‘ ‘ ‘ Anyone who has watched the presidential debates over the past few weeks has probably… ‘ ‘ ‘ Anyone who has watched the presidential debates over the past few weeks has probably noticed that both were lackluster. They have been an exhibition of question-dodging and of both candidates’ abilities to spout rhetoric instead of substantive answers. ‘ ‘ ‘ The third debate airs tonight at 9, and Bob Schieffer is the moderator. It’s also the last chance for Sen. Obama and Sen. McCain to make a major impression on voters outside of TV interviews and campaign ads. That being so, there are a few things that we would like to see happen in this debate that haven’t happened yet. ‘ ‘ ‘ First and foremost, the candidates should finally attempt to answer a question directly. There have been too many times that we’ve heard an excellent question from the moderator, only to have Obama and McCain either give an answer that is almost entirely hot air or that is only thinly related. ‘ ‘ ‘ Both candidates are politicians, so there’s only so much that one can expect in terms of a straight answer, but the truth is that they both stand to benefit more from being honest than they do from being guarded and rhetorical. Almost all the criticism about the debates has been leveled at their lack of substance, so delivering some real answers would be good for either candidate. ‘ ‘ ‘ It would also be good to see more active moderation. Both Obama and McCain went over their time limits in their answers in the last debate, and yet Tom Brokaw, for the most part, let them do it. These debates have rules for a reason, and they shouldn’t just be flaunted so the candidates can say everything they want to. ‘ ‘ ‘ In addition to controlling the candidates, Schieffer should’ challenge them on ridiculous answers. Encouraging direct responses and real discussion has been a stated goal of all the moderators this year, but so far none of them has really done so. Schieffer wasn’t afraid to cut off President Bush or Sen. Kerry when he moderated their third debate, but he has a much bigger challenge to live up to this time. ‘ ‘ ‘ We also need to hear about some new issues. It was unfortunate that in the first debate Jim Lehrer spent nearly half the time with questions on the economy instead of foreign policy, because we heard almost everything the candidates had to say about domestic and foreign policy in that one debate, only to hear the same in the second. The third debate, which is focused on domestic and economic policy, is shaping up to be more of the same again. ‘ ‘ ‘ Instead, there should be more questions on what we haven’t heard yet: What about Supreme Court appointments? What about education policy? Stem cell research? There are topics that haven’t even been glanced at yet, even though they are hugely important to voters ‘mdash; more important, in many ways, than foreign policy. ‘ ‘ ‘ Addressing some of these new topics would be a good way to break the candidates out of their rhetoric loops and also to provide voters with important information. ‘ ‘ ‘ Of course, it’s unlikely that the debate will include everything in this list. But the previous debates simply haven’t been good enough, and the issues above need to be addressed if the last one is going to be any better.