Not in a million years would I have thought CNBC would run a story about Paris Hilton. Yet, there she lounged, sandwiched between the stock ticker and commodities prices on my TV, detailing her "totally" brilliant energy plan in that cloying voice of hers.

Of course, Ms. Hilton's brief foray into the realm of politics was meant as a joke. Nevertheless, those battle-hardened soldiers over in Camp McCain leapt at the chance to use the socialite's latest stunt to score a few points. McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds commented: "It sounds like Paris Hilton supports John McCain's 'all of the above' approach to America's energy crisis - including both alternatives and drilling. Paris Hilton might not be as big a celebrity as Barack Obama, but she obviously has a better energy plan."

Meanwhile, in Florida, Barack Obama softened his opposition to the idiotic offshore drilling proposal McCain never ceases to extol. From a political standpoint it makes sense. The American people seem to like this ill-conceived offshore drilling idea and Senator Obama would rather not lose the election. Naturally, the media — and the McCain brigade — took the opportunity to label Senator Obama a "flip-flopper."

These two incidents have pushed me over the edge. Why must politics in this country consist of nothing more than the exchange of petty insults? Is it really too much to ask the two candidates to have an intelligent debate?

Of the three presidential debates scheduled to take place between now and November, not a single one allows the two candidates to speak to one another. Instead, two will feature some hopelessly dull moderator and the other a cast of undecided voters who pose the questions. Ugh.

I remember watching the 2005 pre-runoff debate between Nicolas Sarkozy and Ségolène Royal with some fondness. The two candidates sat, one across from the other, at a table. They had no "moderator" per se, just a timer and a charming television personality to make sure neither one hogged the limelight. While their exchange veered off course on a few occasions, they managed, for the most part, to have a serious discussion of the issues. One would bring up his or her proposal, give a basis for it and the other would respond with a logical rebuttal. No one cared about flip-flops or expensive loafers. Instead, they raised concerns about the cost of certain projects, or the moral issues surrounding providing a set of services to one group, but not another.

I have no doubt Barack Obama and John McCain could have that kind of discussion. And, to both of their credit, they have both made at least a minimal effort to move in that direction. At the same time, however, both Camp McCain and the Obamites have stooped to crying "flip-flop" on at least one occasion.

The issues have nuance. None of the proposals put forth by Senator Obama and Senator McCain have no merit whatsoever, nor do all of their proposals have no demerits whatsoever. Given the job of weighing an idea's merits against its demerits, and a changing temporal, political, economic and social climate, it seems perfectly reasonable and perfectly natural that both candidates would change some of their positions in the course of this unbelievably long campaign. I wish our politics better reflected that reality.