If the author is of the opinion that the "debates" are "killing" certain candidates, while others are profiting from ready scripted remarks, then he must also presume that a significant majority of the public is actually watching and listening. That presumption, I believe, is far off the mark. These "debates", as the author hints, are dog and pony shows designed to fill time on the tube and, hopefully, garner audience ratings. While I have been very active in following the candidates, am deeply interested in the next election, and eagerly await the day that I may vote, I have NOT, along with nearly every one I know, watched the "debates". I regard them as contrived and inconsequential because they are staged by the TV networks - - whom I feel we cannot trust to present something honest and straightforward, while eschewing sensationalism. The term "dog and pony shows" is, I believe, an accurate characterization. When the election draws near, then we will see who is leading and MAYBE a debate that makes a difference for some cabdidates. Many other more important factors will count more heavily than these tedious "debates". The author is entitled to his opinion, but it isn't worth much at this early stage and the "debate" issue is more hype than reality.