Let the debaters interrupt each other

I think the intensity and confrontational character of the presidential debate was exactly what was needed in this campaign. There are ample opportunities for both of these candidates in regular interviews and campaign speeches to provide the voters with long uninterrupted statements of their policies; by allowing interruptions in this debate, the voters benefited from immediate challenges of what was just said, which may have sounded good in isolation but when the other candidate illuminates certain flaws which might not otherwise be readily apparent, the impact of such statements can be appropriately diminished. Conversely, if a statement by one candidate easily withstands an attack by the opponent, the statement will have grown in stature.

I think Trump was able to diminish Biden's claims that he would have led a more effective response to the coronavirus when he interrupted Biden and reminded the audience that when he banned travel from China to the United States on Jan. 31, Biden vociferously declared such a ban to be xenophobic and racist.

I also think that the role of the moderator should be reduced below that which was exercised by Chris Wallace. I thought he wrongfully interrupted President Trump's mentioning of the apparent bribery scheme of Joe and Hunter Biden. I think the possible enabling and facilitating by Joe Biden of a bribe paid to Hunter Biden is of major interest to most Americans who want high morality in their elected officials. The role of the moderator should be limited to asking a few questions to both candidates.

Finally, three debates constitute only 4.2% of the time of a 70-day campaign. Having these brief encounters be vigorous, unrestricted, challenging events enhances the prospects for the issues to be articulated better for the benefit of the American electorate.

Jon Anderson

South Barrington