I missed the debate last night, but from what I've read, it was the usual, with the questioners going for "gotcha" questions, spreading heat, but little light.

I've been very disappointed in the debates I've seen. The questions have been mostly about "controversies" that have arisen during campaigning, and very little about how the candidates would govern as president. Has anyone ever asked the Democratic candidates their position on the unitary executive theory or signing statements?

It seems unlikely that Senators Clinton and Obama will have any more debates, but here are some ideas that I've been thinking about for a better debate. These ideas could also be used in the general campaign.

First, lose the sponsoring networks. They are unnecessary, and most of the questioning has been inane. If the two candidates agree to debate again, they should jointly rent a hall and anounce that they are going to have a debate, and that a feed will be provided for anyone who wants to broadcast the debate, with appropriate breaks. Someone, C-SPAN, if no one else, would.

As for the format, the two candidates should pick a moderator that both can agree on. The moderator can either formulate the questions or solicit question from other sources (newspapers, internet, etc.).

Alternatively, the candidates could submit questions that they think should be asked. The moderator would alternate between the two sets of questions.

What I'd really like to see is the candidates go head to head. Each candidate would alternate asking the other a question. The other would respond, and the questioning candidate would then have a chance for rebuttal.

I think a debate like this would be much more interesting, and have a chance of allowing the candidates to present useful information to the voters.