Blitzer is a tool. Take off the gloves and have a debate that matters.

I pine for the days when a debate meant an actual debate. After the infamous Dred Scott decision (which among other things stated that blacks are not US citizens)the country drew close to a boil on the issue of slavery. In 1858, Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas debates face-to-face as they campaigned across Illinois for the Senate seat occupied by Douglas.

According to Peter Irons in his book The People's History of the Supreme Court,

During the twenty months between the Dred Scott decision and the 1858 elections, Lincoln and Douglas spoke to hundreds of audiences in Illinois and around the country, and they discussed the case in almost every speech. The seven formal–and now famous–debates between the two senatorial candidates focused largely on the Court's ruling and its consequences for national unity, as talk of secession grew louder in the South.

I wish two candidate would have a direct debate on the prominent issues (Iraq, health care, immigration, energy) rather than always having to be so careful about their image and every word. When we see the best athletes operating at their profession, we can watch them play. We see Michael Jordan make a game winning jump shot, and we see him miss foul shots. But with politicians, any slip of the tongue will be exaggerated, and thus, we get few candid moments. I wish the final two or three presidential candidates would give multiple public debates around the country with the focus on the issues and the audience rather than the TV viewers. What's wrong with the candidates having 10-15 debates in front of thousands of people?

Just Imagine
I ache for the opportunity to see Lincoln and Douglas debate on stage with no mics and no video cameras. The only real debate in this country comes from political analysts who are trying to boost ratings. It's rude to debate heatedly with friends, family, or company. And politicians can't afford to have their mistakes broadcasted around the world. We should be able to look to the "professionals" to help us think through the issues and debate the other side directly and thoroughly. That can't happen in a two-minute statement or even in a 10 minute interview.

One difference with the slavery debate, is that people can debate it without needing special knowledge. It is a moral issue. Well, I guess the "fire breathers" would say it was primarily an economic issues as well with economic implications for the South. Anyway, it's hard to have a debate about Iraq without being an expert in middle east relations or military occupation. A debate on energy can go only so far without both parties knowing about each type of alternative energy, the energy ratios of each, the latest technology, estimates for future energy demand, and the economic implications of weening the population and economy off oil.

Wolfe Blitzer
Regardless of how complicated issues are, the media led debates, especially the recent Democratic debate, are not working. If the moderator is going to ask yes/no questions or ask candidates to raise their hands to answer, just get them to do that ahead of time and post a grid on the screen. Get the candidates talking and challenge them to answer questions. Give the candidates the floor to make their case to the American people.

You have your own show. We do not tune into debates to hear you talk.