In a blog entry on Nolan Chart, Spencer Jayden, self identified as the most extreme of Libertarians, examines why Obama and Clinton might consider including Barr, and even gives a nudge to McCain (Barr might draw anti-war votes).

Jayden admits the prospects are slim with candidate and CPD self-interest dominating. What is interesting is the antipathy he brings with his "inclusion-in-debates" voice.

• The simple truth is that the CPD is NOT nonprofit and, shock, BIPARTISAN
  
• The CPD is nothing but a . . .mouthpiece for the two-party duopoly.
  
• They are possibly one of the greatest (and most vulnerable) affronts to freedom of speech and democracy in this country.

While not his purpose, Jayden seems to fuel the argument that the CPD has passed its prime, suggesting at one point that the media is disgusted with monopolistic control. Presumably they want their monopolistic control. He lists the provisions required in past CPD agreements.

• That candidates will only attend these debates
  
• The nominees refuse to debate anyone else who might be considered viable

It should be obvious why candidates and media outlets alike may resist these accords. First, more debates diffuse any given debate's importance, a more agreeable geographic could be achieved, and experiments reflecting the digital age become possible. Second, it is not inconceivable that Obama would want Barr's profile raised or McCain want to legitimize Nader.  With more debates variations of inclusion or exclusion become thinkable.

It is unlikely that Bob Barr will share a stage with McCain or Obama in 2008, but more seeds of the CPD's demise are being sown.