Here's an unbearably haughty 881 words from the schoolmarms at the New York Times editorial page complaining about the "tone" of the campaign and suggesting what we really need is more debate of the issues.

But we've had 20 debates. The most in history. In fact, we've had so much debate that any reasonably well informed person can recite verbatim the candidates' positions on issues from trade to taxes to Iraq. Giving the candidates more opportunities to offer their canned responses to issues hardly makes things better - especially when there is little no to difference between the two in any area of policy. How many more times do we have to watch Clinton and Obama argue over the niggling nuances of their healthcare proposals, for example? The mere thought makes me want to self-medicate heavily.

Say what you want about Hillary Clinton's "kitchen sink" strategy - and set aside whether you think a protracted fight between Clinton and Obama is damaging to the party and/or helpful to John McCain (both unknowable, by the way, despite the instant CW) - at least with the "3am" ad Clinton finally succeeded in drawing some sort of contrast with Obama in the final days leading up to March 4th, and she put him under the kind of intense scrutiny he's sure to get from the Republicans if he's the nominee.

If there's an indictment to be made here, it's not over a "lack of debate." Place the blame where it belongs: on a process that is way too long, too drawn out, and yet is still expected to feed the media beast day in and day out for the better part of two years. This is what you get.