It has been so long since Americans have seen an actual political debate that they may have gotten pretty excited, understandibly, about what they saw yesterday. MSNBC sure was. When Obama visited the GOP house caucus in Baltimore, we viewed something called a debate, or as close to it as we can manage these days.

Refreshing.

It was a relatively honest back-and-forth between the president and his opponents. The GOP members asked prepared questions that were long, laden with talking-points, and loaded with pitfalls. The president showed nimble footwork and answered most issues frankly and without pretense. He looked good doing so. So good, in fact, that the GOP may have been taken aback some, while the likes of Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow were positively gushing as they fawned over each and every Obama exchange in detail. Chris Mathews had tingles running up both legs. Their collective two-hour special last night was so soaked in moist and teary Obama-love that the WH political staff must have been dancing and popping corks.

Calm down, Keith, it was a debate.

Over the last decade, many Americans have looked ever more longingly at the British parlimentary system, where actual debate is not quite so impossible, and the Prime Minister and other members of parliament engage in a traditional interchange that is frank, useful, and frequently boisterous and funny. This and other features of the British system have gained in popularity here in the States ("PM Questions" regularly carried on C-SPAN as standard programming) as our own system appears to be approaching major dysfunction.

There is talk that C-SPAN would like to run more coverage of this type, and I for one would love to see it. But rather than having such events pit the two parties against each other, I’d like to see them structured as interchange between branches of government–with the president entering honest exchange not just with GOP members, but Democrats as well. Particularly with the involvement of those well to the left of the president, in his own party.

But I also think it is absolutely critical to remember that C-SPAN covers, on a daily basis, political events that could be just as worthwhile and significant as the president’s debate yesterday. There is nothing to stop Congress from having it’s own honest debates each and every day on C-SPAN. There is nothing to stop House or Senate committee hearings from being structured in a way that allows for more than prepared statements, rushed questions, and inadequate answers.

The absolutely wrong lesson to take from Obama’s performance yesterday, imo, is that we need to see more of him lined up in cage matches against House or Senate opposition, like Daniel in the Lion’s Den. While such would be great theater for MSNBC (not so much for FOX), I’d suggest the real lesson is that the American people are nearly starved to death for lack of true debate on important issues. In that respect, any event that shows our American political leadership engaged in real debate would be highly beneficial, regardless of whether that be in the Senate, House, or elsewhere, and regardless of whether the sitting president is involved or not. In fact, debate is supposed to be much more important to the first branch of American government than the second.

To be sure, Obama and the WH staff deserve high praise for his performance yesterday, and they are rightfully getting it. I personally think it’s one of the best moves they’ve made. But let’s not respond to this event with the kind of undisguised and embarrassing hero-worship that was on display last night on MSNBC. Let’s not respond by ticking off the points that one party scored, or another. Instead, let’s use that event to realize that we could be seeing such things regularly from our government, were it functioning properly. All we need to do is insist on it.