Last week’s first gubernatorial debate was interesting but frustrating – as such events generally are.

If only we could see Gov. Chet Culver and former Gov. Terry Branstad in a freer form of debate, an unregulated conversation full of contentions and rejoinders. These two men are competing to be the state’s top boss; they seem diminished when they get cut off mid-sentence.

As for the content of their remarks, we have no problem with a candidate criticizing the actions and decisions of his opponent face-to-face. TV commercials are a different matter – endless slices of propaganda, twisted without regard for fairness and context, can make people dread election season. But when Culver and Branstad want to point out mistakes and problems face-to-face, that’s relevant, and we want to hear it. We just want every collision to result in a finding of fact.

When one man makes an allegation about the other, and then a timekeeper cuts short the response, truth-seeking is not well served.

Let them thrash out their differences while we watch. It not only would straighten out some of the bent accusations; it would let us see how they deal with rivals and controversies. It would reveal character.

As they exist today, American political campaigns are designed to sort out who comes across best on camera. True, a big part of being president is making speeches. But for a governor, that’s much less important.

A governor is in charge of getting things done off-camera. This is accomplished with good judgment, with negotiation skills, with force of will.

We need to know how they rate in those categories.

When Culver and Branstad clash about bonding, for example, that’s something they should talk out to some sort of conclusion while we listen.

Head-shaking and chuckling don’t help us make this very important decision.