I've hated them even when I worked on them:  the careful recitation of answers that pass for political debates in this country. Even when I see my boss do well, finish just as the red light blinks on, spring the carefully honed line that'll make a headline, I can't help thinking: Why not let them go head-to-head?

Watching Chris Coons and Christine O'Donnell today, I got my wish: two candidates that paid no attention at all to rules, insulted each other right from the first, and treated time limits like invading armies treat borders. 

You're not coming clean ...You don't need to go to an Ivy League school to know ... Well there you go ...You've just proved how little you know!

It was great. 

Now, full disclosure: I'm a Democrat. I hate Christine O'Donnell's views. If I were in Delaware I'd vote for Coons. Why didn't I hate her more?

Well, for one thing, politics doesn't just depend on issues. Even people in the business respond to personality. I got tired of this buttoned down - literally; he had buttoned collars - guy, hands clasped calmly on the table, racing through his list of abstractions, filling even his insults with words like "fascinating" and "fundamentally unsound."

"How dare you!" O'Donnell said at one point.  "He had the audacity to raise taxes." I was struggling. I liked her!

O'Donnell profited from something else I knew about. Low expectations. She didn't fall apart. She had answers. Once in a while she asked a question that had Coons hemming and hawing. There was even some substance. You could see plenty of places where they differ: abortion, Afghanistan, taxes, health care. Voters who care about issues got their money's worth.

But, but but but...

There is that final question--the one people in politics get all the time.  The anger problem. Can't they go head to-head without being so damn mad?

Well.  I have had a great marriage for 32 years - and even hope to have one after this contest. But my wife and I have had arguments - raging ones! -- about things like putting the peanut butter in the refrigerator. Those issues won't cost a single life.

O'Donnell and Koons were arguing about whether to invade a country and kill a few hundred thousand people - or pass a law that would cost six thousand jobs in Delaware.  If those things shouldn't make you furious, what in the world should?

The fact is, we're not going to walk down the street and pick a fight with our neighbors over, say, abortion. It would make our hearts pound, give us headaches, and make block parties impossible. We send Senators to Washington to do that for us. The anger problem is not theirs.  It's ours.

You saw that right at the end of the debate. O'Donnell and Koons went into closing arguments.  Even they obeyed tradition. Out came the carefully manicured lines.  We heard no snotty remarks from Coons.  No passionate accusations from O'Donnell. Each sat quietly, letting the other utter their piece. It was what people say they want: calm, courteous, measured. Civil.

And kind of disappointing.      

Read more entries from this challenge round. Check out what the judges think. And come back Friday to vote.              

By Robert Lehrman  |  October 19, 2010; 11:40 AM ET  | Category:  Blogging Challenge
Share This: Email a Friend | Technorati | Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook
Previous: When politics become reality TV | Next: There you go again