Question Number Ten: Do you like the format for the debates? Are they "real debates"? Do we ever learn significant things about the candidates from these debates? What would you rather see?

I would like to see the American people take democracy more seriously and to get involved in deep thought and discussion earlier than a month before a major election. We need to realize that democracy is not a spectator sport. Analysis should not focus on facial expressions, body language, and pronunciation of words.

Instead of strictly formated sessions with a plethora of "rules" designed to ensure the candidates don't appear too bad, I would rather see real, full discussions of issues of vital importance to our future. If there are more than two viewpoints on a subject, all should have an opportunity to be fully presented. This process would probably need to occur very early - if possible, even before candidates were selected by the various parties.

For an example of how an important viewpoint can be excluded from the process, consider the occupation of Iraq and the administration's plans for Iraq's future. There are organizations of Iraqis, in Iraq and all over the world, who were longtime opponents of the Saddam Hussein regime and who are both pro-democracy and anti-U.S. occupation. These groups include women's organizations, labor unions, academic and professional associations, and human-rights advocates. I recently attended a seminar with an Iraqi-American speaker from one of these organizations. He stated that in the past, their attempts to try Saddam Hussein in absentia had been rejected by the U.S. government. Currently, such organizations are either being ignored or repressed.

So, there are plans to have "free" elections three months from now in Iraq. And the dominant discussion in this election is how to make sure there is "security," which seems to translate solely into military defeat of insurgents. Where is the discussion of involving a broad range of Iraqi organizations in helping to define the parameters of debate regarding the country's future and in determining the structure for elections, the candidates, etc.?

With Bush's plan it seems the candidates (or maybe just one candidate) will be picked by the United States from a list of former CIA paid informants (who had also served Saddam Hussein in the past). With Kerry, there is talk of involving other countries - but not Iraqi organizations. If I were from Iraq and had been working in opposition to Saddam Hussein for a quarter of a century, I would be angry to be excluded from discussions concerning the future of my country. I would be angry that those promoted to positions of power (such as Iyad Allawi) are people we have no reason to trust to further the interests of the Iraqi people as a whole.

As an American, I am distressed that the whole direction of our foreign policy is rarely, if ever, seriously fully discussed in the mainstream media. There are very intelligent, well-researched arguments that conclude that most U.S. foreign policy is designed not to further the interests of the people as a whole, but instead to further the interests of large business concerns. There is evidence that our foreign policy has contributed strongly to more poverty and less freedom throughout Africa, Latin America, and Asia. Yet most Americans never explore these ideas in any detail.

To have a healthy democracy, we need to be involved constantly in thorough discussions and debates with as many viewpoints as possible represented.