In a perfect world, or even one a little less overwhelming, the voter would not be subjected to this much presidential politicking, this far out in front of the 2008 election.

But since we're talking about life in this America, at least we should expect that somewhere in the flood of campaign rhetoric might be some information that could actually guide our selection once we confront the ballot.

So far, the debates haven't helped much on that score.

Some of this is simple tactics being applied to a crowded field of candidates. More than anything else, campaign hopefuls want to distinguish themselves from the pack.

And so, as the viewer witnessed in Sunday's televised Democratic showdown, there was a tendency for candidates who are generally seen as similar to exaggerate minor differences.

For example: Squabbling erupted among the front-runners, former Sen. John Edwards, and Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton over their vote on the war-funding bill. All voted against it but Edwards lashed out because his opponents had not been more vocal in their opposition.

And Tuesday, the Republicans were no better. The goal for GOP candidates that night was on placing the maximum degree of distance between themselves and President Bush, not on explaining how any of them proposes to do a better job.

A great deal of the fault lies with the format, of course, with questions designed to produce sound bites rather than thoughtful responses. "Should English be the national language?" seemed a pointless query, except that it gave Sen. John McCain a chance to dismiss the issue as unimportant in the scheme of things.

The scheme of things, in fact, is that we are a country facing a critical point in the war. The public is owed a chance to hear the candidates offer their thinking on how to move ahead from this point, rather than a song and dance about how the powers that be have botched things.

Leadership demands a vision for the future. So let's see who's got the right stuff.