We've received great questions thus far — everything from the big picture philosophical:

What is the truth, as you see it, about what our country is facing and how will you fully engage the American people in the solution?

Please explain specifically how 'We the People" will benefit from the corporate bail-out. Make sure you cover how an unemployed person will see his/her life change; the effect on a person/family with a house in foreclosure; whether the action would do anything to raise the quality of life for the 'lower' 95%. What process would monitor bail-out results, and what corrective action will you take if/when it appears that only the already-wealthy are receiving benefit?

Many viewers have a wish list for "if we ran the debates." Top of that list: include more than the major party candidates, and, more importantly, ask for hows, specifics and even citations for every proposal, plan or platitude. The system of Presidential debates has changed significantly over the years. Between the famous Lincoln/Douglas debates of 1858 and the first national radio debate between Republican presidential candidates — Harold Stassen and Thomas Dewey — on the perils of Communism in 1948, debates didn't figure in much in our electoral process. Then came television. Find out more about debate history, before and after TV.

More has changed than the medium of the debates. For years moderated by the League of Women Voters, critics contend that the debates have been hijacked by the major parties who have crowded out not only third parties, but even follow-up answers. The League withdrew it's sponsorship in 1988 with a blunt statement: "The League of Women Voters is withdrawing sponsorship of the presidential debates ... because the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter." Protests leading up to the 2004 debate season led to some changes:

For the first time in 16 years, the contract drafted by the Republican and Democratic campaigns — the 2004 Memorandum of Understanding — has been made public. Now, the general public and the media can hold the candidates accountable for the debates they have designed. Also, for the first time in 12 years, there will be more than just one moderator asking the questions.

1) I recommend not watching the coverage immediately before the debate and, when the debate is finished, turn the television off and talk with others about what you saw and what was important to you. And think about what you saw.

2) Candidates make different assumptions about government's role, about economic policy, about the value of government regulation, about the role of the US in the world, about appropriate use of military power, about US relationships with other countries... and the like. Try to glean from the debate what are the governing philosophies of the candidates?

3) Come to a debate with a list of the issues that matter to you and ask what you learned about each candidate's record and promises on those issues. Where are they similar and how do they differ?

4) When a candidate promises a new program or any move that will reduce government revenue -- how will the candidate pay for it? Increase the deficit? Cut spending elsewhere and if so where? Raise taxes? On whom?

5) How accurate are candidates' descriptions of opponents' programs? And how accurate are a candidate's descriptions of his or her own record?

6) Is the candidate willing to tell voters things they don't want to hear about the challenges facing the country and what is required to address them?

7) If the country were faced with a crisis, what can you know from the candidates' past performance, character, and dispositions about whether the country would be in good hands?

Published September 26, 2008.