated by Christopher Hitchen's book, No One Left to Lie To: The Values of the Worst Family.

Re Mr Obama, his attitude toward the country he seeks to lead has become suspect because of a series of incidents. And while some may seem trivial when considered alone (how he stands during the Pledge, why he won't wear a flag lapel), when viewed in context with his very close association with a man who says "God Damn America," his much less significant association with an unrepentant bomber (imagine if it was not Mr. Ayers but Mr. Rudolph, the abortion clinic bomber), a comment where he essentially called many of the Joe Six-pack Democrats bigots (and did it with elitist-sounding language), and even a wife who has suggested less than love for her country--all of these incidents have formed a narrative that journalists should explore. Sure as shootin', the GOP groups are going to explore the narrative big time come fall.

Doug Miller

Lansing, MI

Mrs. Clinton has a hearing defect. When Mr. Obama says something, she thinks he said something else and she attacks that.

While she makes no points attacking Mr. Obama, she does reveal herself to all of us. We are learning what kind of person she is.

Now comes this latest debate, and we learn nothing that helps us decide who to vote for for President, but perhaps a lot about some of the journalists that would influence us.

Rather than asking Mr. Obama to defend himself against false charges, why don't they quiz Clinton about making them in the first place or perhaps, heaven forbid, explain why they are abetting falsehoods by not asking?

If I were falsely charged with murder and everyone knows it, I'll still have to defend myself, but that is no reason for the "News" to ignore that the charge is false to start with.

ABC sponsors journalists that ignore the obvious. Surely a big business like this wouldn't hire fools to represent them. So what was the purpose of this debate and the questions asked?

CNN, MSN and Fox do the same thing. Don't expect ABC to change. They know what they are doing.

Greg Donoho

Honolulu, Hawaii

What are the real facts about the impact of lower or higher capital gains tax rates? Gibson was emphatic in his assertion that historically lower rates always mean more revenue and higher rates mean less. If this is not true or less than fully true, then the facts should be known and ABC should be called to account for disinformation of the meanest sort--through loaded questioning of the candidates.

Otherwise, I agree fully with the journalists' open letter to ABC. I could not help wondering if Rupert Murdock had somehow managed to buy out the network overnight and George and Charlie boys were pandering to the new boss at every possible turn. Please tell me it isn't so and that we do not have another FOX New--but just good old Disney doing its business to sell us more junk.

Harlan H. Hobgood

Avila Beach, CA

Senator Clinton (though I don't support her) actually lost a great chance to gain votes during the strangely scripted ABC debate. All she needed to do, after a couple of questions, would have been to say: "George and Charles, neither Senator Obama or myself or the American people benefit from these kinds of questions. Can we please move on to a more substantive debate?" It would have been a stellar moment for her and her campaign, no doubt taking back some high ground from Obama. Her failure to do so sadly reinforces what is now becoming an almost universal perception of her shallow politics.

John Kadvany
Policy & Decision Science

Menlo Park, CA

I find the condecending comments in this thread amusing. You decry the lack of substantive questions and call into question an entire network news organization's credibility on the basis of questions asked of candidates for the presidency of this country. These people are not running for town crier, they are running to be the President; the leader of the entire nation. If questions concerning their patriotism and character are not meaningful then I submit that this country is no longer "One Nation under God" but rather a fractious amalgam of partisans not interested in the welfare of the country.

Will Museler

Portsmouth, RI

I totally agree with the sentiments expressed in the article. The informed public is insulted twice; first, with the inane, agenda-loaded questions and second, with the insidious lie that the media are giving the people what they want. This lie is becoming tiresome--as a result, I do not listen to any TV news programs or so-called "debates." Instead, I inform myself by critically analyzing news in print and on blogs.

Michael Weisberg

Gainesville, Fl

A quality debate discusses important issues. A flag pin on a lapel does not matter to me. Asking the presidential candidates about their patriotism does not matter to me, and is actually quite insulting. I don't care about the Bosnia lie (but would love to hear someone ask Hillary the difference between an intentional misstatement and a lie), I do not care about Reverend Wright, Dr. Ayers or the capital gains tax. I hoped to hear about how America would deal with rising food and gas costs, the mortgage crisis (from the homeowners side of things), stagnant wages and the Iraq war. Charlie Gibson seemed to get really caught up on the idea that people who make $200,000 a year are the typical middle class, and that raising the capital gains tax would hurt the country-- or perhaps his own pocketbook?

Even in the relatively simple pre 9/11 days, we didn't have the luxury of spending the first hour of a two-hour debate on complete trash and fluff. How amazing that during a war and a possible recession, the top brass at ABC News did not step in and give quality questions to their moderators.

Margaret Powell

Washington, DC

The current debate format is not calculated to produce optimal results, whoever the moderators. If the questions were posed directly by the candidates, so that the two (or more) of them were engaged in a conversation, we would be much more likely to hear questions worth asking. Instead of responding to the moderator, each candidate would need to react directly to questions posed by another candidate; the absence of formal time limits and the opportunity for candidates to speak at will would ensure that there was a lively back-and-forth; at the same time, no candidate could afford to look petty or bullying, so there would be an inherent limit on the kinds of questions each could ask and the frequency with which she or he interrupted. There would still, I think, be room for a moderator--but her task would be to keep the debate orderly, not to replace the candidates by becoming the primary questioner. In general, American political "debates" have been anything but; it's time to change that.

Gary Chartier

Riverside, CA

Senators,

Many people have said that your respective approaches to health care are too similar to differentiate. But there is one clear difference, and that deals with a mandate requiring everyone to purchase coverage.

Here is the resolution we put to you,

Resolved: A mandate requiring the purchase of health insurance is necessary to provide universal health care.

Senator Clinton, you will take the affirmative, while Senator Obama will argue the negative.

Following the National Forensic League rules of Lincoln-Dougas Debate, we begin with Senator Clinton. You have six minutes for your constructive case.

(etc)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln_Douglas_Debate#Format

David Nedrow

Columbus, OH

I would like to see a debate with no moderators. Just put the candidates on the stage, and let them talk to each other and ask each other questions.

Richard M. Mathews

Porter Ranch, CA

I am disappointed in George Stephanopoulos. I have enjoyed the round-table discussions he inherited when he took over This Week. But his defense of his behavior in the recent debate is beneath contempt. He argued that he was asking questions to assess Obama's character. I guess he didn't (for some reason) think it important to assess Clinton's character. And his right-wing slanders, in the form of "Have you stopped beating your wife?," certainly revealed something of Obama's character, and of Stephanopoulos's. Obama responded with personal restraint while skewering the spineless character of the questions themselves.

Robert Stevenson

Port Townsend, WA

I am appalled by the tactics used by the moderators. The time spent on trivial issues--the flag pin, the friendship with Ayers, Rev. Wright and so on--was an affront to all of us. The country is in more trouble than it has been in my lifetime (I am 61). We need to know what the candidates think and how they might address the disasters caused by the current group, not on insignificant ways to assess their patriotism. At times I wonder if we are channeling McCarthy and looking to see who were friends with the red menace. I wondered if the guys were in the Clinton camp as it seemed that they tried to take Obama down a peg--didn't Stephanopoulos work for the Clintons?--is he really going to be objective? The whole situation makes me so angry--if this keeps up, the election may go to the Republicans and the nation will be hard-pressed to survive more of their focus on the good of the rich and powerful instead of the good of the county.

Anne Nickersoon

Dundee , IL

Oh, I wish we could have a formal Lincoln/Douglas style debate. Where the candidates outline their positions, critique their opponents and respond to their opponents' criticism.

What passes today for debate is a farce. Lame questions, asked by lame celebrity journalist, hoping for a lame response, that can be spun into weeks of lame newscasting.

Americans don't even know what a real debate is. Because they have never experienced one! Thus we fall for one-liners and sound bites and go into the voting booth not even knowing what the candidates really stand for.

Ned Harrison

Omaha, NE

Thanks so much for printing this. Now I have in one handy list the wimpering, simpering cowards who have the nerve to call themselves journalists (say it ain't so, Joe Conason and Eric Alterman), and who remained silent through twenty debates where Hillary Clinton was savaged and skewered without one peep from these spineless defenders of the Fourth Estate.

Michael Chandler

Moab, UT

ABC is to be commended on their fair and responsible conduct of this past Thursday's PA primary candidate debate. Questions were asked that addressed an important concern regarding the candidates for the Democratic nomination to seek the presidency. That concern addresses character and judgement, important qualities when considering who will lead this country for the next four years. Though some saw ABC as unfair to Senator Obama, the questions regarding his twenty-year association with Pastor Wright and his "friendly" relationship with Professor Ayers go to matters of judgment and character. These questions were long overdue.

Sue Whalen

Merlin, OR

When did we become a nation of five-year-olds?

"The media was mean to my candidate first!" "No, it was mean to my candidate first, and you didn't say anything!" "Your candidate's a wuss!" "But you're candidate's a bitch!"

Do you see how stupid this sounds?

I've been a journalist for sixteen years and am currently working on my masters (and teaching) at Temple University. Now I'm sorry to have to say this to those of you who believe that it was cool for Messrs. Gibson and Stephanopoulos to smack Barack Obama around Wednesday night, but it was wrong, and most importantly, it wasn't good journalism.

It was also wrong when it happened to Hillary Clinton in a previous debate, although I suspect that the reason why no one said anything was because we were all afraid she'd kick our asses for sticking up for her. I mean, the entire time she's been in Pennsylvania she's been acting like Charles Bronson in a Tahari pantsuit, for God's sake. (That comes from one of my reporter friends. Don't shoot the messenger.)

The biggest problem I've had with this entire campaign is the willingness on the part of the mainstream media to play king (or queen) maker. It started with them telling us that Senator Clinton was the "inevitable" Democratic nominee and has continued with Senator Obama's being anointed the "frontrunner."

It's not the media's job to do this. But the American public hasn't demanded that it stop, thus it continues.

There is no plausible excuse for the shoddy performances by Messrs. Gibson and Stephanopoulos on Wednesday night. That was two hours of my life that I'll never get back. (I was blogging live from the National Constitution Center. Anyone who wants to see it can do so at themadpoliticalscientist.blogspot.com.)

But then again, there was no plausible excuse for the performances of like Wolf Blitzer, Brian Williams, Tim Russert and even my beloved Keith Olbermann in previous debates.

The group that I feel worst for is my Writing for the News class. I gave them the assignment of watching this debate and coming up with "spin room" questions. I can only imagine the godawful questions I'm going to be hit with.

Denise Clay

Philadelphia, PA

My 11-year-old grandson would have been given a failing grade for such a display of disrespectful crap. ABC and their two nitwit puppets stole time from me and my family... let alone the disgusting treatment of a "captive" Senator Obama. I wish I was in a position to buy ABC and fire the entire lot of them--CEOs and all--then send Step and Gib, permanently, to Portland, Oregon... to work as public servants... cleaning the elephant doo at the Portland Zoo.

Steve A. Wood

Forest Grove, OR

I find the debate by ABC News was a very fair one. In fact, it was far more fair than any other debate. The timing was equally monitored. The last comment was by coin tossed. The questions were those related to incident between last debate and the one before. The questions were fair and exactly what our citizens want to know. Unfortunately, Obama supporters who are very embittered, very angry and very loud, cried out loudly. Many journalists, including you, The Nation, also try to protect Mr. Obama due the fact that you as well, are inspired by Mr. Obama's charm and charisma. Journalism suppose to be fair and straight, report/write/speak without personal opinion or voice. In this case, your article in attacking ABC News is a disgrace. I believe our nation's Main Stream Media had turned to Opinionism and abandon Journalism completely. What a disgrace.

Joe Johnson

Portsmouth, OH

Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos stooped to the level of the politics of the last thirty years, basically insulting the American public’s intelligence and ignoring the degree of anger at the politics of the past. The majority of Americans are tired of this National Enquirer journalism perpetuated by the PR machines of Reagan, Atwater, Bush Sr., Carville, Clinton, Rove, W. and Hillary. The issue mainstream media and the political parties have refused to grasp this election is that Americans are, to paraphrase Howard Beale from Network, "mad as hell, and we're not going to take it anymore!" Thus the appeal of Barack Obama is his focus on changing the politics of the past, his leadership into a new era away from political pettiness so real issues can be solved and America’s disgust with the lies and dumbing down of the political system and mainstream media.

ABC’s blatant IQ-siphoning first hour of questioning was worthy of the best fiction produced by W.’s pre-war speeches, Cheney’s post-war ignorance or right-wing radio’s embellishment of any facts. Wait...! One of Stephanopoulos’s questions was provided by the hackneyed high school graduate and racist extraordinaire Sean Hannity. Moreover, the question was in turn furnished to candidate Clinton. For this reason alone, George Stephanopoulos should be fired by ABC and run out of journalism forever. If ABC has any ethics at all, they will can this charlatan now. Howard K. Smith, David Brinkley and Harry Reasoner must be turning over in their graves. Then again, all mainstream media sold its soul many years ago.

However, America still has a chance. We do not have to meet Satan at the crossroads. In the Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Indiana primaries and then in November America can prove we do not approve of dumbed-down politics, ignorant media and the politics of the past. This very well could be our last, best hope.

Andrew Jones

Atlanta, GA

This is likely to become a textbook emblem of the abandonment of integrity and responsibility by the American press.

The viral video showing Stephanopoulos calling out Sam Donaldson in 1992 for asking exactly the same type of irresponsible, trivializing questions he himself asked at the ABC debate is telling. First, it shows that journalists' trivializing of political discourse is nothing new. Second, it shows that the position taken by Stephanopoulos depends totally on where his personal self-interest lies. His integrity is for sale.

Speaking of which, the ABC response to criticism was not that they had honored their responsibility as part of the Fourth Estate but that they had had good ratings. I'm actually glad they did so. It's an open admission that they have absolutely no sense of public responsibility, even though they have been granted control of a precious slice of the public's bandwidth on the understanding that they would respect the public interest in using it.

Obama and Clinton both refused to show up for a Faux News debate, because Faux News is not really a journalism organization but rather the PR branch of the Republican party. They did show up for the ABC debate, and there they were confronted with exactly the same trivialities, innuendos and unethical sabotage they would have encountered on Faux News. Did Hannity, Hume, O'Reilly et al. dictate the questions the ABC sock puppets would mouth for them?

ABC and its non-journalists have deeply insulted the American people. They have assumed we will make profoundly important decisions on the basis of a half-inch of cleavage or a lapel pin.

Wayne Dickson

DeLand, FL

I found nothing at all wrong with the debate the other night. The questions that Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos asked, while annoying to the Obama supporters, were actually on the minds of people who are on the fence about whether or not they'd be comfortable with Barack Obama as President. I could have done without the flag pin question because I didn't think that was a big deal. But I find the rest of the questions very relevant.

What the debate showed me is that Barack Obama is easily rattled when the world doesn't love him. When he can't paste on a smile and win someone over, he can't come up with something meaningful to say. The debate the other night was a mix of questions many independents like myself wonder. When did he find out about Rev. Wright's comments/attitudes? It's clear to me now that he did know all along. It's also clear to me that he doesn't have a good handle on the economy. He said no new taxes for people who make under $200K and then proceeded to say that he would consider raising the employment tax. Since that will affect me to the tune of an additional 7 1/2 percent, I paid attention and it gave me pause.

This debate also made me walk away with the notion that he meant what he said about small-town America in that fundraiser in San Francisco. And he didn't say it wrong, like he wants us to believe. I'm small-town, but I'm not poor and I'm not bitter and I certainly don't cling to my religion because of anything to do with the how the government doesn't listen to me. I value my faith because of how it makes me feel. It was clear Barack Obama doesn't get that, which makes me wonder just how faithful he is himself.

From my perspective and the perspective of many independent voters like myself, this debate was valuable and I see nothing wrong with the questions asked.

Lisa Naujoks

Brimfield, MA

Although ABC is one of the worst of the worst in the election debate arena, it is not alone. The media that was once most superior in the world, representing the voice of the people, freedom of the press and the pillar of democracy, is nothing more than an Orwellian, scripted mouthpiece for the very wealthy and corrupt media moguls. Real News has become infomercials, fashion shows and movie star madness. The people we are supposed to be asking tough questions of are so thin-skinned, and act aghast when we want answers. Yes those who work for us treat us as though we are criminals, or unpatriotic for demanding truth, and results. We were once a proud nation who embraced our journalists. Journalism used to be an honorable career of free thinkers, and passionate truth-seekers. They, like our scientists, are being buried alive from tons of spin and lies, and bullied by Rovian tactics for the sake of the few, at the expense of the many. It is time we take our media back. Arundhati Roy says: "Either way, change will come. It could be bloody, or it could be beautiful. It depends on us."

Valerie Goodness

Eugene, OR

If I were a candidate, this is what I would say to the debate moderators: "As members of the Fourth Estate, you should be concerned about what is important and substantive, with what really matters in the world. Many journalists seem to be suffering from some sort of pop culture disorder in which the excessive behavior of celebrities has become just as significant and important as major world events and how they relate to the lives of the average American citizen. For example, you seemed afraid to ask President Bush the kinds of critical questions that would require him to justify his argument for his Iraq war; and as Iraq descended into hell, the news reports fed to the American people descended into stupidity, with the endless barrage of celebrity stories practically taking over the news landscape. What kind of country IS this?"

Paul Rigmaiden

Modesto, CA

This is pretty simple:

Two (or however many... just not eighteen!) candidates.

One moderator who, as the title implies, moderates the discussion. S/he has the power, up to turning off the candidate's microphone, to see that rules are obeyed.

Moderator controls who talks at all time. Moderator also controls how long candidates may talk. All controls are done in a manner that doesn't interrupt the discussion: silent buzzers, offstage signals, what have you.

After initial layout of rules, moderator is not seen again until end of debate. Not even the back of the head. Sorry, TV guys, this ain't about you. Moderator will only be heard if s/he warns a candidate that they are not obeying the rules.

One issue per debate, rather than a scattershot of issues.

Each candidate given three minutes initially to state their policies on the issue.

After this, it is up to the candidates to continue the discussion. They're all lawyers, they all know how to debate.

They are allowed to question each other's policies and the facts and opinions they use to support them.

All questions must be questions, rather than comments with a question mark tacked on the end.

Once queried, a candidate has as much time as necessary to respond.

Candidates wishing to interject signal the moderator, who decides when and if an interjection is allowed.

Moderator may take the floor away from any candidate at any time, for the following reasons:

1. Rehashing a stump speech rather than continuing the current thread of the debate.

2. Making a personal attack; every candidate knows how to questions another's opinion without attacking the other's person.

3. Resorting to emotional appeals "I was talking to a blind widow in Annapolis today who told me..." or pandering to voter groups rather than sticking to the issues and why they believe their policy will be effective.

4. And, of course, just talking too damn long.

It would be interesting to see if they could actually pull this off, since most of them probably haven't had to do this kind of debating since college.

If it got too hard, you could give an exemption every fifth or sixth debate, and they could go back to the stump speeches and personal attacks that everybody likes so much.

Sean Morrison

Milwaukee, WI

I'm a grad student and adjunct lecturer at the City College of New York. I am instructing and will continue to instruct all of my students in English and Media Communications (film, advertising, public relations, journalism) to study the performances of Gibson and Stephanopoulos in last week's Democratic debate as a textbook example of the decline of the Fourth Estate in America into the sewer of stupidity and gossip, and a stern warning of the perils of allowing major media outlets to be owned by large corporations who prioritize profit over public service. And I use much more colorful language in class.

Steve Foster

New York, NY

Evident: ABC is a shameful corporation intent on bringing down a great man who questions the corporate order. What really makes me mad is that most media protect these interests. CNN will interview Senator Clinton on the eve of the Pennsylvania primary. On another note, how come nobody harps on Hillary's statement that the only candidates ready to serve as commanders are McCain and her? I find it amazing for a Democrat to put down Obama this way. But not to worry. Obama has received endorsment from very knowlegable experts on foreign affairs like Sam Nunn and Bill Richardson who said Obama would be the best to answer the phone at 3 am.

Raymond Jolicoeur

Puebla, Mexico

I write to draw your attention to the concerted effort by the mainstream media to coronate Mr. McCain even before the first is cast.

Since McCain won the Republican nomination the media led by CNN have come out with direct attacks on Mr Obama, who in their view is the only Democratic candidate to give McCain a real contest.It seems to me that they are fascinated by the so-called maverick McCain, but any objective observer will notice that the McCain of 2008 is not the same person who ran in 2000. Witness his flip-flop on taxes and immigration and his pandering to those he once described as agents of intolerance.They want to foist him on us the same way they did with Bush. First they had to demonize Al Gore and make him unacceptable by the voters and then sold us Bush as one we can have beer with. We all have seen where that led us.

Now if you take a look at the CNN programming these days one will think they out to outfox Faux news channel.

Started by Wolf Blitzer and aimed at demonizing Obama in order to clear the way for McCain, the idea is to make Obama look so bad that he has to spent precious time defending himself.Check out these other programs: Glenn Beck and his unopposed tirades every night; Lou Dobbs's relentless attack on Obama,colored with a dose of racism; Anderson Cooper...

CNN does not have any opposing program that presents alternative views except by bringing in a few Democrats who are almost apologetic to thier right-wing coumterpart. So it behooves progressive media such as The Nation and others to shout now about the one-sided coverage before we repeat the 2000 election mistake.

Ike Mbonu

Laurel, MD

Given the driving concerns of a media controlled by multinational corporations I sincerely doubt that any debate that would inform the public about the serious divisions between party candidates could take place. Having said that, I would give all I have to see a series of debates that delve into the philosophical differences of each party's views of what a governments' primary role is in a democratic republic. Is the life of a people business or is the business of life people ? Is it ethical or appropriate for those in the legal profession to strive to find ways around laws they find constraining for those that employ them ? Do industries and companies that are and were created in a country whose people give their lives to create and maintain it have any obligation to those people and country? These are the sorts of questions I would like to be debated by the party candidates for President of a democracy. Oh, and was it appropriate or even constitutional for the Supreme Court to de facto select a President? Given that it was a congress of the seperate states that created the Constitution, presidency and the Supreme Court, does that not make our Congress the ulimate arbitor of/for the nation and its citizens rights ? Thank you for this opportunity, ye of the The Nation, keep up the good work. A bluedog, Boston Democrat,

Anguss Moss

Boston, MA

I find it truly remarkable that you said nothing about the inept way that all of the debates have been run. Not only by ABC, but by CNN, and in particular NBC/MSNBC--towards Hillary Cliton as far back as last summer's debates. I will not copy and paste transcripts from some of those awful debates--they are all out in the archives and you can access them quite easily should you feel inclined. Many of us have been outraged about this total lack of competent journalism going on for quite some time, yet you (The Nation) said nothing and turned a blind eye. This is exactly why I canceled my subscription to your publication.

Sorry, but I find your outrage is too little too late. Obama has coasted through this campaign because of the pandering from you and most of the media. Actually, ABC was much better with this debate than the others because they didn't spend another hour after the debates with all the talking heads droning on and on, parsing words and spouting their useless and boring opinions.

Valerie Hirvela

Seffner, FL

Hillary Supporters:

ABC's debate was front-loaded with irrelevance, commercial-crammed and glib. You have a fair point in saying that previous debates have also been slanted, albeit against Clinton instead of Obama. The fact that our response and recognition of the problem is probably too little, too late to save your candidate from herself does not mean you should attack us or savor "revenge" on other Democrats.

We should work together to ensure that this kind of nonsense is not tolerated during the national campaign. Instead of accepting that Republican attack ads will dominate the debate, lets handle that crap on the Internet and in ads and press conferences etc. but insist that it be kept out of national debates on public airwaves, and cable too for that matter.

It doesn't have to be inevitable. We can shame the media into maintaining a civil discourse. But we have to be unified to do so.

It is critical that the American people get a fair, honest and open discussion about how McCain and the Democratic nominee will govern the country over the next four years. Do you want undecided voters to make their decision based on who can defend best against a charge of elitism? Or who has the best ideas? Because let me tell you, either candidate will have better ideas than John McCain.

(I used to grin to myself, content in the knowledge that with Hillary in the Senate, one day I would have a chance to vote for the first female President. If Barack hadn't been in this race, at this moment in history, I would have.)

Jordan Weber-Flink

Los Angeles, CA

Where to begin with this one? First of all, ABC was giving us what we have come to expect and tolerate from the news media; vacuous topics, internet inspired gossip and questions perfectly crafted for the youtube soundbite generation. When the bar is this low, and all they are after is ratings, what better than a innuendo-laced bashing of the "golden boy"? Gibson and Stephanopoulos are not journalists, they are personalities on a endless screen test for entertainment tonight. George even had to take notes from Sean Hannity to feel relevant. Doesn't he make enough money to come up with his own questions? And what was he doing moderating a debate with the history of being a Clinton communications director? Gibson was so out of touch he was worried more about his stock portfolio than middle America. Capital gains? Really Charlie? The bifocals on the end of your nose was a nice touch. They can spare me the BS about preparing Obama for the big show. It isn't ABC's job to try to "man up"a candidate for their "own good," especially with fifty-three minutes of nonsense during a two-hour debate with forty minutes of commercials! Fifty-three minutes to get to the economy and Iraq? I don't know what is more insulting, that ABC felt this is what Pennsylvanians and the country cared about, or the unapologetic way in which they lapped up the spotlight when they were confronted. They certainly got a lot of attention for it didn't they? Hillary could hardly contain her satisfaction, practically licking her chops with every twist of the knife. It almost seemed like she knew what was coming. She had all of her Rovian talking points ready to go. Maybe George gave her the heads up. This one was bad folks, really bad. If we don't stand up for what is right, your candidate will be next.

Barbara Menear

Denver, CO

All I can say in response to many of these letters is, "Wow! Could you people be any more arrogant, ignorant or petty? To even try to justify ABC's ridiculous use of Gibson and Stephanopoulos to ask the most stupid, juvenile, inconsequential questions in the history of political "debate" (and that includes Faux News) seems to be absolutely stupid. I mean really, WTF kind of crack are you folks smoking when making the kind of asinine statements I've read here? I would usually expect more thoughtful, intelligent commentary from Nation readers but this is so freakin' off-the-charts nuts I can't think of anything else to say but "get a life, or something resembling one"!

Michael Ryan

Indianapolis, IN

Day after day for months, I have watched and read as most of the media have provided appallingly unbalanced coverage, ignored or tolerated sexism and given Barack Obama astoundingly uncritical, sycophantic coverage. And now you "media critics" protest when ABC News dares to ask the Anointed One questions about things we all know will come up in the general election campaign, and then has the temerity to ask followup questions like good journalists should. I would be disgusted if this wasn't so thoroughly absurd. Is this The Nation or Pravda?

Kenneth Maffitt

Durham, NC

When a politician, who preaches "unity" in a presidential campaign, fails to speak out against the "racial disunity" preached in his church for twenty years until it explodes in his face during his campaign, it raises fair questions whether that politician truly believes what he says in his speeches. That was the thrust of the cultural questions in the first half of the debate. It's an insult to my intelligence to expect me to accept any politician's self-serving campaign rhetoric on face value.

It's also an insult to my intelligence to describe an orchestrated "blog swarm" against ABC as a spontaneous "public uproar." We all know about viral web blasts, gaming of digg, reddit, google bombs, etc.

In his March speech on race, Obama said we need a "national conversation" about race before we can deal with all these other issues like health care and jobs.

"...the issues that have surfaced over the last few weeks reflect the complexities of race in this country that we’ve never really worked through... if we simply retreat into our respective corners, we will never be able to come together and solve challenges like healthcare or education ..."

In Obama's own words, these "complexities" have to be addressed before we can solve specific policy problems. That is exactly how the ABC moderators structured the debate.

Did you actually think a "national conversation" will be constrained by political correctness? That the views of Sean Hannity, Pat Buchanan, Rush Limbaugh, or the many millions of viewers of FOX News, listeners to Talk Radio, of the devoutly religious, of people who wear flagpins, of people without college degrees, people of "average intelligence"-- that all these views would be excluded from the "national conversation"?

Obama's speech was hailed by some, maybe most of the signers of this "Open Letter." And yet his speech had no effect on you, other than to satisfy your intellects. Your first instinct is to "retreat into your corner" of liberal consensus. "The debate should be tailored to the intellectual aesthetics of our elite echo chamber. Anyone who thinks these questions are relevant is an idiot."

Listen to the elitist arrogance: "a revolting descent into tabloid journalism." "Tabloid", as in popular, high-circulation newspapers read by millions of people who don't read 'superior' papers like what--the Washington Post? You find it revolting that people who read "tabloids" should have their questions answered. You demand an elite "literacy" test on public political discourse.

Who do you think is so stupid as not to recognize that this suppression campaign is about your fears that Obama cannot answer the questions of voters who read tabloids?

We're talking about questions. Not smears, questions. You are trying to suppress questions. That's disgusting.

Canaan Parker

New York, NY

The Nation's article reminds me of Granma, the official newspaper of the Cuban Communist Party. How dare any reporters ask any serious questions to Democratic candidates? After all , we all believe everything that Obama says about Jeremiah Wright, and I am OK with Jimmy Carter meeting with terrorists. Does The Nation believe that we should negotiate with terrorists? Does The Nation believe that Obama did not know about Wright's comments? Does The Nation feel it is good that a future President have good relations with a former terrorist ?

James Perez

Miami, FL

I have supported The Nation with contributions in the past but I have asked them to remove me from their e-mail alerts. I no longer find this site a fair and balanced discussion of the issues. A candidate's character is important in the voting decision. When a candidate surrounds himself with people of questionable background the media has a responsibility to question those relationship. The Senate has the right to vet cabinet-level appointments but has no authority on a President's "kitchen cabinet"; it is therefore the responsibility of the media. It is the people a leader surrounds himself with who have his ear and are at times the biggest influence on his decisions. If these people were lobbyists, the editors of The Nation would be in a uproar because of undue influence; by that same token, a person with a radical opinion can be said to have an undue influence. This is a very hypocritical position the editors have taken and I don't want to participate in it. In its zeal to support Obama, The Nation has thrown out all journalistic integrity.

T. Zellner

Rose Valley, PA

The debate was about as offensive as every one prior to it. How and why this debate has raised such a kerfluffle while every one prior to it that largely lambasted Clinton for every little nuance is beyond me. The idea that everyone is offended by Obama in particular having similar scrutiny, as crude and tasteless as it was, being focused on him is a case in point of how biased the media is.

It seems that the assumptions about Clinton, established by the right-wing media, are that, "Well, everyone knows she's a divisive calculating bitch, so let her have it." Why the press and blogs (particularly those who declare to be progressive) haven't been shouting from the rooftops until now seems to be indicative of mass ingestion of the Obama Kool-Aid. Tell me, Nation, where has your outrage been before now? If this can't get people to wake and see the bias that has been playing out in this campaign season, I don't know what will. Everyone seems to be reacting as if this is a new phenomenon, simply because Obama took a few bumps.

What do I think a debate should look like? Better question. How can we even expect to have a professional debate when the so called professionals, as qualified by their self-declared outrage and disgust, only proclaim said reaction when one candidate is put through the wringer? If the press hasn't bothered to try and self-regulate this issue until now, that my friends, is a problem that hasn't even been touched on by the current line of thought.

The outrage about the debate is a straw man. The underlying issue is the disparity in mass reaction to Obama receiving similar treatment to which Clinton has been getting since day one. If that dynamic is not understood then there is little likelihood that the press and media can hope to present a balanced and appropriate debate to the public.

At least that's my take,

A No-Vote FL Independent, critical of both Dem candidates,

Todd C. J. Workman

Hollywood, FL

First, all of the debates have been poorly designed because all the journalists had decided that there were no major differences among the candidates, and that minor differences were unimportant. Besides which, journalists today have no expertise in anything other than gaffes & gossip.

Ideally, each debate (especially once the numbers had been reduced to three people), would have focused on a different general topic: the economy, foreign policy, domestic policy etc. The questioners would be experts in the particular fields (unknown but widely admired, in their fields, professors--none of the overexposed talking heads). One would be a journalist specializing in the field with access to the Internet to do rapid checks on credibility and honesty in the answers.

Here are some of the topics that have received little or no attention in all of those debates and examples of the kinds of questions I would like to see asked:

1. Signing statements
Both Obama & Clinton support them. Ask their justification. First question to Obama because he apparently taught Constitutional Law. Press the issue. The Constitution gives the President three options (sign, veto, pocket-veto). Signing statements are not mentioned. Demand a constitutional justification. If they say a President has to point out unconstitutional components of a law, point out that determining the constitutionality of a law is the province of the courts. (That's why the questions need to be asked by experts.)

2. Habeas corpus, Guantánamo, rendition, torture.
We now know that torture was discussed and approved at the highest level of our government. Do they believe a President has the right to establish standards for torture? If they don't, have they thought about some way to prevent some future President (including themselves) from taking on such dictatorial powers?

3. Poverty
The guidelines were written some fifty years ago and do not take into account either changes in the relative percentage of family budgets spent on food, housing, energy or the different COLs around the country. Has either candidate a plan to develop new and more rational standards?

4. Taxes
The tax code gives preferential treatment to unearned income (dividends, capital gains). Interest on savings is taxed at a higher rate than dividends. Why? Wages are taxed at a higher rate. Why? What is the economic justification for this difference? (Prove to me that all capital gains are reinvested in businesses that generate new jobs. If the free market is so good, why do we have to bribe people--capital gains/losses--to participate in it?)

5. Prison reform
We jail a greater percent of our population than any other country. Why? Do you support reform? Be detailed. What kind? Is jail the right place for drug addicts or the mentally ill?

6. Science policy
Will the candidate depoliticize and support science over religion? Climate change & evolution are obvious issues, but there are others.

7. Education
We rank near the bottom of industrialized countries. Instead of arguing over phonetics, why don't we study the systems in other countries that produce a more highly educated population and adopt similar educational policies? Why do we insist on local funding and local control when we live in a global world? Is it fair or smart to create pockets of millions of children who, because of where they live, will never be able to compete in that world?

8. Foreign policy
What standards will they apply to the people who will represent the United States in foreign countries? Will they be expected to have expertise in the language and the culture?

9. Gays in the military

10. The country's infrastructure

11. The Internet
Here again, the US lags far behind other industrialized countries, even Korea, in terms of broadband access, speed and cost. The free market is clearly not working here. How would they fix it?

12. Healthcare
On almost all measures, our "best healthcare in the world" produces the worst outcomes among industrialized countries. How will your plans change this?

For Hillary: yes, everybody must buy in if we are to keep costs under control, but how do you design mandates that don't negatively impact the less economically fortunate? After all, many people who don't have insurance don't have it because they can't afford it (they have to pay the rent, the mortgage, buy food, clothes). And a bare-bones policy in their situations may be worse than nothing. This relates back to the question about the definition of poverty.

Since pharmaceutical companies don't want to spend resources on orphan diseases or vaccines, why not set up a non-profit, governmental organization (along the lines of the NIH) whose sole purpose would be the research, development and distribution of drugs for diseases that Big Pharma says it can't afford to invest in? (We should not as taxpayers have to pay huge, multimillion-dollar salaries to CEOs to entice them to do things that are in the public good.)

I could come up with more, but these questions would be a good start.

A. Banks

Philadelphia, PA

Oh please. What a bunch of wimps. Obama gets serious questions for one fucking time and you pussies can't take it?

You people are despicable. Just remember: we're watching you. And in short time we will look back and analyze you and laugh at you. You're being watched. You should be fucking embarrassed.

Now go home and wash mummy's dishes, clean your faces and get ready for bed.

Kourian Negladeh

Mogadore, OH

You seem rather outraged that Obama was asked actual questions. In previous debates the moderators fawned over him and asked the tough questions to Hillary. Where was your outrage then?

Why are you outraged that a presidential candidate was asked questions about his character? Seems rather ordinary to me.

Maxim Ledoux

New York, NY

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to weigh in on this matter.

What does a meaningful debate look like to me? A meaningful debate is exactly what I saw on ABC Wednesday, April 16, 2008. In fact, it was the first debate where I felt both candidates were treated fairly.

Senator Obama was asked some probing questions about events that transpired since the last debate. These events were not "silly" or "tabloid" topics as some have tried to suggest. We really needed to hear what he had to say when he did not control the questioning on the topic. Presidents must do this all the time.

I heard the Senator complaining that it took too long to get to the issues that mattered to people. That is wrong. He does not understand that some of the questions asked in the first half of the debate do indeed matter to a great many primary voters and they will matter even more in the general election. I also want to point out that the Senator has spoken out on many occasions about the number of debates that have been held during the campaign. Those other twenty-something debates focused a lot on the issues. The way I view it, there is nothing wrong with covering topics that have never been discussed before, including events that occurred since that last debate.

Let me give you just one example. In lieu of Senator Obama having provided a substantive service to this country during his rather brief political career, some voters need proof of the Senator's patriotism. The Reverend Wright issue goes straight to the heart of the matter of voter mistrust of Sen. Obama's patriotism. If he is going to be the President, then he must convince the voters that he deeply cares for this country, especially since he will go up against a war hero in the general election.

Rev. Wright is not a casual acquaintance. He was a spiritual advisor and like an uncle to Obama for twenty years. The videos of Rev. Wright's screed against America only days after September 11, 2001, were for sale to anyone. After seeing those videos, people are completely justified in their concerns even though the Senator did not speak the words himself. Sometimes standing by in passive silence when something bad is happening is almost as bad as committing the act itself.

At first Sen. Obama said he never heard inflammatory rants while sitting in church. Then in his speech on race he admitted that he did. When questioned about reversal he tried to weasel-word it, saying he hadn't heard some specific comments. His reversals destroyed his credibility with me on the matter.

As a voter, I still have a lot of questions and concerns about this issue. I would like to know exactly which inflammatory comments Senator Obama heard in church, when he heard them and what he did about them.

We needed a speech from Senator Obama about patriotism and instead, he delivered a speech about race and expected to be done with it. But wait: not so fast.

He absolutely needed to discuss the Wright issue in a question and answer press conference or town hall format. That would have enabled the dialog on race that he claims we need in this country. And yet, he allowed no dialogue. It was a monologue of his point of view and subsequently, he did not actively pursue a path that would have made it possible for the dialogue to happen.

So given the lack of a forum where both sides could express a viewpoint, it had to come up in a debate. That is my opinion on the matter, and I am still not convinced that Senator Obama truly understands anyone else's point of view other than his own and Rev. Wright's.

We don't know that much about Senator Obama, and if he is to be the Democratic nominee, he must be thoroughly vetted before the general election campaign begins, so there will be few if any surprises.

If people haven't caught on, one problem with Senator Obama is that he is not very good in having a two-way conversation. He shines as long as he controls the audience and the message. Frankly, though, he stinks when he has to go off script. This is why he prefers giving speeches to having debates. Nobody can ask questions when you are giving speech. His lack of being able to think quickly on his feet or at least to prepare a response in case he is asked concerns me greatly. I guarantee that while serving as President of the United States of America he will not be able to follow a script. He must hope for the best, prepare for the worst and be able to come up with a completely new game plan pronto if something he didn’t expect happens.

It is my opinion that all of the other debate moderators have be unduly harsh with Senator Clinton while at the same time pitching soft balls to Senator Obama. You tell me: how fair was it to have a debate moderator (Chris Matthews) who announced on television that listening to Senator Obama speak sends tingles up his leg?

It was refreshing to finally see that the moderators were not fawning over either candidate. Both were asked hard questions. It might have tilted a tad in favor to Senator Clinton, but this was a first so I consider it payback for Senator Obama.

I also appreciated that audience interruptions were disallowed. The rule was applied to both candidates and that was fair. I was watching on television. I would rather make up my mind without the influence of audience reaction. Let's face it. Either candidate can get people there as cheerleaders. I do not want cheerleading to interfere with my own reactions to debate. It is impossible to do this if you have cheering and standing ovations. You can save the rah, rah for campaign stump speeches as far as I am concerned. This is a presidential primary, not American Idol.

I apologize for rambling on, but sometimes one cannot express one's opinion fully in soundbites. In closing, I want to thank ABC for providing the first substantive debate of the election. My hat is off to Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos for their journalistic integrity.

Again, thank you for allowing me to express my opinion.

Virginia L. Smith

Tacoma, Wa

I just reviewed your open letter to ABC. Sheer hypocrisy and sanctimonious nonsense on the part of The Nation. Have you no integrity? Where were you and all your signers when Senator Clinton was unfairly attacked and grilled during the last twenty debates. Or is it just objectionable when the media darling, Senator Obama, is attacked? Should we restrict ourselves to only petting him on his pedestal? I congratulate ABC on being the first media organization to have the guts to grill Senator Obama on all those many troublesome issues he has, each of which makes him electorally radioactive for the general election. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, isn't it? Or did you lose sight of that basic rule of journalistic fair play and balance?

Naomi Rustomjee

Berkeley, CA

The debate on ABC was a farce. I understand the claim that Obama should be vetted. However, a presidential debate is not an appropriate setting for a personal vetting interrogation.

The majority of questions directed at both Senators were superficial and lacking in substance.

The sort of queries directed at Obama in the first fifty minutes of the debate in particular, were questions that could never be answered satisfactorily. Questions about measuring love and donning lapel accessories will not truly reveal the depth of a person's patriotism. In fact, there is no question to really determine a person's loyalty to their country. Patriotism is revealed in deeds and actions.

I would further argue that the kind of questions about radical political affiliations, American flag pins and love of country were directed at Barack Obama because he is black. I feel that many mainstream journalists and voters feel they must probe the depth of Obama's Americanism. I think much of this occurs on a subconscious level and is paraded under the guise of "questions of character." The underlying assumption is that a black person's patriotism is always in question until they prove otherwise.

Even withstanding these racist assumptions because black people are used to it and Barack expects it--ask them in a press conference or on Nightline. They have no place in a presidential debate.

Mei Campanella
1afrika.blogspot.com

Brooklyn, NY

Are you people serious? I mean, this is a spoof open letter right?

“Mr. Gibson's claim that the government can raise revenues by cutting capital gains tax is grossly at odds with what taxation experts believe.” That’s a brazen lie. An outright lie. You are just shameless to print an untruth grossly at odds with reality.

Moving along. Are you seriously saying that if John McCain had worked with a man who not only bombed abortion clinics thirty years ago, but was unrepentant and actually thought he didn’t do enough… that he shouldn’t be asked why he had worked with him, sat on boards with him? Are you kidding me? You expect me to believe that you wouldn’t be screaming blue bloody murder that he wasn’t asked hard about that?

Are you seriously saying it is unfair and not relevant to ask a man who wants to be President of the United States about his racist pastor? It's unfair to ask about Hate Preach? The fact is Senator Obama has received a fawning pass from the media for over a year. Nobody knew a damn thing about him or his friends, or his land deals or his racist pastor. But they do now and you loath it.

All you shills want to do is shut down anything that is even half way critical. You guys are scary Stalinists alright. Trying to use the special privileges granted to the press in the Constitution to intimidate against open and free debate. That's your game: to intimidate and to get others to self-censor. To chill free speech.

And please, the fact that an ill-prepared amateurish Obama was forced to spend forty-five minutes on this did him a favor. Less time to misstep, vacillate, bore, stutter and lose focus on all those issues you think he should have been answering. But couldn’t. He doesn’t even have a clue about capital gains tax and the 100 million stockholders who have to pay it. Talk about being not ready for prime time without a teleprompter.

This whole “open letter” is a shoddy, despicable performance masquerading as something serious. It falls far short of anything tangentially related to journalism and is nothing less than the ramblings of hacks cheering on the sidelines for one candidate. It’s another nail in the coffin of what used to be real journalism.

You should be ashamed, but the fact you wrote it proves you have no shame.

David Smith

London, England

Debates need to be for the issues people want to hear. Not for the petty back-biting that went on.

Teri Benjamin

Missoula, MT

As a young person, I watched the League of Women Voters host presidential debates. They weren't sensational--they were structured and fair. Time was managed fairly; questions were fair because they were pertinent to the issues. They were questions about policy, not lapel pins.

I don't think the bias of the moderators should be glaringly evident. I don't think they should say whether they thought a candidate answered a question completely or to the moderators' satisfaction. There is no place for a debate moderator to express any opinion whatsoever. The purpose of the debate is to give the voters the information they need to make informed decisions at the polls.

If ABC and other major news sources want to be taken seriously by the American people, they need to go back to the basics of journalism. No bias, no analysis. Isn't that what the op-ed page is for?

Thank you for this opportunity to express my deep concerns about this debate in particular and journalism in general.

Kim Ryan

San Antonio, TX

Meaningful debate to me is when the moderators give equal time to gauging the characters of the candidates. Not pile on a single candidate as in the case of Sen. Clinton in the past debates.

Lemuel Vargas

Raritan, NJ

I agree wholeheartedly. Stephanopoulos should know better. He can't shake those Clinton years.

Tim Broderick

Dawsonville, GA

The events featuring presidential candidates and news pundits are not debates. They are Q&A sessions with the pundits selecting the questions or topics. They underestimate the intelligence of the American people and are off the mark in terms of what Americans want to know about and hear. I was appalled by the topics raised by Gibson and Stephanopoulos during the Wednesday debate on NBC. The media is actively participating in spreading rumors. For example, I had never heard of Mr. Ayres until Stephanopolis asked about him. Stephanopolis has succeeded in planting doubt in the minds of many unaware TV viewers about Obama's association with a radical ex-Weatherman.

Disgusting!

What's to be done? Get the pundits out of the business of moderating these so-called debates. They're only out to make headlines for themselves. Enough of Tim Russert's "gotcha games" and puerile questions of Stephanopoulos and Matthews. The media may label discussions led by the League of Women Voters or NPR OR PBS "boring," but for Americans seeking information, they are much more valuable.

I want to hear more about candidate's plans to reduce the impact of recession and restore our economy, position on government regulation of financial institutions, imports, exports, transportation, environment etc.; plans to improve schools and provide academic support and financial aid for needy students; how to fix Social Security, the prescription drug program for seniors etc. I would like to see candidates have adequate time to fully outline their positions on issues. The role of the moderator would be to help clarify the issue for the viewers. These discussions are not games to be played, entertainment, or contests, but genuine opportunities for the public to become informed about candidate's plans and viewpoints.

Let's stop pretending that what we are viewing are debates and give the viewers an opportunity through intelligent discussion to obtain the information they need to make one of the more critical decisions of our lifetimes about who is to become our next President.

Thanks for the opportunity to sound off!

Mary Kelly O'Donnell

Denver, CO

A good debate requires minimal involvement by any third parties. There should be few rules and the moderator ought simply to do three things:

1. Enforce some degree of civility

2. Move the discussion along when it seems a subject is exhausted and...

3. When a subject is being dealt with superficially by both parties, encourage more depth.

If there is an insistence on a question format, past performance proves that regular citizens ask better questions.

Phil Merrill

Appleton, ME

I would prefer the town hall format to a debate.

I think the questions should be chosen from submissions made by the citizens and put out on the web and in newspapers several weeks ahead of the meeting for the public to vote on. The most popular question(s) from the various categories would then be put to each candidate. The question would not necessarily be posed to both candidates since the questioning has been determined by whatever the overall voting population stated that needed to know about or from the individual candidate.

It's our country let us decide what we still need to know and want to ask!!

Nancy Mumm

Bluemont, VA

What started out as an interesting, but too long, presidential campaign, turned into a sham when the networks took over everything, especially the so-called "debates."

I do not watch TV, so missed those and even some that were broadcast on the radio, so perhaps some will think what I say has no standing. I did read and hear enough excerpts to make me feel the way I do.

The biggest problem was allowing the debates to be run by the media corporations who have, I believe, different interests than the public. By their power to include or exclude, they create their own primary. By excluding certain candidates from the debates and giving them little press, they chose who the candidates will be.

They turned the campaign into a popularity contest, discussing policy only when they felt they needed a tiny bit of substance. For the most part, the moderators were awful, their questions without merit. From what I saw and heard, all the debates seemed more about the interviewers themselves, then the candidates and their ideas.

It appears to me that they wanted to make sure that Hillary and Obama were the finalists because, with them, the Republicans would have a better chance of winning the presidency. This seems especially true in the recent ABC fiasco.

One wonders where we are going as a country when people like David Brooks give ABC an A for the last debate, Hillary a B and Obama a D.

Ronald C. Andersen

Anchorage, AK

Short and sweet--it's nice to know that Stephanopoulos and Gibson think that their viewers are a bunch of puerile morons whose interest is trivialities rather than substance.

I can't believe that--given all of the absurd things that have happened throughout the George W Bush years--the first thing I've been incensed enough to boycott is ABC News.

Nice job, fellas.

Chris Hoponick

Reston, VA

debates looked good--because they bore some reflection to what was on the minds of a subset of actual likely voters, and was not a creation of the punditocracy.

It is clear what the public wants: substantive questions on core public concerns. Get the candidates off their preprogrammed talking points, but not with "gotcha" questions about media-overhyped, manufactured controversies.

Finally, technology allows near-real-time fact-checking of candidate claims. A team of researchers can feed moderators corrective information on the spot that candidates can be queried on; we don't have to wait for the post-debate analysis to learn that a candidate is misstating the facts.

Isaiah J. Poole

Washington, D.C.

George Stephanopoulos and Charles Gibson passed the Fox News test. Senator Clinton added to the debasement of the event with a schadenfreude revelry she was hard-pressed to conceal.

The three of them make for an Axis of Shame.

William Abraham

Shelton, CT

Unfortunately, the journalists’ open letter to ABC although well-intended is completely off the target. No one has to react to obvious stupidity. The obvious stupidity is self-destructive. Far worse is a gray-area stupidity that keeps the nation on the wrong course for decades but no media outlet, no journalist and no professional organization steps up to correct it.

The most urgent duty of the American journalists is to investigate why the two best-qualified candidates, Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul, couldn’t get more than a few percent of the primary votes.

Without leaders capable of solving the problems it is impossible to solve them. Let me remind you that all of them--Obama, Clinton and McCain--failed to be efficient uniters or dealmakers capable of accomplishing anything worthy while serving in the US Senate. Those candidates have always been at or very close to the steering wheel of their respective parties.

Contrary to them, both Kucinich and Paul were on the right side of history but always pushed far away from the executive party positions. It means that either of them would be able to accomplish something if given executive or legislative power.

Smart or stupid questions by ABC moderators cannot provide the candidates with the depth, strength, intelligence or integrity they lack. All three of the frontrunners have already exposed the fatal flaws that would prevent them breaking loose from the centripetal force that pulls us down to the bottom of a whirlpool. The problem is that our journalists have failed to recognize those deficiencies and present them clearly to the American public.

Kenan Porobic

Charlotte, NC

A debate worthy of my attention would be one that distinguishes candidates based on policies they would put on place once in office. These policies would cover issues like the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, our crumbling economy, health care, poverty and the environment.

I think including who their cabinet might be composed of (maybe not people's names but the kinds of people they are thinking of), their thoughts on filing the Supreme Court when the next two judges leave and their views of foreign powers (especially China) would be insightful. Even where they see the US fitting in a growing world that is leaving us behind would be helpful.

Any questions that shed light on the kind of administration the candidates would create (both in context and content) would make for an excellent debate.

Answering questions about the past (twenty years or five minutes) will not provide a look at our country's future under their guidance.

Thanks for asking!

Linda Magid
Texas Democratic Women of Collin County

Plano, TX

Dabate tactics? Surely you jest. These are not debates. Media journalists' self-interest is palpable and harmful to the candidates and the voters.

Sarah D. Pusey

Calistoga, CA

The abomination that ABC passed off as a debate hopefully will be the beginning of the end of this type of "gotcha" politics that have dominated the US political scene for the past decade. As a start we should stop glorifying the multitude of politcal consultants and spokespersons like Rove, Carville, Matalin, FOX news etc. who see the world through one point of view and the media as their personal playground to advance whomever they have signed on to shill for.

Is it possible with all that is happening in the world that TV journalists can't think of an original question that might illuminate the differences between the candidates and actually require that they think on their feet. That can't happen when every question comes from last week's blogosphere.

Why weren't questions like the following asked?

1. How do you see our economic relationship with China and India changing over the next few years?

2. Isn't the country better off today following the years of civil rights actions and do you think conservatives or liberals played a more useful role in getting where we are today?

3. We have seen clips of Rev. Wright saying "Goddamn America." Can you tell me what he was talking about when he said this? Do you know of any events over our nation's history where such a remark might occur to you, although you might use less incendiary language?

4. Many Americans do not have an American flag flying at their homes nor do they wear flag pins on a daily basis. What do you think this tells us about their patriotism?

5. In the event of International tensions such as Darfur, WMD, North Korea, do you have a preference for working through the UN or NATO or via bilateral or multilateral initiatives? Explain which crises lend themselves best to which approach.

6. The Vietnam war ended years ago and we now have peaceful relations with that country. If that was a defeat, as some say, would you accept a similar end to the conflict in Iraq if you knew the outcome would be similar?

7. What do you think Jesus would say about the religious right in America?

8. If you learned that a terrorist act had just occurred in America would you continue to read a book to children?

9. How much do you think the US should spend on the Iraq embassy compound and how much would you spend on improving schools in the inner cities?

10. Are US soldiers in Iraq primarily involved in fighting a war against terrorism, mediating an internal ethnic conflict, or trying to justify a huge mistake made by Bush?

11. If we held a referendum in Iraq on how and when the US should leave, would you abide by that decision?

Dennis Stynes

Thornhill, Ontario, Canada

First and foremost, a "real" debate should not look quite so much like the Jerry Springer show, where the moderator eggs on the candidates to get into a fight. It should also deal with substantive issues that affect the American people, not on which candidate chooses to wear a flag pin or what.

There is nothing wrong about quizzing candidates about their associations, but only insofar as there is some plausible link to why or how this will affect policy.

And as to questions that rehash controversies that have been addressed over and over again (e.g., snipergate and bittergate), this is not news.

The real "elitists" who are condenscending to the American public are not Clinton, Obama, or even McCain--they are Gibson, Stephanapolous and ABC news.

The American people are not dumb, they are perfectly capable of going beyond soundbites, and they know which issues are contrived and which are real.

Ana Mari Cauce

Seattle, WA