The other day, I read that the Democratic-party’s nominee’s acceptance speech which was originally held at the Pepsi center, capable of holding about 19,000 people, had to be moved to the Denver Broncos’ stadium (about 76,000 people). Many Republicans, Libertarians, Conservatives, and a number of others with “right-wing” sympathies are curious as to why an individual with an apparently limited experience in politics has reached an almost pop culture status among the Liberal-Statist Democrats.

To answer this question, The American Public, could look to the steadily evolving political spectrum where today’s politically aspiring debaters are cautiously briefed to provide vague, generally “politically-correct” replies while monotonous, nonpartisan moderators repress audience involvement, sometimes going to the extent of actually arresting citizens for displaying a non-violent interest in the future of the U.S.A. Unlike their modern counterparts, past debates were barely restrained free-for-alls. These Debates, using the Lincoln-Douglas for example, as the two men have been implied and mentioned repeatedly throughout this year’s election process, were scorching, personal, and passionate in nature, not unlike a number of Talk-Radio shows,  and therefore irresistible to the thousand who gathered to witness the historic event.

It has been proven that the human species responds positively to open genuinely-felt commentary. While facing down Ms. Clinton, the Junior Senator from Illinois, who has been labeled “the most Liberal Senator in Congress”, explicitly expressed his “left-leaning” inclinations, endearing himself to numerous Democrat voters throughout the country (and world, if the polls are to be believed). Of course, the contrary is true. When the Junior Senator from New York made her now famous “sniper fire” comment, it seriously influenced the winner of The Democratic Primaries. Likewise Mr. Obama’s recent attempts to curtail his well known political leanings in favor of a more moderate viewpoint, is having a noticeably negative result on his supporters, instigating a recent New York Times editorial headline which stated he was “New and Not Improved”.

The Republican nominee is no better. The Arizona Senator has gone to great lengths move from his original “middle-man’s stance” to an angle that almost mimics the Hard-Core Republican perspective.

While many believe the changes are for the better, it does not stop the fact that Politics are increasingly difficult for the average voter to understand, let alone follow.

The 1858 debates demanded much more from its candidates; more creativity, more knowledge, a clearer understanding of the basic outlines (such as The Bill of Rights AND the U.S Constitution) of their(both politician and citizen) Country, and, of course more audience involvement and attention.

If we required modern Politicians to present their speeches ad lib in the 90-minute straight from the heart format of the past, transparency would be promoted in the elections, with any luck causing the inevitable “he/she lied to us” issue to  become a fringe opinion, at the same time, attracting larger crowds, and provoking robust voter turnout.

At the very least it would weed out the brainless mind-zombie stenographic transcript readers from the true Statesmen (and women).