The campaign for the Democratic nomination for president is lurching toward the finish line, but the next to last debate added nothing to the sum total of human knowledge.

The candidates, their handlers and the pundits who get paid for splitting hairs risk boring the voting public to death.

The major issue now seems to be: Did Barack Obama plagiarize a couple of lines that he has used in recent speeches? Obama admits he borrowed the words from one of his major supporters, Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick. Sen. Hillary Clinton said, alluding to her opponent's campaign theme, "This is not change you can believe in; it's change you can Xerox."

Obama retorted, "This is where we start getting into the silly season in politics and the American people get discouraged."

If this is as substantive as these two can get, it's time to blow the whistle and give the American people a chance to think it over. If every phrase borrowed by an orator makes one guilty of plagiarism, then speech makers are in big trouble. The Bible and Shakespeare are good sources. Ask anyone who ever had to make a speech -- a speech maker knows the value of borrowing from the best and fitting it into your own message.

Back in the 1960s, Jack and Bobby Kennedy borrowed some lines from George Bernard Shaw. They often ended speeches with approximations of Shaw's words: "There are those who look at things as they are and say: Why? I dream of things that never were and say: Why not?"

Once, at a small dinner party, I saw Ethel Kennedy stand up with a wine glass in her hand to make a toast: "Let's hear it for George Bernard Shaw!" And everyone cheered. Bobby's friends and supporters thought of it not as plagiarism, but as good politics, and they enjoyed making fun of themselves.

The "change you can Xerox line" was clearly scripted. Clinton's supporters in the audience applauded. Obama people groaned. The moment passed and the candidates went on, for the most part stating positions and listening respectfully to each other. No new ground was broken. As for the plagiarism ploy, give us a break. It's enough already.

The 90 minutes of warmed-over rhetoric may have been useful for voters who have tuned into this campaign late. But, for most of us -- pundits, pollsters and voters alike -- it was a case of "We've been here before."

Many months have passed. There are many more months to go. Much money has been spent and, for the losers, wasted.

The British limit their election campaigns to a few weeks. Maybe they have something there. Our exhaustive process cries out for reform. If our campaigns are going to last this long, when will our leaders have time to govern?