With 36 days until the presidential election, I'm delighted to introduce Firsthand, a project that uses all the tools at our disposal to expand the conversation, puts the spotlight on what really matters most in people's lives and allows you to share the ideas and images that tell the story of our country during this campaign season, as you see it. Every month, drawing on reader input, we will ask a broad question -- for example, how a certain challenge or trend is affecting your community. Using HuffPost's platform, you'll then be able to share your response. It might be an Instagram photo with two sentences of explanatory text; a brief video clip; or a scan of a flyer that is landing on car windshields in your neighborhood. The result will be a vivid multimedia mosaic that captures the everyday events that are a testament to the changes underway in American communities.

On the eve of the first presidential debate, the focus shouldn't be on who is going to "win," but on whether we are finally going to get a serious debate on jobs and the economy. But I don't expect much, especially given reports the Romney team believes that "debates are about creating moments" and thus "equipped him with a series of zingers that he has memorized." Now, a well-placed debate zinger certainly has its place -- but how much more of a "moment" would be created if either candidate instead unleashed a series of proposals to put the twenty million Americans who are unemployed or underemployed back to work? In fact, the pipeline is full of legislative proposals that would help put Americans back to work. But time is running out. If that debate doesn't happen, then the loser of all three debates will be the American people.

In this week's issue of Huffington, David Wood continues to put the spotlight on the sacrifices and struggles of America's veterans; Arthur Delaney looks at a NC congressman's very public battle with an unemployed constituent; and Catherine Pearson reports on new evidence expanding our understanding of in vitro fertilization.

This week saw the first presidential debate. The main topic was the economy, but we heard more about Big Bird than jobs or the foreclosure crisis. Also missing: President Obama, who was more present on stage with Eastwood in Tampa than with Romney in Denver. It wasn't a bad metaphor for the last three years: one side lying about tax cuts and deficits, the other defensive and unwilling to fight for its own job-creating policies. The election narrative shifted again on Friday when the latest jobs report showed a drop in unemployment to 7.8 percent. Republicans screamed fraud, with no basis in reality. But lest we pop the champagne too soon, remember that at the present rate of 114,000 jobs added a month, it would take over a decade to reach full employment. A celebration based on such meager numbers underscores just how badly we need a real debate on the economy.

"I want to talk to you very briefly," Martha Raddatz told Biden and Ryan, "about your own personal character... what could you both give to this country as a man, as a human being?" What Ryan brought to the debate as a human being was hard work, including the ability to cram all night memorizing his talking points, and healthy habits -- he was well-hydrated and in good shape -- but no depth or wisdom. Biden, on the other hand, brought loads of experience and much more depth. But, in a different way, no statesman-like mastery of himself. He was a 69-year-old hothead in control of the facts, but at the mercy of his anger. In our troubled times, we are in desperate need of real character in our leaders -- which calls not just for intelligence but for wisdom and the ability to navigate not just the corridors of power but the dangerous shoals of one's own emotions.

After the first presidential debate, which gave Romney a four-point bounce, nobody is doubting the debates' importance. But as we ready for tonight's round two, I'm wondering: What exactly are the debates teaching us about the candidates? As they're presently constituted, they don't give an accurate idea of what a candidate might be like as a president. Take the prohibition on notes -- when is a sitting president ever going to be faced with a situation in which he's going to need to make an important decision without availing himself of any outside information? It's fun to see how a candidate responds to a zinger, but it'd be much more instructive to see how a candidate goes about seeking information that he doesn't know. So what about at least one debate that is structured to resemble the decision-making process a president would actually go through in office?

In Huffington this week, Tom Zeller puts the spotlight on what he rightly calls a "national disgrace": the grinding poverty that plagues rural communities throughout America, especially among minorities. And Radley Balko puts a seemingly routine traffic stop under the microscope, raising questions about profiling, civil rights violations, and bad cops.

We didn't need the Long Island Medium to predict that the Sleepy-Time Obama from the Debacle in Denver would be replaced at this week's Hofstra debate with a much feistier POTUS -- or that the town hall format would lead to more verbal sparring than the locked-behind-a-podium approach. The breakout star of the event was Romney's "binders full of women" comment, an awkward turn of phrase that unleashed a bevy of tweets, Tumblr gifs, and video mashups. The top TiVo takeaway had to be Romney's epic fail as, eyebrows shooting upward, he tried to nail Obama on the words the president had used to describe the attack in Benghazi -- a dramatic moment highlighted by Candy Crowley's instant fact-check. Before the debate, I suggested that the real-time, crowd-sourced fact checking that has become a staple on Twitter should be made a standard part of the debate process. Candy's sharp memory demonstrated why it'd be so useful.

The week started off with our last chance to have a real debate between the two presidential candidates. But the Battle in Boca was less of a vetting of the status quo than a ratification of it, as Romney essentially endorsed Obama's foreign policy. Why are we staying in Afghanistan until the end of 2014? What of the drones, killing people (including civilians) in our name and with little oversight? Instead of answers to those questions, we got horses, bayonets and Battleship. Midweek brought yet another edition of GOP Inappropriate Rape Comment Theater, this one starring Richard Mourdock and "God's will." The reviews weren't good. The chance for meaningful debate might have passed, but the window for jaw-dropping remarks about rape will apparently stay open right up to Election Day.