As long as there is a moderator who can change the subject as well as keep time, there will be no real opportunity to see if candidates can back up their statements with more than one-liners. Events have overtaken what seemed to be a wrong answer by Bush on Serbia and have made him look like a prophet. As of Tuesday, when Bush suggested that the Russians step in to help resolve the disputed election in Serbia, the Russian president was still opposed to the American-backed notion of accepting the Sept. 24 vote as a binding defeat of Slobodan Milosevic. The rest of Bush's answer was filled with platitudes and bromides and Gore nailed him on the Russian reference. Bush tried to back pedal, but Gore managed to get in a last dig before moderator Jim Lehrer was off and running with a new question about an entirely different subject.
Clarity suffers under such a debate policy.
In light of subsequent events, that might have been a defining exchange had it been allowed to develop. So might a longer exchange on education, which had Gore squirming toward the end. No wonder they were heaving sighs and snorting. You shouldn't have to be an expert to decipher the substance of presidential debates, nor have to surf through TV pundits for two or three days and read several different newspapers to see who gave weasel answers. What's needed is a debate setting that allows candidates to interact until there is a chance for statements to be challenged for factual content and common sense.