The Post moves the Coward-in-Chief story forward:

Bush Likely To Bow Out Of 1 Debate (washingtonpost.com)

[Republican officials] said Bush's negotiating team plans to resist the middle debate, which was to be Oct. 8 in a town meeting format in the crucial state of Missouri.

...The audience for the second debate, to be at Washington University in St. Louis, was to be picked by the Gallup Organization. The commission said participants should be undecided voters from the St. Louis area.

A presidential adviser said campaign officials were concerned that people could pose as undecided when they actually are partisans.

"It's not a fear of the format," said the adviser, who refused to be identified to avoid annoying Bush.

No really, it's not a fear of the format, it's just a fear of people who don't support the President. His Holiness is not to be exposed to them.

But let's take the official God's Own Party explanation as read for a moment - that the problem really is "partisans" posing as undecideds.

Please to explain the all-important chasm of difference between an undecided voter's question (remember, by definition the undecided person is clearly not sold on more Bush) and a partisan's question.

No, seriously, what practical difference will there be? What words would a "partisan" (and not an undecided) use in a town hall forum that would so sting God's Chosen that he couldn't recover? What topics might a partisan bring up that an undecided wouldn't (and which Kerry won't already have touched on)? Can you think of any?

I'd love to see a Republican answer those basic questions; to me their excuse is ridiculous on its face. In their world, undecideds are just as bad as partisans - disloyal agents of the Enemy who shall not approach the Presence. This is just another lever for them to characterize opposition as just plain unacceptable.

Sure, it's not "fear of the format". It's fear of the people.