Stupid Debate Questions

I am fed up with the presidential "debates." They are not debates by any rational definition of the word. They are a cross between a serial press conference and the quiz show "Are You Smarter Than A Fifth Grader." Some of the sillier questions have been:

• What do you dislike most about America? (Yeah, I'm running for president because I hate America.)
  
• Grade the Iraq War. (Wars are not high schools exams.)
• What is your greatest weakness? (Like I'd tell you.)
• Who would you support [for president] other than you? (Well, there's Abraham Lincoln but I hear he's dead.)
• How would you, Senator Obama, respond to the criticism that you aren’t black enough, and you, Senator Clinton, to the criticism you aren’t feminine enough? (Obama: Should I start wearing shoe polish on my face? Clinton: I've got the breasts and a vagina, what more do I need?)
• Did you see a UFO? (No, but I once saw a housefly. House...fly...Flying house...Get it?)
• Do you prefer diamonds or pearls? (I like quiet walks in the moonlight a sipping a good Cabernet by the firelight.)
  

That last outrage came from the audience at last night's CNN Democratic debate. We learn today that the question was planted by CNN. The woman wanted to ask a question about dumping nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain but CNN wanted to wrap the "debate" with a laugh line so they made her embarrass herself with that inane question. We have learned from this that all of the audience questions last night were prescreened and censored by CNN.

These "debates" add nothing to the political discourse. They are crafted to be entertaining and not illuminating. They achieve neither. They are held solely to enhance the marketability of the third-rate talking heads who moderate them. Yes, I'm talking about you Wolf Blitzer and Chris Matthews. They are demeaning to the politicians who participate in them. They are crimes against the American people who are seek to be informed by them and are given only fatuous pablum.

I'd love to see a real presidential debate. A real debate has the candidates alone on the stage discussing the issues in a back and forth. Perhaps there is a referee to insure the rules are followed but, if the debate is between honorable people the referee need never say a word. There are several academic debate formats to choose from.

It will never happen. The self-important children running the various networks would never allow it. The networks only like debates if they can be used to promote their news anchors. The candidates will be afraid of real debates. In a real debate it is impossible to hide behind sloganeering; it is impossible to disguise a slow wit or a dull mind. In a real debate the Johnny-one-note candidates would be quickly revealed. I am left trying to imagine which of the candidate would do best in a real debate and voting accordingly.

My previous views.