obfuscate and yet to lecture according to predetermined templates. You must recall how during the late 1970s it began to appear as if all major politicians had suddenly been closeting with political coaches, polishing their ability to run a pundit's question off the clock without ever answering it.

It's a process of evolution, that is, political candor. None of them practice it if at all possible, but they all want to appear as if they are practicing it with every word that tumbles from their lips. So, the town hall concept or internet influenced question and answer sessions are not going to make these men any more open nor filled with honesty. They, however, are going to strive mightily to fake it.

Also, as you well know, political attacks primarily occur nowadays from secondary sources so that the candidate can practice 'plausible deniability.' The GOP are past masters at this and one can bet the bank on them already having several plans of attack for the Swift Boating of Barack Obama.

Only naive political children think that this is not going to happen and that it won't, to a greater or lesser degree, determine the outcome of the general election.

Obviously, to a lesser extent, the DNC will have their own stealth operatives out there producing their own plausible deniability attacks against John McCain. It is not because the DNC is unwilling to fight dirty but -- except when it comes to destroying Hillary Clinton's nomination -- they are fairly inept clowns when it comes to doing this attack poodle stuff.

So that's how this presidential election process will shape up. It usually boils down to which side has the better group of paid professional propagandists working for them [usually the GOP] and how blind and clueless the general press acts whenever plausible deniability attacks occur--usually pretty damn blind and clueless -- just ask John Kerry regarding all those Swift Boating attacks and the generally clueless nature of the press back then.

So it goes.

You're a bit cynical, but understandably so Gatewood, on your first point, and no less correct for it. It's fun to imagine a real impromptu town hall type debate, where unplanted citizen's can hold both candidates' feet to the fire with original questions. But you're right, it is highly unlikely that any kind of unrehearsed genuiness will come out of it and it will liekly be due to the party masters and ratings driven structures imposed by big media. But then again, we are in the middle of an election like no other, with a younger tech-savvy electorate, and a mishmash of issues that are pulling our culture in every direction, so perhaps we should be a little more hopeful that the candidates can pull it off, assuming it's Obama and McCain, I haven't been exposed to two candidates who have more potential for candor. But still, being optimistic about politician's candor is like being hopefulu that you'll be struck by lightining, it's unlikely and probably won't feel great when it does happen anyways.

On the plausibly deniable secondary sources of political attacks, you are also correct that they happen and that the media is often complicit. I didn't really see more from Obama's campaign than from Clinton's campaign, in fact, I really felt that she got more negative attacks out against Obama in both primary AND secondary fashions, by far. If you want to compare and contrast lists, we can, but it will still come down to both our inabilities to quantify the impact of apples and oranges.

On the bright side, this election has featured the most "self-awareness" that I've ever seen in the media. So maybe there's still hope.

I don't think that the press/media did that; I think that Sen. Cinton, and her campaign did it to themselves. "Mispoken" claims such as being in the line of fire when visiting Bosnia or making peace in Northern Ireland; wrong-headed policy proposals such as the gas tax holiday; and the campaigne claims that she, and only she, can get the votes of and represent working class white voters in the general election, make Sen. Clinton, who is very capable to be President, less desirable a choice than Sen. Obama.

Sorry, but I didn't need the media/press to turn me toward Sen. Obama (who wasn't my first, or second, choice) as the Democratic nominee. It was Sen. Clinton, and her campaigne, that did that.