This is way better than any debate:  

Alex Tabarrok of my favorite econ blog Marginal Revolution has a brilliant idea for vetting presidential candidates:

Thus what we need is a way of conveying information to uninformed, unsophisticated voters in a way that is entertaining yet produces information about politicians that is correlated with real skills.

I suggest a game show, So You Think You Can Be President? SYTYCBP would have at least three segments.

Coase it Out: Presidential candidates have 12 hours to get a bitterly divorcing couple to divide their assets in a mutually agreeable manner. (Bonus points are awarded if the candidate convinces the couple to stay together.)

Game Theory: Candidates compete in a game of Diplomacy. I would also include several ringers - say Robin Hanson, Bryan Caplan and Salma Hayek. Why these three? Robin is cold, calculating and merciless - make a logical mistake and he will make you pay. Bryan is crafty and experienced. And Salma? I couldn't refuse her anything but presidents should be made of stronger stuff so we need a test.

Spot the Fraud: Presidential candidates are provided with an economic scenario (mortgage defaults are up, hedge funds are crashing, liquidity is tight). Three experts propose plans. The candidate must choose one of the plans. After the candidate chooses, the true identities of the "experts" are revealed. One is a trucker, another a scuba diver instructor and the last a distinguished economist. Which did the candidate choose?

I added the hyperlinks to Overcoming Bias, of which Hanson is a contributor, and econLog, which Caplan writes with Arnold Kling.

Here's the rest of the article.

Also, Kathy G. responds to the sexism by suggesting the use of George Clooney to interrogate Hillary.

I wonder if he chose Hayek based on her last name...I assume she's no relation to a certain Friedrich.