The most common learning disability is dyslexia. A person with dyslexia has difficulty with language skills, especially reading. The International Dyslexia Association says studies in different countries generally show that four to seven percent of people are dyslexic.

Dyslexia most commonly affects reading, spelling and writing. Some people have problems with only one of these. Others have trouble with spoken language. They find it difficult to express themselves clearly or understand what other people say.

Dyslexia can also affect a person emotionally. Dyslexic children often think they are unable to learn. They think they are stupid, or that is what they are told. Specialists say children who feel this way are in danger of failure and depression.

What causes dyslexia is not clear. But studies have found differences in brain activity and development in dyslexic people compared to the general population.

Early signs include a delay in learning to speak, and difficulty pronouncing words. While learning to read, children with dyslexia may not recognize letters or connect them with their sounds. They may also have difficulty learning or remembering numbers, colors, shapes or days of the week.

Older children may have difficulty learning a foreign language. They may read slowly or have trouble remembering what they read. And they may fail to see or hear similarities and differences in letters and words.

There is no cure, but people with dyslexia can still be successful learners. Experts say the most important thing is to find the condition at an early age. And they say only a trained professional can tell if a person is dyslexic.

Specially trained educators can teach people with dyslexia different ways to learn. Computer-assisted learning might help, or using recorded books instead of printed ones. Schools can provide more time to finish tasks, and resources like help in taking notes.

In May of seventeen eighty-seven, a group of America's early leaders met in Philadelphia. They planned to make changes in the Articles of Confederation. Those articles provided for a loose union of the thirteen states. Instead of changes, however, the leaders wrote a new document. It established America's system of government and guaranteed the rights of its citizens. It is still the law of the land.

The story does not flow easily. The reason is a rule made by the delegates. From the beginning, they agreed that the convention had the right to change its decisions.

The convention did not just discuss a proposal, vote on it and move on to other issues. Any delegate could ask to re-discuss any proposal or any decision. And they often did. Every man who saw one of his ideas defeated brought it up again later. The same speeches that were made the first time were made again. So days, even weeks, passed between discussions of the same proposal.

The story of the Philadelphia convention would be difficult to understand if we told about events day-by-day. So, we will put the calendar and the clock away, and tell how each major question was debated and settled.

After the delegates agreed that the convention could change its decisions, they agreed on a rule of secrecy. Guards were placed at the doors of the State House. Newspaper reporters were not permitted inside. And delegates could not discuss convention business in public.

The secrecy rule led people to get many strange ideas about the convention, especially in Europe.

There, most people believed the convention was discussing how America could be ruled by a king. Europeans said a republican government worked in a small country, such as Switzerland, but not, they said, in a land as large as America.

So some of them began talking about which European prince might be asked to become king of America. Some were sure it would be Prince Henry of Prussia. Others said it would be Prince Frederick Augustus, the second son of King George the Third of Britain.

Without news reports from Philadelphia, even some Americans believed these stories.

At the time of the convention, Thomas Jefferson was serving as America's representative to France. When he learned of the secrecy rule, he was angry. He believed strongly in freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

More than forty years later, James Madison explained the decision behind the rule.

Madison said that if the convention had been open to the public, no delegate would ever change his mind after speaking on an issue. To do so would mean he was wrong the first time he spoke. And no delegate would be willing to admit to the public that he had made a mistake. Madison said if the meetings had been open, the convention would have failed.

Another rule helped the delegates speak freely. It was a method of debate called the committee of the whole. It may seem a foolish method. But it was useful then and still is today in legislatures. It is a way for people to discuss ideas, vote, and then change their minds. Their votes -- while in committee -- are not recorded permanently.

To have the Philadelphia convention become a committee of the whole, the delegates needed to elect a chairman of the committee. They chose Nathaniel Gorham, a judge from Massachusetts.

Each morning at ten o'clock, the convention met and declared it was sitting as a committee of the whole. George Washington then left the president's chair. Nathaniel Gorham took his place.

Just before four o'clock in the afternoon, the committee of the whole declared it was sitting again as a convention. Judge Gorham stepped down, and General Washington took the chair. He declared that the convention would meet again the next morning.

This process was repeated every day.

On May twenty-ninth, the delegates heard the Virginia Plan. This was the plan of government prepared by James Madison and other delegates from the state of Virginia.

The thirty-three-year-old governor of Virginia, Edmund Randolph, presented the plan. First, he spoke about America's existing plan of government, the Articles of Confederation. Governor Randolph praised the Articles and the men who wrote them.

He called those men "wise" and "great." But, he said, the articles were written for thirteen states in a time of war. Something more was needed now for the new nation. Something permanent.

Governor Randolph spoke of conditions in all the states. He told the delegates what they already knew was true. Government was breaking down in many parts of the country.

As he presented the Virginia Plan, Edmund Randolph noted that its fifteen parts were just ideas. The state of Virginia, he said, did not want to force them on the convention. Yet the ideas should be discussed. Change them as you wish, he told the convention. But talk about them fully.

Other delegates presented their own plans for discussion. But from the beginning, the Virginia Plan had the most influence. For more than three months, delegates would debate each part, vote on it, then debate it again.

The Virginia Plan formed the basis of discussion at the convention in Philadelphia. In the end, it formed the basis of the United States Constitution.

The announced purpose of the convention was to change the Articles of Confederation to make them more effective. The Virginia Plan was not a plan of proposed changes. It was much more extreme. It was, in fact, a plan for a completely new central government.

Debate on the Virginia Plan began May thirtieth. Immediately, Edmund Randolph proposed an amendment. The plan, he noted, spoke of a federal union of states. But such a federation would not work. Instead, he said, America's central government should be a national government. It should contain a supreme legislature, executive and judiciary.

For a few moments, there was complete silence. Many of the delegates seemed frozen in their chairs. Did they hear correctly?

Most of them did not question the idea of a government with three separate parts. Several states already had such a system. But to create a central government that was "national" and "supreme" -- what did these words mean exactly? What was the difference?

The delegates debated the meaning of these words -- federal, national, supreme -- for many days. Both James Madison and Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania tried to explain.

Madison said a federal government acts on states. A national government acts directly on the people.

Morris gave this explanation. A federal government is simply an agreement based on the good faith of those involved. A national government has a complete system of operation and its own powers.

Pierce Butler of South Carolina wanted to know why a national government was necessary. Did the states need to be national?

"But we are a nation!" John Dickinson of Delaware answered. "We are a nation although made of parts, or states."

Gouverneur Morris continued. He spoke of the future when the delegates meeting in Philadelphia would be dead. Their children and grandchildren, he said, would stop thinking of themselves as citizens of Pennsylvania or New York or North Carolina. Instead, they would think of themselves as citizens of the United States.

"This generation will die away," Morris said, "and be followed by a race of Americans."

Morris declared that the states had to take second place to a national government with supreme power. "It is better to take a supreme government now," he said, "than a dictator twenty years from now. For come he must."

In the end, the delegates approved the proposal for a national government.

At the British Museum in London, millions of people every year visit a famous collection of marble statues from the ancient Greek building called the Parthenon.

These finely carved works and the building they came from are widely considered the most important examples of western art and building design. Why these Greek statues are in a British museum is an important part of our story today. We explore the complex issues of cultural property, ownership, and the returning -- or keeping -- of cultural treasures.

Many people know these famous and disputed statues at the British Museum as the Elgin Marbles. They were named for Lord Thomas Elgin, who served as British ambassador to the Ottoman Empire at the beginning of the nineteenth century. The Ottoman Empire at this time included what is current day Greece as well as Turkey.

Lord Elgin decided he was in a good position to improve the national art collection of Britain. So he gathered a team of experts to help him make drawings and plaster copies of the buildings of ancient Greece within the city of Athens. In eighteen-oh-one, Lord Elgin received legal permission to also take away any pieces of stone with images or words carved on them.

Later, another legal document permitted the stone pieces, or marbles, to be sent by boat to Britain. Lord Elgin eventually sold the marbles to the British government to be housed in the British Museum. His actions have been disputed ever since. The British Museum believes it has the right to protect these works for the world to enjoy. But the Greek government has a very different opinion.

In the nineteen eighties, the Greek government began a modern campaign for the return of these statues, which Greeks call the Parthenon Marbles. During this time, the Greek cultural minister, Melina Mercouri, made the campaign an international issue by calling for their return during a United Nations meeting.

The Greek government recently built a museum near the ruins of the Parthenon to house the ancient building’s sculptures. The strikingly modern Acropolis Museum is interesting for the art it contains as well as for the art that is clearly missing. The marbles are shown in the order that they were first placed in the Parthenon. There are the ancient statues that belong to Greece and there are plaster copies of the statues that are currently in Britain.

Now that the works are placed together, it is clear that they are not just individual sculptures. Together, the extraordinary sculptures tell a story about an ancient culture.

The current Greek minister of culture is Michalis Liapis. He says the new Acropolis Museum makes it possible for the sculptures now in Britain to have a large exhibit space where they can be protected. He says Britain no longer has any excuse to keep these works of art.

A spokeswoman for the British Museum in London says the Acropolis Museum represents an important effort. But she points out that the goal of the British Museum is to present all world cultures to visitors so that they can compare civilizations.

This cultural dispute is not just a concern for museums and governments. Michael Reppas helped create a group called The American Committee for the Reunification of the Parthenon Sculptures.

Mister Reppas, a Greek American, says part of his history has been stolen and placed in a museum in Britain. He says the situation would be like cutting off a piece of the Statue of Liberty in New York City and placing it in a museum in another country.

Today, unlike during Lord Elgin’s time, international laws protect a country’s cultural treasures. Museums and governments use these laws to help negotiate the return of such property. Museums also follow a set of rules to help make sure that they received the cultural treasures fairly and legally. Often, museums do not know that objects they received in the past were gotten illegally.

Other times it is less clear whether or not a museum acted legally in buying art. For example, Marion True is an art expert who used to work for the J. Paul Getty Museum in Los Angeles, California. Since two thousand five, Miz True has been on trial in Italy. She is accused of illegal actions in obtaining ancient Italian cultural objects. She is on trial in Greece for similar charges.

The Italian Cultural Ministry takes very seriously the stealing of cultural objects from Italy. A special group of Italian military police works to reclaim stolen art and archeological objects. Italy recently ended negotiations with the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston, Massachusetts over thirteen cultural treasures that are now being returned to Italy.

Italy won its claim on the objects because documents showed that they were taken illegally from the country. Italy has also agreed to loan some of the objects to the museum, so both sides ended up with a fair resolution. Katie Getchell is deputy director of the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. She says the museum did not want to have objects that it did not rightfully own. And she says that there is a legal, moral and responsible way for governments and museums to resolve such disputes.

Italy is demonstrating its progress in this area with a new exhibit at the Quirinale, or presidential palace, in Rome. The exhibit shows sixty-eight cultural objects that Italy has reclaimed from American museums. These museums include the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City, the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, and the J. Paul Getty Museum. The name of the museum that formerly owned the object is on the signs explaining the history of each object.

Italian officials say the exhibit shows how much the museum world is changing its position on cultural disputes.

This change is also clear in another case between Peru and an American university in the state of Connecticut. Last year, Yale University agreed to return a large number of treasures taken from the ancient Peruvian city of Machu Picchu. In nineteen twelve, the Yale researcher and explorer Hiram Bingham rediscovered the hidden city. He brought many objects from Machu Picchu to the United States. Peru says that the objects were on loan and should have been returned long ago. After years of negotiations, Yale announced in September of last year that the two sides had reached an early agreement.

Yale has officially agreed that Peru owns the cultural objects. The university will return most of them and will be able to keep others for an extended period of time. Under the expected agreement, Yale will advise Peru on the building of a museum for the objects. The President of Yale University, Richard Levin, said the two sides have created a new way of resolving competing interests in cultural property disputes. However, it is not clear when a final agreement will be reached.

Efforts to protect cultural property increased after World War Two. During the war, Nazi Germany stole large amounts of art from the countries they invaded. In reaction, the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property was signed in nineteen fifty-four. The United Nations cultural organization has also recognized the issue. In nineteen seventy, UNESCO created a convention to prevent the illegal exportation of cultural property. Individual countries have their own laws about cultural property as well.

One example of art stolen by the Nazis during World War Two has been successfully resolved. At the Neue Gallery in New York City, visitors can see a beautiful painting of a woman named Adele Bloch-Bauer made by the Austrian artist Gustav Klimt. Adele’s husband, Ferdinand, asked the artist to make the painting around nineteen-oh-seven.

In the late nineteen thirties, when Austria was under Nazi rule, Mister Bloch-Bauer was forced to flee his country because he was Jewish. His family’s collection of art was seized by Nazi leaders and later became state property.

For years Austria refused to return the art to the Bloch-Bauer family. Then, in two thousand six, the family finally won its court case and ownership of the art. They later sold the work to the owner of Neue Gallery. This painting of Adele Bloch-Bauer is not only a beautiful example of Austrian art. It also represents a powerful story about one family’s successful battle over injustice.

The Lancet medical journal published the series. In it, researchers said poor nutrition in the first two years can permanently damage a child, physically and mentally.

One of the interventions they placed great importance on was breastfeeding.

The World Health Organization says babies should receive only breast milk for the first six months. On its Web site, the W.H.O. says breast milk is the ideal food for the healthy growth and development of infants. And it notes that as part of the reproductive process, breastfeeding also has important health considerations for mothers.

Studies have shown that women who receive counseling about breastfeeding are more likely to feed their babies only breast milk for the first six months.

The La Leche League is an international organization that promotes breastfeeding. Jack Newman is a Canadian doctor who serves as a health adviser to the group. He has written and spoken widely on what he says are several mistaken beliefs that stop women from breastfeeding.

Many women think they will not produce enough milk to feed their baby. Doctor Newman says the large majority of women in fact produce more than enough milk to feed their babies.

Some women worry that breastfeeding will hurt. Again, Doctor Newman says this is not true. He says breasts can hurt a little in the first few days of nursing. But he says any pain beyond that would most likely be the result of incorrect breastfeeding or an infection.

Jack Newman says it is not uncommon for people to believe that baby formula is just as good as breast milk. But he says only a mother's body can produce the right levels of all the nutrition that a baby needs as these needs change. He also points out that unlike formula, breast milk contains infection-fighting antibodies -- and it's free.

Medical experts agree that, in general, breast milk is the best possible food for a new baby. But one problem with breastfeeding is that many new mothers are not sure how to do it correctly.

BREASTFEEDING

Breastfeeding is the ideal way of providing young infants with the nutrients they need for healthy growth and development. Virtually all mothers can breastfeed, provided they have accurate information, and the support of their family and the health care system. Colostrum, the yellowish, sticky breast milk produced at the end of pregnancy, is recommended by WHO as the perfect food for the newborn, and feeding should be initiated within the first hour after birth. Exclusive breastfeeding is recommended up to 6 months of age.

The state of Ohio is in the midwest. It is named The Buckeye State after a tree that produces nuts similar to chestnuts.

The Great Plains state of Oklahoma is called the Sooner State. That is because of a sale of land in eighteen eighty-nine. Some people arrived in the territory to claim their land earlier than they were supposed to. They cheated and got there "sooner."

Pennsylvania's nickname is The Keystone State. Just as a keystone holds together a stone arch, Pennsylvania was seen as holding together the young American republic. Pennsylvania is also sometimes called The Quaker State. Its founder, William Penn, and most of his followers, were members of the Protestant Quaker religion.

Rhode Island's nickname is Little Rhody because of its size. The state is smaller than the area around Los Angeles, California.

Tennessee got its nickname -- The Volunteer State -- because of the bravery of its citizens. They volunteered to join Tennessean Andrew Jackson to defend the city of New Orleans, Louisiana, against the British army in the War of Eighteen Twelve.

Texas is called The Lone Star State. It gets its nickname from the single star on its flag. This represents the short time Texas was an independent nation battling Mexico for self-rule.

The Beehive State of Utah has no more beehives than any other state. The nickname is from the Mormon Church's symbol for hard work.

The eastern state of Vermont is proud of its beautiful Green Mountains so it calls itself The Green Mountain State. The southern state of Virginia is called The Old Dominion.

Long ago, King Charles the Second of England added the colony's coat of arms to his shield. It joined his other dominions of England, Ireland, and Scotland.

West Virginia broke away from Virginia in the eighteen sixties. It is called simply The Mountain State for the ancient Appalachian mountains.

And we have saved perhaps the most American nickname for last. The western state of Wyoming was once an area where cattle were transported east. And where there are cattle, there are men -- and now women -- to move them. So Wyoming is The Cowboy State.

It is not easy to become a doctor in the United States. The first step is getting into a medical college. More than one hundred twenty American schools offer study programs for people seeking to become a doctor.

People can get advice about medical schools from many resources. One of these is the Princeton Review. The publication provides information about colleges, study programs and jobs.

The Princeton Review says competition to enter medical schools is strong. It says about thirty-five thousand people compete for sixteen thousand openings in American medical schools each year. Many of those seeking to be admitted are women.

Most people seeking admission contact more than one medical school. Some applicants contact many. An important part of the application usually is the Medical College Admission Test, or MCAT. The Association of American Medical Colleges provides the test by computer. It is offered in the United States and in other countries around the world.

The applicant is rated on reasoning, physical and biological sciences and an example of writing. Applicants for medical school need to do well on the MCAT. They also need a good record in their college studies.

People who want to become doctors often study large amounts of biology, chemistry or other science. Some students work for a year or two in a medical or research job before they attempt to enter medical school.

A direct meeting, or interview, also is usually required for entrance to medical schools. This means talking with a school representative. The interviewer wants to know what the applicant is like. Does the person understand the demands of life as a medical student and doctor in training? What are the person’s goals for a life in medicine?

A medical education can be very costly. One year at a private medical college can cost forty thousand dollars or more. The average at a public medical school is more than fifteen thousand dollars. Most students need loans to pay for medical school. Many finish their education heavily in debt.

Some Americans become doctors by joining the United States Army, Navy, Air Force or Public Health Service. They attend the F. Edward Hebert School of Medicine of the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences in Bethesda, Maryland. These students attend without having to pay. They also receive training beyond the usual education in areas needed by military and public health doctors. In return, they spend seven years in government service.

Doctors are among the highest paid people in the United States. Big-city doctors who work in specialties like eye care or surgical operations usually earn the most money. But some other doctors earn far less. That is especially true in poor communities. Doctors in areas far from cities may sometimes get part of their payment in fruits or vegetables.

Medical students spend their first two years mainly in classroom study. They learn about the body and all its systems. They also begin studying how to recognize and treat disease.

By the third year, students begin working with patients in hospitals. Experienced doctors who have treated many patients guide them as they work. As the students learn, they think about the kind of medical skills they will need to work as doctors.

During the fourth year, students begin contacting hospital programs for the additional training they will need after medical school. Competition to work at a top hospital can be fierce.

Doctors-in-training in hospitals are called interns or residents. They are usually called interns during their first year. After that, the name of the job is resident. The trainees treat patients guided by medical professors and other experts.

All fifty states require at least one year of hospital work for doctors-in-training educated at medical schools in the United States. Graduates of study programs at most foreign medical schools may have to complete two or three years of residency, although there are exceptions.

To be accepted for a residency, a person must meet the requirements of the Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates. This process involves several tests before a person can receive a visa to stay in the United States for the training period.

Those completing study programs at foreign medical schools may be required to return to their own country for at least two years after their training ends. But because of doctor shortages or other needs, some have been able to get visas without the required two-year stay in their home country.

Doctors-in-training receive experience in different kinds of care. Interns, for example, may work with children for one month. Then the next month they may be in the operating room. How long a residency lasts depends on the chosen area of medicine.

There are many medical specialties. Some people become cardiologists and care for the heart. Others become oncologists and treat cancer patients. Still others become pediatricians and take care of children. And some doctors go into medical research, either at a university or with a private company.

But whatever they choose, they first need experience. Some doctors work a long time in hospitals before they are fully trained in a specialty. Neurosurgeons are a good example. They operate on the brain, neck and back. Some spend six years or more as residents before beginning private practice.

A doctor in Chicago, Illinois, remembers that before his internship, he wanted to work in crisis medicine. But he lost that interest after he interned in a hospital emergency room. He saw many patients who needed help immediately, like accident victims and victims of gunshot wounds. The specialty he chose, surgery, lets him have more time to decide how to help his patients.

In nineteen ninety-nine, the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies released a report on medical mistakes in American hospitals. The report said preventable mistakes resulted in at least forty-four thousand deaths each year.

Five years later, the New England Journal of Medicine published two government-financed studies of serious mistakes made by interns. The studies found that the mistake rate in two intensive-care areas decreased when interns worked fewer hours. The interns made fewer mistakes when they had to order medicines and identify conditions.

Teaching hospitals say they must pay more for work from other employees because resident hours are shortened. Some residents say they need extended time with patients to observe changes in their condition. And some experienced doctors say residents need to work as much as they can to become good doctors.

But in two thousand three, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education reduced the hours that residents may work. The council supervises the training of residents. Some residents were spending one hundred or more hours a week at their hospitals. They were often on duty more than thirty-six hours at a time, with limited sleep.

The changed rules limit residents to thirty hours of duty at a time. A hospital is not supposed to require more than eighty hours of duty in a week. In addition, interns and residents must have one day off in every seven. But some residents say all hospitals are not following the new rules.

Paul Rockey is a medical education expert in Illinois. He has worked for years with residents. He says residencies today are more difficult than before. Patients do not stay as long in the hospital as they once did. So Doctor Rockey says there is a lot of pressure on young doctors to learn quickly.

He says the difficulties of a medical education may be great. But, he adds that people also get great satisfaction seeing themselves gain the knowledge and skills to become good doctors.

The United States government has decided that food from cloned cattle, pigs and goats is safe to eat. The Food and Drug Administration also says it found no risks in meat and milk from offspring born to them.

A clone is a genetic copy of an animal prized for its quality. A laboratory process develops a cell from the animal into an embryo. The embryo is put into a female animal which, if all goes well, gives birth to the clone.

The F.D.A. looked at studies for several years before it announced its decision in a final report this month. The United States Department of Agriculture supported the findings. But it says time is needed to smooth the way for marketing meat and milk from clones. So, for now, the industry is being asked to continue a voluntary ban on such products.

The idea of eating cloned animals rates low with the American public. Several major food companies say they have no immediate plans to get involved.

The Food and Drug Administration will not require any product to be identified as coming from clones or their offspring. A producer would need approval to label a product "clone-free." The agency says that could be misleading because the food is no different from other food.

But activists argue that the F.D.A. based its decision on incomplete research into possible risks. The Center for Food Safety criticized the use of studies supplied by cloning companies.

Animal rights activists point out that cloning attempts often fail. They say cloning is cruel and can lead to suffering in clones born with abnormalities.

Congress has been trying to get the F.D.A. to do more studies. But the agency noted that experts in New Zealand and the European Union have come to the same findings about the safety of food from clones.

Japan, South Korea and Taiwan say they want to study the issue further before taking action.

Products from cloning may not be widely available for several years. Currently the United States has about six hundred animal clones.

Clones are costly, which is why most are used for breeding. The Agriculture Department says few clones will ever become food. Their traditionally bred offspring would enter the food supply instead.

The first mammal cloned from an adult cell was Dolly the sheep, born in Scotland in nineteen ninety-six. But the F.D.A. says it could not decide about the safety of food from clones of sheep or other animals besides cattle, pigs and goats.

Presidential candidates have been confronting each other in a series of debates meant to give voters a sense of where each aspirant stands on critical issues.

Jabs.

"She [Hillary Clinton] voted with [President] Bush and [Vice President] Cheney!" said former North Carolina Democratic Senator John Edwards.

Jousts.

"People are not attacking me because I am a woman,? stated Senator Clinton. ?They are attacking me because I am ahead [in the polls]!"

And, of course, a chance for candidates to state their positions.

New Mexico Democratic Governor Bill Richardson declared, "Let us debate the issues that affect the American people."

All of that, and more, in the debates.

The 2008 presidential contest has more candidates ? and more candidate debates ? than any other recent race.

"Governor Romney, you have been spending the last year trying to fool people about your record!" said Arizona Republican Senator John McCain at one of their debates.

And there is an important reason for all of this clashing. Political communications consultant Peter Fenn explains. "This is the first time since 1952 that you have not had an incumbent president or vice president running on the ticket, and someone who is known [far in advance] as the [party's] nominee. And so both parties [the Democratic and the Republican] are open.?

Because the field of candidates is so crowded, each contender uses the debates as a way to get attention, as American University's Candice Nelson notes. "What each candidate tries to do is to get a 'sound bite' during the debate that will be played over and over again on the media," she says.

Former Arkansas Republican Governor Mike Huckabee said of two fellow debaters, "I am more than content to let them fight all they want tonight, and shed each other's blood. And then I will be ready to run for president."

The present era of presidential debates began in 1976, when incumbent President Gerald Ford sparred with Democratic challenger Jimmy Carter. Debates have been part of presidential elections ever since. But they are not structured as point-and-rebuttal arguments. The format is more question and response, with other candidates commenting.

Since the 1988 election, the independent, nonpartisan Commission on Presidential Debates has run the three major pre-Election Day debates. That is still months away.

Debates have now spilled over from TV to the Internet. Candidate debates sponsored by CNN television and the website YouTube enable web users to pose questions to the candidates.

Both major parties have embraced this novel development. Between now and Election Day, many more debates will be held. And what will voters take away from these encounters?

American University's Candice Nelson predicts a familiar pattern. "If you look at the history of debates, what stands out is not what the candidates said, but the gaffes that they make."

Such as when former Republican President Gerald Ford said, "There is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe"

And the candidates ? as well as the news media ? are waiting to pounce when someone stumbles.

Some of the TV ads for and against political candidates are not produced by the campaigns themselves. They originate with outside groups that some accuse of doing the candidates' bidding.

In an 2004 Democtatic presidential campaign ad, nominee John Kerry said, "I am John Kerry, and I am reporting for duty!"

Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts was the Democratic Party's presidential candidate in 2004, running against incumbent Republican President George W. Bush. But in the months just before the November election, a swarm of attack ads critical of Kerry's Vietnam war military service, and his later opposition to that war, appeared on TV.

Switft Boat Veterans for Truth TV ad
Shelton White: "John Kerry betrayed the men and women he served with in Vietnam."
Joe Ponder: "He [John Kerry] dishonored his country. He most certainly did."
Bob Hildreth: "I served with John Kerry. John Kerry cannot be trusted"

These TV ads did not come from President Bush's re-election campaign. They were created by an independent political interest group called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. And, political observers say, the ads played a part in John Kerry's loss to Mr. Bush.

Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and similar political interest groups are often called "527s" because they fall under that section of the U.S. tax code.

And, the use of 527s in campaigns cuts across partisan lines. In 2004, a group called MoveOn launched attack TV ads against President Bush and his policies.

MoveOn Anti-Bush 'Santa Claus' TV ad
"Christmas is coming early to George Bush's big contributors. Drug companies got high prices in the Medicare [health coverage] bill. Defense companies got no-bid contracts in Iraq. Yes, big contributors, there is a Santa Claus."

To critics, 527 groups give candidates and their campaigns the ability to engage in mudslinging or vicious attacks without being held directly accountable.

Peter Fenn, a political communications consultant for Democrats says, "Most of these so-called independent groups are not independent at all. They may not be working on direct orders from the candidate or the party, but they know what the issues are. They are part and parcel of the campaign.

But other political analysts disagree. Brian Darling is one. He is with the conservative Washington, D.C. research group The Heritage Foundation and says, "They are completely uncontrolled by campaigns, and there is a concern that these independent groups may run ads that nobody can control, and it takes over the message of each candidate."

527 groups do not just operate during presidential campaigns. They also work at the state level. A conservative anti-tax group called Club for Growth stepped into a 2006 U.S. Congress race in the state of Ohio.

Club for Growth Ohio TV ad
"Who will stop the waste and stand up for taxpayers? 'Tax and Spend' Bob Latta, or conservative Steve Buehrer?"

Some political observers say that because 527 groups were so effective, we can well expect similar independent attack ads on both sides in the 2008 race for the White House.

While political campaigns in the United States have used the Internet since the 1990s, the importance of the Internet has grown dramatically in the current campaign for the White House. Look at how candidates and their parties make strategic use of cyberspace.

If you are running for the White House in 2008, the place to be seen -- and to persuade a growing percentage of voters -- is the WorldWide Web.

Television changed the U.S. political landscape in the 1950s and 60s. Fifty years later, the Internet has greatly expanded how candidates communicate with voters. And, vice versa.

In the 2008 presidential race, when candidates make appearances and state their positions, video of that is posted to their campaign websites.

Unlike TV, that video can be seen on the Internet countless times for no additional candidate expense.

Campaigns also embrace the Internet because, on it messages go out to voters without commentators or others directly challenging what the candidate wants voters to hear.

The role of fundraising on the Internet also is huge. In fact, most campaign websites have a fundraising appeal as the first page Web users see.

And it's not just presidential candidates taking to the Internet. Candidates for statewide races such as the U.S. Senate have also embraced the Web for communications and the search for cash.

One of the big differences between TV and the Internet is that the Web allows for two-way communication between candidates and potential supporters.

While the Internet joins TV as a powerful campaign tool, it also can be a counterforce, as Benjamin Ginsberg at Johns Hopkins University in Washington, D.C. explains. "Television sort of shifted the balance of power in favor of the politicians. They could structure what you saw. Well, the Internet to some extent shifts the balance of power back to individuals because they can film or take pictures of things politicians did not want them to see, and show them on YouTube," he says.

Professor Ginsberg and other observers say that the Internet's power as a political communications tool will continue to grow -- perhaps to the point where someday, elections themselves may be conducted with a click of a mouse.

Every presidential aspirant uses opinion polling data to shape his or her campaign in the quest for the White House.

Who leads the race to the White House? What are the big issues voters care about? Political candidates and their parties get those answers from public opinion polling.

Political campaigns use polls to make critical strategy and resource decisions -- everything from where the candidate needs to make personal appearances to which campaign issues resonate with voters.

The Gallup Organization has conducted political polling since the 1930s. Gallup official Frank Newport says these surveys serve as blueprints. "Candidates today, or political parties, use polling to set the framework, to actually design their campaign," he explains. "Oftentimes, they will look to see what issues they should emphasize and what issues they shouldn't emphasize in their overall strategy. Then, campaigns and candidates and parties use the polling as a benchmark as the campaign continues to know how they're doing."

Polls, like blueprints, must be accurate. That requires carefully constructing survey sample groups using proven formulas and principles. Zogby International's Michelle van Gilder explains, "It's all done through mathematical equations and rules of probability. You can get a sample that some may consider [to be] relatively modest if you are looking at a country with the [300 million] population of the United States -- of 1,000. But with that 1,000 [person sample size], which most pollsters use for your typical polls, that will give you a very high level of accuracy."

Major U.S. pollsters such as Zogby and Gallup operate telephone survey centers to reach the people selected to be in their sample groups. Only a small amount of this polling is done face-to-face, or over the Internet.

By asking a number of questions, pollsters get a sense of how each candidate's stance on significant election issues is supported by voters.

Polling also provides political parties with trends, such as how favorably voters view the Republicans versus the Democrats over a span of time.

But Frank Newport at Gallup says that candidates can also over-react to polling data, and by doing that, risk losing some of their support. "Some people criticize candidates if they go too far in changing their positions just to meet what polling shows what the public wants. So candidates have to be careful in how far they move in that direction," he said.

Between now and election day scores of polls will be conducted, prompting endless analysis by both the campaigns and those who observe politics. But ultimately, the only poll that matters is the ballot box itself.

In the United States, touch-screen voting machines are more and more becoming the norm. While this new technology enables election officials to quickly tally the vote and determine the winners on Election Day, it has also brought new problems that some observers say could erode public confidence in the election process.

Florida, November 2000. The White House contest between Republican Party candidate George W. Bush and Democratic Party challenger Al Gore was ultimately determined by a post-election recount of the state's paper ballot cards. In the next presidential election in 2004, many U.S. states decided to abandon paper systems and instead use touch-screen computer voting machines. But in embracing this new technology, new vulnerabilities have arisen.

The credibility of a democratically-elected government begins with balloting the public believes to be fair and accurately counted. And as the technology of voting advances, election officials have to take new steps to ensure accuracy, and with it, credibility.

In Montgomery County, in the mid-Atlantic state of Maryland, as is true across the United States, election workers get special training in setting up and operating electronic voting machines. One instructor cites the steps taken to ensure the integrity of what the machines record.

"These machines are prepared under 24-hour [security] cameras, and people from both [the Democratic and Republican] parties when they are prepped and set up. Once we open them up [for voting], we are with them [the voting machines] every second until we re-lock them."

On the surface, using touch-screen machines to select candidates and tally the results would appear to be a big step forward. But analyst Gary Kalman at the independent U.S. Public Interest Research Group in Washington, D.C. cites a significant shortcoming.

"[With] many of these machines, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to actually audit the results. So if there is a challenge and a recount, all you can do is look at what the machine says. If the machine was wrong, there is no way to verify or to figure out through any alternative system whether or not the machine is accurate," says Kalman.

These concerns about verifying what an electronic voting machine recorded have prompted some observers, including Benjamin Ginsberg at Johns Hopkins University in Washington, D.C, to call for part of the traditional balloting system to come back.

"Look, wherever you have a computer, it is possible to tamper with it. And that is why you need to have a paper backup. But I think there have been numerous dry runs [and] numerous studies, and the computer touch screen with paper backup is about as safe as you can get," Ginsberg says.

The paper backup Professor Ginsberg refers to would be a printed receipt of someone's votes that would be saved by election officials and used if there is an election recount. Unfortunately, many of the electronic voting machines now in use do not create receipts. So, states and [smaller subdivisions called] counties would have to purchase many millions of dollars worth of new equipment to have this capability.

But ultimately, what is at stake is the credibility of the election system in a democratic society.

The total amount of money raised by the Democratic and Republican presidential candidates may, by the time Election Day 2008 comes about, approach or even break $1 billion. For just the first nine months of 2007, presidential candidates in the two major parties have already collected a total of $415 million.

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, D.C. is the most expensive residential address in the United States. To win four years of occupancy at the White House, both major political parties, the Democratic and the Republican, are more than willing to raise hundreds of millions of dollars in the fight for the presidency.

And in each new presidential race, the sums rocket even higher. Total contributions to both Democratic and Republican Party presidential candidates went from $135 million in 1992 to $671 million in 2004.

Analyst Brian Darling at the conservative research organization The Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C. explains why the two major parties need to raise huge sums to compete with each other. "The advertisements that cost millions of dollars to run, be it radio or TV, the traveling expenses throughout the country - - it's going to cost a lot of money for these candidates to travel on a daily basis, and also the massive campaign organizations that these candidates need to put together,? he said.

At the start of the 1970s, Congress enacted laws that led to the creation of the Federal Election Commission. FEC Spokesman Bob Biersack outlines its oversight role. He says, "If you want to run for President of the United States, you are required to comply with a series of laws including restrictions on how money is raised, and how it is spent and used in those campaigns."

Current federal regulations limit presidential candidate contributions from individuals to $2,300, with organizations limited to $5,000.

The Federal Election Commission requires that candidates file quarterly reports listing both contributions and expenses. These records are open to the public, including on the Internet.

Laura MacCleery is with an independent advocacy group called Public Citizen in Washington, D.C. She recounts how the public pressed Congress in the 1970s for an alternative to traditional presidential campaign fundraising. "So, one of the things that happened was that they [Congress] established the presidential public funding system for campaigns."

But in the 2000 and 2004 presidential races, the Democratic and Republican Parties chose not to accept public funding, allowing them to spend without restriction. The same is expected to happen in the 2008 White House contest.

But some Americans, including Laura MacCleery at Public Citizen, want presidential campaign donations done away with entirely. MacCleery says, "The ultimate solution, of course, is public funding of elections, and that is what we are pushing for next."

Others say that giving money to political candidates is part of the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment right of free speech, and cannot be eliminated. And as November 2008 gets closer, the campaign contribution cash piles will continue to grow.

While political parties in the United States other than the Democratic and Republican have fielded presidential candidates for years, they have never won the White House.

In 1992, Democratic Party presidential candidate Bill Clinton defeated the incumbent Republican President George H.W. Bush, the father of President George W. Bush, by nearly six million votes. But a so-called third party candidate, Ross Perot, received almost 20 million votes. Many political observers say the votes cast for Perot clearly affected the outcome of the contest between Mr. Bush and Mr.Clinton.

The United States has two major political parties, the Democratic and the Republican. But there are others, such as the Green Party, the Libertarian Party, and the Socialist Party. These and other third parties have never succeeded in winning the White House. The reason for that is the structure of the Electoral College that actually selects the president.

Benjamin Ginsberg at Johns Hopkins University in Washington D.C. says, "We don't actually have one national election. We have 50 statewide [presidential] elections that are held on the same day. And in each state, Electoral College votes are allocated, usually to the candidate that wins the most votes in that state."

Ralph Nader ran under the Green Party banner in 1996 and 2000 and also ran unaffiliated in 2004. He says the problem for third parties goes beyond the Electoral College. "The system does not encourage, because it doesn't have proportional representation [and] doesn't have instant-runoff voting. It does not encourage multi-party development.

While third party candidates may not win, they have been accused of being so-called spoilers. That is how some pundits view Ralph Nader's 2000 White House bid.

The outcome of the 2000 presidential election ultimately hinged on the vote count in the southeastern state of Florida. Republican George W. Bush won the state over his Democratic Party rival, Al Gore, by a margin of only 537 votes. Mr. Bush's Florida victory enabled him to win the White House in the Electoral College even though Gore got more votes nationally. Nader received more than 97,000 votes in Florida, sparking debates ever since as to what the outcome in Florida would have been if he were not on the ballot.

Some political observers say there is another reason why parties other than the Democratic and Republican do not win the White House and usually do not get seats in Congress. Candice Nelson at American University in Washington, D.C. explains. "Their issues -- if they have resonance, if the American people are interested in them -- can get absorbed by one of the two major parties, which is why third parties don't have much staying power."

The next segment of "How America Elects" will focus on campaign fundraising, and the debate over whether the White House race should be entirely publicly financed.

The process of voting and electing national and local officials begins with registering people as participants in elections.

In a ceremony in a Washington, D.C. federal courthouse, these people have just become U.S. citizens. Along with the citizenship certificate they receive a form to register them as voters. For political parties, these new citizens are an opportunity to expand their influence.

Simply put, democracy is the rule of the majority. And in democratic societies, that rule is exercised through voting. But you have to be registered to take part. In the last presidential election in 2004, 72 percent of eligible Americans were registered voters, whether as members of political parties or unaffiliated.

In the United States, if you change where you live, you must re-register to remain eligible to vote. States require people who move to also update their driver's license. And so a 1995 federal law enabling people to update both their driver's license and voter registration at the same time added millions of people to the voting rolls. At least two states, Arizona and Washington, have also set up registration on the Internet, where civil society groups have been promoting registration and voting for years.

Republican official Fred Fleischman in the mid-Atlantic state of Maryland says registration is an essential part of gaining and holding political power. "In the state of Maryland, [with the Republicans] being a minority party, it's very critical for us to register as many voters [as possible] so we have enough muscle, so we can compete on an even playing field with the other [Democratic] party.

In early 2007, control of both sides of Congress shifted from the Republicans to the Democrats. That turn of events has energized both parties to scour for new voters ahead of the 2008 elections -- especially ones willing to switch sides.

"I've always voted Republican, but I've been registered as a Democrat because my family was Democrat when I was a kid. So now, I'm changing to Republican."

Changing population patterns have altered the balance between the two major parties in some states and counties. That has created opportunities for each side to try to invade the other party's traditional territory and register new party members. Maryland Democratic Party official Ina Taylor says finding these people and making sure they can and do vote is as important as mobilizing party regulars on Election Day. "It's crucial for us to get out to everybody and get them registered, and lined up ready to vote."

The political process begins with voter registration. But there are many more steps on the road to Election Day. We'll look closely at those aspects, and how they affect the electoral process.

Fifteen months before the November 2008 presidential election, Iowans belonging to the Republican Party (GOP) have held an informal preference poll on the GOP White House contenders.

In the middle of August, it is so hot in the mid-American state of Iowa that the air seems to shimmer. Crops stand tall in the fields, the harvest about a month away. But something else is also growing in Iowa -- interest in next year's presidential election. And candidates are there.

At Iowa State University in the city of Ames, thousands of Republicans gather to hold a straw poll. The top vote getters gain greater visibility and more campaign contributions. For the poll's participants, it is grassroots democracy in action.

Voter Gail Teal says, "Well, I feel it's important that everyone takes part in the voting process. We have that freedom. We're fortunate that we are able to. And I think we should take advantage of that."

Many candidates treat the straw poll as if it was a real election. Some candidates spend millions of dollars building recognition and support.

Politics are at a fever pitch. The scene resembles a national political convention. Before each candidate speaks, his supporters fill the coliseum floor. And when the speech is over, the throng marches out, to be replaced by those supporting the next contender.

Throughout the day, voters cast their ballots and get their thumb inked to show they participated. It costs $35 to take part. Some observers say the straw poll better reflects a candidate's coffers than the White House aspirant's real appeal to the voters.

But to participants, the real winner is Iowa itself. Participant David Lundberg says, "I think it's important that we represent the central United States, the grassroots of the United States. If the candidates can come here and field here first, rather than go to the high population centers, I think that's good for the nation."

Outside the coliseum, there is a festival atmosphere, with tents set up by the presidential candidates. Lots of food, live bands and the candidates stoking enthusiasm.

The Iowa Republican Straw Poll has traditionally attracted the Party's most committed members. These people are driven by issues they feel should be at the forefront of campaign discussion. Participant Suzanne Stannick says, "The important issues this year to me are taxes, the economy, pro-life issues [anti-abortion], and immigration."

Iowans plan to meet again in early 2008 to cast formal votes in their state's caucus. Like a primary, a caucus determines how many of each candidate's delegates will be sent to the party's national convention. The snow may be deep by then, but the political action will be as hot, as it was in August. As before, the entire nation will be watching.

On January 8, 2008, the northeastern U.S. state of New Hampshire will be the first to hold a primary election that determines voter preference for presidential candidates.

New Hampshire is small in size, and has only 1.3 million people out of the U.S. total of about 300 million. But when New Hampshire votes, it commands the attention of the entire nation. And, the results reverberate all the way to the White House.

Every four years, New Hampshire temporarily becomes the center of the U.S. political universe. The northeastern state is the first to hold a primary election, where voters show preference for a particular Democratic or Republican presidential candidate. In most states, voters registered with a political party can only vote for that party's candidates. But some states, such as New Hampshire, also let voters not registered with a party take part.

American University's Candice Nelson explains another dimension of primaries. "The purpose of the primary season is to get ? to enable ? candidates to introduce themselves to the voters, to let the voters get to know the candidates, to think about the candidates over the course of three or four months."

Candidates have always campaigned person-to-person in primary states such as New Hampshire, going from town to town shaking hands, attending rallies, and other means of contact with the electorate.

When George W. Bush was a candidate for president in 2000 he told a crowd, "Thank you for having me. Thank you for having me. Thank you for giving me a chance to come and visit a little bit [while] about why I am asking for your vote. I'll be glad to answer a few questions."

The presidential candidates are usually in New Hampshire nonstop in the days just before the primary. They, and their campaign teams, keep hunting for votes right down to when the polls close, as Democrat John Kerry demonstrated in 2004. "We have to go out and do the work. We have to turn out the vote. We have to make those calls. We have to knock on those doors. We have to complete the mission."

The traditional three or four month period of states holding primaries and caucuses has been shrinking in recent presidential elections, as states go earlier and earlier in hopes of gaining greater visibility and power in determining the party's presidential nominee. Some people have proposed that all states conduct their primaries or caucuses on the same day.

The arguments on that, both pro-and-con, are stated by Georgetown University's Mark Rom. "The main advantage of a national primary is that the voters, the votes from individuals across the nation, would count equally toward choosing the presidential candidates. That would be a good thing. The bad thing about a national primary is [that] it would give special advantages to those [candidates] who have raised the most money, and those who have the highest popularity when the race starts.

In primary elections and caucuses, a vote cast for a presidential candidate is actually a vote for that candidate's delegates to their political party's national convention, which takes place about two months before the final vote. The candidate with the greatest number of delegates overall becomes that party's presidential nominee in the November general election showdown that leads to the White House.