The Fine Prints

Wanted: Yes / No answers only, or nothing more than five words long.

We want more politicians that are "straight talkers", which is apparently defined by the two characteristics above.

It seems that the majority of Americans (or perhaps human beings in general) does not care to hear about the finer details of where their representatives stand in terms of policy.

In the interest of time and efficiency, we've developed broad categories -- left or right, pro-choice or pro-life, pro- or anti-war, among countless others -- for people to sort themselves. While acceptable and sometimes useful as a first cut, we seem to have stopped caring beyond what the broad labels say about us.

In the recent "You-Tube debate" among Dem candidates, one question posed was whether the candidates would meet with leaders of countries with which the US has strained or no current diplomatic relations.

And the battle of fine prints ensues -- at least between Clinton and Obama. I don't know for sure whom I agree with more, exactly because each candidate's answer must essentially be stripped down to "yes / no", with a lot of fine prints that didn't come until the candidates' "post-debate memos", which, unfortunately, is more a cherry-picking catfight than an honest discussion of the candidates' positions.

So I say chuck the headline news and free Metro newspapers. I also would rather watch one-on-one live interviews with candidates than the debates. The debates promote "negative politics" (focusing on attacks) and provides voters with very little actual information about their candidates. We're not picking out members for a debate team, and let's face it, all candidates are heavily coached on how they should answer these predictable questions anyway.

If someone only has to the time or interest to read or listen to no more than two sentences about an issue or a political candidate, honestly, you might as well just not know anything about it at all. That way at least you're less likely to fall victim to manipulation.