Political debates for presidential races are about the best way, so far, for the American people to decide which candidate they prefer. They are not perfect, however.

The debate Tuesday night between Sens. Barack Obama and John McCain was an example: more show biz and trickery than substance and clarity.

In an editorial in Wednesday's paper, we expressed disappointment that we will have no debate in the race for Clinton County Family Court judge. Yet we now disparage, to a degree, the presidential debates. Are those two positions at odds?

No. In local races, even supposedly non-political ones, such as for a judgeship, the questions focus on topics designed to help voters choose in an informed and intelligent way who is the better candidate. They also give a useful look at how well each candidate is able to formulate and express ideas that bear on his or her performance when in office.

The presidential debates have become something else.

For one thing, each candidate's conduct in a public setting is by now well known. A televised debate isn't going to tell us anything we haven't already learned in two years of watching these two campaign, hold news conferences, give speeches and participate in debates.

As for issues, their positions are pretty well known, having been staked out with great fanfare and under great examination.

Nevertheless, debates could still serve a function, if the questions were crafted with more exposition and less whimsy in mind.

For example, patterning Tuesday's debate on the "town hall" concept, questions were taken from the audience and from e-mails from around the country. One of the last questions, e-mailed, read to each candidate by moderator Tom Brokaw, asked, "What do you not know, and how do you plan on learning it?"

It's easy to imagine the author of that question watching on TV in Middle America, racing to the phone to announce to relatives and friends that her question had made the big time and how she was going to stump the stars.

But, in all candor, what does that question have to do with the performance of presidential duties? Presidents don't make decisions on the spur of the moment. They confer with the greatest minds to which they have access and carefully formulate an action. Glibness may be attractive, but it isn't necessary.

Moreover, because candidates may answer questions only one at a time, the person who gets to answer that psychological poser second has the inestimable advantage of having an extra 60 seconds, or so, to contemplate it. The question itself, however, would be better suited for leadership of a high-school philosophy club than a presidential race.

That's generally why professional journalists are given the assignment of questioning the candidates: They know how to conceive and phrase questions of the most consequence to voters.

This is not to say the televised debates are a waste of time. Even with questions of dubious applicability, they are better than not seeing the candidates at all. It's the format that needs work.