Despite the unfortunate fact that presidential debates depend mostly on impressions, images and perceptions, the real purpose, namely the substance of the debating points of each candidate, is unattainable in a medium that has been referred to the "glass teat" or one that encourages us to "amuse ourselves to death".  A careful examination of the memorized answers and retorts to each innocuous question reveals the appalling absurdities of the policies advocated by each candidate.  In addition, the format of the debate and the choice of moderator preclude any real truths surfacing from these artificial exchanges.

George W. Bush is not really that much different from other presidents with respect to his hegemonic ambitions or his proclivity to use force to achieve foreign policy objectives.  Continuing historical patterns, President Bush and all presidents since World War II have committed horrendous crimes against humanity in order to protect and advance American interests under the guise of liberating people from under the jackboot of brutal dictators or communist subversives, bringing democracy to totalitarian states, improving the lives of those who are suffering and eradicating terrorism.

Most Americans now consider Iraq, as was the case in Vietnam, a strategic and lamentable mistake of the American government.  Their perception of these wars is understandable and to be expected given the limited scope of debate in the corporate media.  Stepping beyond the boundaries of public discourse is difficult given their pride in the laudable ideals for which their country stands and their pride America.

In 1960, John F. Kennedy and Richard M. Nixon faced each other in front of television cameras to debate, for the first time, issues important to voters.  The outcome may have been determined more by Nixon's five o'clock shadow and awkward, nervous demeanor than by the content of the debates.  The medium's message was that Nixon had the appearance of a used car salesman and Kennedy that of a charming, witty and trustworthy candidate.

An AlterNet article Republicans Have Handed Democrats a Winning Election Issue (http://www.alternet.org/environment/9546 9/) proposes that the Democrats, and Obama in particular, should shift the focus of the energy crisis to renewable energy and away from offshore oil.  According to the article, they should place the emphasis on renewable energy and allow the Republicans to filibuster in Congress against a bill proposing to extend subsidies to the renewable energy sector.  The filibuster would expose the Republican's real agenda, which is to continue to support the oil industry and cut off funding for renewables.

Traditionally, candidates seem to have two ways to travel during an election: the high road and the low road.  Obviously this is oversimplified drivel but it is true that a candidate and his campaign team will choose the general direction of their strategy.  It is becoming very transparent that McCain has chosen neither but has opted for some subterranean, miasmic nether world where he can spew out his calumnies about Obama.

As we mercifully approach the end of the Bush Presidency, the pundits will mercilessly begin the process of evaluating his Presidency.  He has failed in so many areas such as foreign policy, diplomacy or lack of it, respect for the constitution and rule of law, the economy, trade and social security to mention only a few, that it is a challenge to know where to begin.  Since the President recently intoned with great bravado and chest-thumping that the fundamentals in the economy are sound, it sounds like a good place to start.

The author http://www.alternet.org/story/95126/ brilliantly describes how humans evolved to a consumer/capitalistic/patriarchical society which we delude ourselves into believing is sustainable. He omitted a very significant revolution, information, which as the others, accelerated our pace towards ultimate doom unless we escape our delusions.