Does anyone believe that presenting questions to a presidental candidate truly serves a purpose?

Not if you've been given the question you are allowed to ask.

I guess it would all depend on the questioned asked... You know the ones... The kind that make you squirm cause you know whats coming? That kind where a positive, negative or no answer, is going to piss of 1/3 to 1/2 of all America regardless of how you answer? Yeah... That's the one... LMAO!!!

SFC Collin McMillion I wish it made a difference but we aren't a special interest group so we really don't matter

I don't know anymore. It seems like most of the questions posed are fluff pieces & all the answers - at least the ones the media replays - are fluff answers.

The only time I've learned anything during any "presidential debate" in recent history was during the meeting between candidates Barack Obama and John McCain at Saddleback Community Church in Southern California. Rather than being questioned by an ideologically motivated host, such as the journalists that typically moderate these things, they were questioned by Pastor Rick Warren. He asked the same questions of both candidates individually while their opponent was isolated in another room (a very unusual format).

I knew a lot about John McCain and wasn't thrilled with his candidacy. I didn't object to his party affiliation, but knew little about his political and ideological beliefs. I did have reservations having observed him in public life over the years. He had a tendency to annoy people, his friends as well as his foes, and didn't seem to have a grasp of the concept of consensus-building which is so important in a President.

Obama on the other hand I knew even less about. I had only begun my research. Although I had not yet found anything to qualify him for such high elected office, I did not yet know that he had no such qualifications. (It is indeed hard to prove a negative)

When questioned, McCain answered surprisingly well with direct answers to direct questions. He began each answer with an assertion (yes, he supported a particular issue or no, he didn't) and then proceeded to explain the basis for his position. It was a surprisingly refreshing performance for a politician.

Obama hemmed and hawed. We have seen Obama do a masterful job of reading from a teleprompter on numerous occasions. We have seen him protected and defended by panel moderators who share his ideology. But on this occasion, he stuttered and failed to answer any question cogently. He seemed to hesitate trying to sense the mood of this audience and what he might say to win their approval, but never simply take a position founded on his own principles. (Indeed, as we have learned, he has none).

Ultimately, I don't think that McCain would have served US any better than Obama. I am, however, convinced he couldn't have done worse.

How will Jeb Bush fare under our questioning? I suspect that he is enough of a politician to handle it well. Will we learn anything new, anything to alter our opinion of him? I doubt it...

Sure it is, if nothing else is accomplished, you know what he promised and lied about.

You can often gauge a man by how he responds to the question, as opposed to what his actual answer is.

Does the answer come right out of a "playbook" or are we seeing what he really believes.

No candidate or president is going to agree with my political philosophy 100%. But I want one that has specific "key features" (not issues). Think of it like a Commander's Vision or Mission Statement. When you meet the new old man, we generally know where he is coming from and what to expect. Asking these questions is how we determine what a candidates actual Philosophy is.

Someone can say "I want small government" all day long, or they can say "I want a government that is just big enough to function" which is a massive change in tone, and may separate them from their competitors.

I don't see where it could hurt. I will give insight on where he is coming from.