I don’t like the idea of an unmoderated debate.

I think scribe makes some good points about the campaign finance issue. However, I think these debates would be a good thing because people would see the contrast in philosophy between the two candidates. If the McCain campaign controls the discourse they control how they position the “maverickness” of the candidate and Obama may only keep saying “Bush’s 3rd term”. The debates also provide Obama the opportunity to speak about a range of domestic policies.

How about, Pat Buchanan and Rachel Maddow as moderators.

1. I only could stomach a minute or two of McCain’s Kenner speech last night. The one thing I did catch, which stood out, was his declaration that the primary was over and the general election campaign had begun. Given his problems with the FEC (about gaming the system of financing he helped create), if McCain can get away with going into the general campaign – by going all Lincoln-Douglas with Obama, then the issue of his liability re public financing for the primary goes away. If, OTOH, Obama (with HRC’s help by not immediately conceding) has to contend with an extended primary season, then McCain’s primary financing limits still apply. And he can’t support a campaign within those limits.

2. The underdog always is the one who challenges the other to a debate. By challenging Obama, McCain is recognizing that he is behind. Obama should not give McCain the benefit of the same stage, raising him to the same level.

3. McCain is going on broke, and needs the free media a series of debates would give him. I had posted a number of comments earlier in the Dem primary, over at TalkLeft, my analysis that if HRC and Obama kept on debating all the way to the convention, they would benefit immensely (assuming they could keep it nice. Given the way it turned out on the nice front, maybe I was asking for too much maturity and in-depth seeing on the part of the supporters. But, that’s neither here nor there.). The benefits would have been their controlling the media narrative – as long as the candidates were debating, the media were not in control of framing the candidates. They would have gotten the benefit of free media; even if it killed him, Olbermann, et als. would have to have covered another debate.
All these points obtain as to an Obama-McCain series of debates, but in reverse.

4. McCain’s base is the Media Establishment. They would turn every trick in their books to help him in a series of debates.

5. McCain’s already lied about his and Obama’s alleged committments to public financing. He just makes crap up to suit the moment, so why give him the benefit of a national stage. The most effective way to debate McCain, is by running ads of his various positions over the years. And, since that can (at this point in the campaign) still be done through 527s and such, why not do it that way?

6. Obama talked to Lieberman in the Senate today, using body language which indicated he was pinning Lieberman against the wall while speaking at him. I have no doubt he was dealing with the Lieberman problem ab initio – but why go up there against McCain and then let his butt-buddy Joe come and tag-team you in the post-debate commentary.

And, two more things, a little off topic.
1. Someone needs to tell Harold Ford to STFU if he wants to have any future in or around politics. He’s a loser, and being used to put a black face before the electorate speaking Republican talking points, so as to create cognitive dissonance in the crowd for whom they all look alike.

2. Where’s the video of the CPAC ”four more years” chanting? We need to see that again, and again.

Think of it as the worst student at the navy academy going against one of the best at Harvard law.

“BIRT the United States keep a military presence in Iraq for up to 100 years.”