I hesitate to call these things that John Kerry and George W. Bush have been doing "debates," because debates imply an actual logical exchange of ideas. Instead, what we have are both candidates talking their normal points with the other person in attendance rather than some effigy. It was still useful, in at least two of the debates, because Bush was incredibly defensive because he is so unused to actually being confronted with his failures, isolated as he is by his handlers and yes men. In the first debate, Bush looked uncomfortable when he was speaking because he was so used to hand-picked Republican crowds that would cheer after his every statement and looked lost when the audience failed to respond to anything he said. In the second debate, he literally attacked the moderator and questioners for daring to actually, gasp, pose a question to him. While he was better in the third, it was simply because he had lowered expectations for his performance so much in the previous two debates that he couldn't do any worse if he had tried.

We were very disappointed by the questions in this third debate, which seemed to only cover the same things already covered in the previous ones or questions that the campaigns themselves had been making points, rather than some of the questions in the second debate that were actually different and pointed. In the future, I would suggest at least two of the "town hall" style press conferences to one talking podium conference.