Political debates last week before the Arkansas Press Association weren't terribly enlightening, but they did give a little exposure to candidates who haven't gotten much.
That actually includes some major party candidates for statewide office, all of whom are suffering this election season in the back seat to the U.S. Senate race.
That's the one between Democratic Sen. Mark Pryor and Republican challenger, U.S. Rep. Tom Cotton, a race often described as sucking all the political air out of the room.
It is, of course, a race of national consequence since the balance of power in the U.S. Senate is in question.
It is hardly the only race of consequence in Arkansas this November, however.
When neither Pryor nor Cotton chose to face the editors and publishers assembled in Hot Springs on Friday, candidates for governor, lieutenant governor and attorney general had the limelight.
They didn't exactly seize the moment.
An early morning debate between lieutenant governor candidates didn't offer much because one of the key candidates, Republican U.S. Rep. Tim Griffin was there only via internet video and had to leave mid-debate. John Burkhalter and Christopher Olson, the Democratic and Libertarian nominees, carried on but scored no standout points.
Candidates for attorney general -- Libertarian Aaron Cash, Republican Leslie Rutledge and Democrat Nate Steel -- were up next.
They succeeded at least in distinguishing themselves from each other.
Rutledge repeatedly asserted her plan, as attorney general, to fight an overreaching federal government while Steel promised to keep his focus on Arkansas.
No matter what question they were asked, the two kept going back to that differentiation between them. Rutledge tried to capitalize on voter distress with Washington politics and Steel sought to reinforce his experience as a state representative.
She's the pistol-packing, tough prosecutor. He's the steady, ready lawyer-legislator. At least that's how they presented themselves.
Cash, the young third-party challenger, injected some controversy with his support for legalizing marijuana. Mostly, he was the third wheel "sick" of two-party politics.
For the record, all three candidates told the assembled press people what they wanted to hear on one particular issue, pledging support for and defense of the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act.
The job these three seek is that of the state's top lawyer, who heads a huge firm of career attorneys with state government as their clients. Next to governor, the office is the most high profile at the state level and has become a political stepping stone to higher state and federal office. (Think Thornton, Tucker, Clinton, Pryor, Beebe, for examples.)
That's what voters really need to keep in mind. Can the candidate handle the job at hand? Should he or she be given this responsibility and at least a reasonable chance of future political advancement?
Fitness for the job at hand should be the question for all government job-seekers, including those who want to fill the governor's chair.
There were four of them on the podium last weekend -- the two primary contenders, Republican Asa Hutchinson and Democrat Mike Ross, along with the Green Party's Joshua Drake and Libertarian Frank Gilbert.
The attention went mostly to Hutchinson and Ross, although the other two, with a public forum and nothing to lose, clearly entertained the crowd with their blunt responses.
Hutchinson or Ross will be governor, of course. The two former congressmen are both conservative, although perhaps to differing degrees.
They were all about trying to define each other in voters' eyes, essentially following the script each has adopted for the wider campaign.
It was an argument about which man was more disconnected from the Arkansas people, not necessarily which would make the better governor.
Ross was more energized. Each was critical of the other's positions on a variety of issues.
Yet, neither really made a convincing case for his election. Nor did either say anything persuasive enough to deny election to the other.
It was largely a missed opportunity before a crowd of people who could have gotten the candidates' messages out to the larger population.
There was a time when that was the actually the candidates' objective in such debates.
These days, with campaigns so completely structured around paid advertising and direct mail, the goal of debates seems more about not doing any damage than committing news.
None of the candidates did themselves any damage during the Arkansas Press Association debates. They all "won" in that regard. The public was the loser.
BRENDA BLAGG IS A FREELANCE COLUMNIST AND LONGTIME JOURNALIST IN NORTHWEST ARKANSAS.
Commentary on 07/16/2014