When the table is running cold, a good craps player knows it, picks up his remaining chips and walks away.  If he has the stomach for it, he stops by the cage for his meager cash out. Then it's the long slog through slot machine hell, over to the elevator banks and back up to the suite in hopes that he can dream the nightmare away and start fresh tomorrow. McCain's long walk began at the end of last night's debate and a fresh tomorrow is about eighteen days away - back in the Senate.

McCain caught a little heat recently over his association with casino and gambling interests - I was glad to see the story fade away. Plenty of solid, productive, kind and resourceful people have a taste for games of chance. Fyodor Dostoevsky was a roulette man, his novella The Gambler is a great primer on the mysterious workings of the gambler's mindset.  Bill Gates and I are small stakes Texas Hold'em aficionados. Mark Twain knew his way around every diversion the riverboat casino had to offer. But John McCain is a craps man and craps players are a special breed.

Last night's presidential debate was decidedly... unenlightening and boring. Although the town hall format could have brought something new to the table, the game remained virtually unchanged. McCain had a tough job to do, as he entered the debate nine points down in the polls by some reports. Many Americans are now scrutinizing Obama more closely in light of the view that he is the more probable future president, and this is something McCain could have capitalized on - but he didn't, at least not as much as he could have. Both candidates presented their positions rather well, but this is old news - especially when Obama seemed to avoid directly answering questions in favor of steering the debate towards prepped talking points. Important issues came up, but the responses given could have been directly taken from campaign speeches. In what turned out to be a highly conventional debate, we heard the candidates reiterate their positions on health care, taxation, Iran, Russia, and energy. There remained much divergence and some agreement. The economy and current economic conditions were understandably a time-consuming focus.

But despite the need to address the economy in light of significant changes that have taken place since the last time the candidates faced off, I think Tom Brokaw could have made some more interesting decisions regarding question choices. When citizens, and not journalists, are given the opportunity to ask the questions, fascinating issues are bound to come up - and we can get a unique insight into our politicians' characters and lives. In this debate, however, if you agree with Obama's positions, you probably felt like Obama won; likewise, if you went into it a McCain fan, you more than likely believed him to be the winner (case in point: both the FoxNews on-screen poll following the debate and the Drudge Report online poll declared McCain the winner). Did it do anything for the undecideds? I've made up my mind, so I can't be certain, but my guess would be that it didn't do a whole lot in terms of issues.

But maybe the spotlight wasn't on the issues. Maybe the goal was to see the next president being, well, presidential - a goal both candidates succeeded in. Obama was comfortable, said things a lot of people want to hear, and presented himself as empathetic. But as McCain repeatedly brought up, it comes down to rhetoric versus record. So keeping that in mind, and in light of this rather promising debate format that failed to live up to my hopes, I've assembled a list of my own questions, specifically for Senator Obama. Some of these contain issues that I wish McCain had brought up, and some require more than a two-minute response, so poor Tom needs to stop looking at the timer.

While certainly all eyes (including mine) will be on how Sarah Palin performs against Joe Biden's extensive foreign policy experience in tomorrow's vice presidential debate, I'm counting on the Democratic candidate for the entertainment. There's no telling what he might say - maybe something along the lines of, "You cannot go into a 7-Eleven or a Dunkin' Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent"? Maybe he'll remind us that "Hillary Clinton is as qualified or more qualified than I am to be vice president of the United States of America"? Or perhaps he'll continue to damage his own running mate's campaign by contradicting it directly through the claim that "we're not supporting clean coal". Hey, I'd even enjoy hearing one of his more baffling comments, like the statement that his wife having a doctorate is "a problem". I hope, though, that he can refrain from asking a paraplegic man to stand up for all to recognize. It is fortunate that debates, by their nature, are unscripted - I'd hate to see Biden have to forfeit his vice presidential run due to plagiarizing the speech of a British politician. All in all, I'm looking forward to Biden being Biden - and glad that it will be on national television, for all to see. (This, of course, Biden can liken to FDR's television appearance in 1929. Oops.)

Since it can be difficult to discern sarcasm in print, let me just explicitly state that I am not being sarcastic about being entertained, plain and simple. Before all the die-hard Biden fans out there attack me with comments galore and eager defenses, let me just emphasize my genuineness - I think he's a hoot! In the words of Nancy Pelosi (although in all seriousness, I don't agree with her brushing off Biden's awkward joke about his wife), "lighten up!" When you believe, as I do, that this election is about choosing the lesser of two evils, there is a serious need for some comic relief. And although Stephen Colbert is helpful, he is no substitute for the candidates themselves - one of whom, might I add, has visited 57 states, with one more to go.

Matthew Dowd, who led President Bush's campaign for reelection in 2004, recently told the New York Times that "The only things that are going to change the equation of the election are the four debates." This is due to the plethora of partisan and biased media sources that the public is confronted with every day. As Dowd pointed out, "The average person has 90 channels. They get all the dot-coms. They all get a newspaper. There is so much flow of information that they just begin to discount it all."

And for that, we can breathe a sigh of relief, although I fear that Dowd might give the average person too much credit in saying the media will be depreciated. But if the most influential factor in this election will be the candidates' own voices - through debates and interviews - then I hope the moderators and interviewers will break with the improprieties of the past several months and truly give both sides an even playing field.

It was with great anticipation that I viewed Sarah Palin's speech, given Wednesday at the Republican National Convention. I was not disappointed: the vice presidential candidate addressed real issues and presented herself as someone of conviction who would stand her ground rather than bow to the powers that be in Washington. She cleverly used her own experience (as a "community organizer") and beliefs ("the American presidency is not supposed to be a journey of personal discovery") to undermine Obama's rhetoric. All the while, she struck me as likable and a real promoter of change. Fortunately, she did much in the way of presenting the American people with her own accomplishments, something a large percentage of the news articles I have read conveniently fail to mention. (Her previous praise in the liberal media seems to be left forgotten.)

After researching her activities in government and listening to her speech, I extrapolate the following about Palin: She stands up to her opponents and promotes real reform where reform is needed. She won the gubernatorial race in Alaska on the basis of desiring to clean up government. She is a tough cookie who has opposed own party when necessary. She values reducing America's dependency on foreign oil by expanding oil and natural development at home, but at the same time, she is opposed to big oil and supports higher taxes on oil company profits. She sought to put the money gained by the government (through oil revenue) back into the hands of Alaskans. Throughout her gubernatorial stint, Palin has remained true to her word and down-to-earth. She sold a private jet, purchased with government money, on eBay. She has family serving in the military, and with her son set to deploy in a few short days she understands the general heart-felt desire to bring our troops home while at the same time aware that it would be foolish to forfeit on those grounds alone, while the Iraqi people remain in such a precarious security situation.

I mix religion and politics every day when I thank God that the United States has a two-term limit for the office of President.

Aside from that secret vice, I adhere to the precepts stated in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, so I was filled with trepidation last Saturday when I sat down to listen to the so-called "debate" between Senator Obama and Senator McCain hosted by Pastor Rick Warren at his Saddleback Church in Orange County.

Though I had heard of Rick Warren's books, I was unaware of the extent of his church's connections with the media, nor was I aware of his discipleship to management guru Peter Drucker.  No matter how warm and fuzzy his religious message might be, this was truly a man with an agenda.

It seems Pastor Rick has a passel of supporters, (his books sold over 25 million copies) as well as legions of detractors. Without a doubt, many of his adversaries appear to be other pastors from even more conservative religious right persuasions, so I guess jealousy has a hand in some of the negative tracts I encountered.

But still I had to ask...how had Pastor Rick done it.... who gave him the go ahead to coerce these two candidates into spilling their guts about their personal religious convictions?  This encounter is unprecedented in American politics and it does not bode well for the preservation of the separation between church and state.