Let's be clear about some facts. First, whatever passes for "debate" on the national level is run by those fewer and fewer media outlets I have been relentlessly referring to. Second, other than the Nixon "five o'clock shadow" debate incident, the debates do not seem to me to have made much differenct over the years. (Oh yes, there was the Dukakis/emotion thing, too. But for the most part, my point stands.) Third, yes, Nader and some of the other non-crackpot candidates would inject some zing and provide welcome relief from the safe middle-of-the-road location that the Dems prefer, too, by the way.

But the groups and people who run the debates--refer back to the F&FMO who are interested in balance sheets rather than product have also decided that the safe middle-of-the-road location is preferable to actual content that might lead to a change of the landscape.

And finally, campaign dollars that allow a candidate to more than "correct" whatever gaffs and missteps may have taken place in debates are still more important than the debates themselves. Really, folks. Can anyone honestly say that Dubya did himself proud against Gore? I don't care what side you play, he was uninformed, inarticulate, and anything but reassuring as a potential president.