Tonight's debate was quite frankly fairly predictable. McCain goes off on tangents, misrepresents Obama's positions and statements, and pushes himself as the candidate with the experience to get the job done. Obama stays pretty cool under the fire, points out some of the more egregious McCain falsehoods, and fairly well presents himself and his ideas.

I watched the debate with my wife, who is much less politically engaged than I am. She made the comment during one of the really few engagements between the candidates that with the ways the candidates are free to say basically whatever thay want, while they refute each other but there is no telling which is telling the truth.

I submit that these silly "formats" are a huge problem. We saw it in the VP debate as well. The candidates are free to say whatever the hell they feel like, including in Sarah Palin's case, ignoring the question altogether, and there is no follow-up.

It will never happen, but what I would like to see is an intimate "interview" of the two candidates by a skilled interviewer who has the freedom to keep asking a question until he/she gets an answer. Like him or not (and he gets on my nerves when he won't shut up and let his guests talk)an interviewer like Chris Matthews will at least sometimes keep after it until he gets at least some semblance of an answer.

Maybe we could have a series of three presidential debates with three different moderators from different news outlets (drawn by lot?) and one for the VP.

No structure rules, no time limits for an individual segment. Just ask the question and get an answer. It would be a lot cheaper; just need a studio and a couple of cameras. Granted the "stagecraft" would be missing, but we might actually get some answers with the substance and accountiblility.

It's just getting increasingly frustrating for these very important events to be diminished into little more than glorified beauty contests.