presidential debate

tonight was the first of three presidential debates for the election in november. for a transcript of the debate if you missed it, or want to read it to better understand the candidates position, can be found at cnn.com and probably will be complete by the end of the night.
jim lehrer from pbs' newshour, was the moderator. the rules for the debate were laid out in a 32 page booklet written by the commission for presidential debates. but, lehrer wrote the questions and had the ability to administer discretionary "follow-up" time.
it's only fair going into this, to say that i'm not a fan of bush, and am one of millions of americans that feel the 2000 elections were stolen, so that he could be president. (you think i'm kidding about the number? check out thestolenelection.com, democrats.com, or citizen's for legitimate government.) with that said, i can't say that i was initially a supporter of kerry, either. i fall pretty much in the middle of the "anybody but bush" camp.
jim lehrer came out in a black suit with a red power tie. everything about his look said that he was in charge, and the way the debate played out left no questions that he was. he explained the rules to the audience and was clear to point out that he had nothing to do with deciding the format, but no one told him which questions to ask. but, i was just thinking about his tie. i expected both candidates to have a take charge look.
i'm not sure if bush and kerry were supposed to enter at the same time, but the president was out about 15 or 20 seconds before the senator. both were in dark suits. both wore conservative ties. kerry's tie was a dark red affair, at first i thought it was maroon, which would have been a mistake (too odd a color for a presidential debate), but once he got to the podium, you could see that it was clearly dark red. bush's tie was a medium to medium-dark blue that would have been perfect except that it had small dots or designs of a lighter color that didn't come across very well on television, and i was distracted the first couple of times the camera was on him. i don't blame him for this minor guffaw, this was something his staff should have taken care of.
i won't bore you or myself by rehashing the whole debate. i just have observations to make. so much to-do has been made about this debate "making or breaking" the campaign, that i was more interested in the debate than in the content of the debate.
both candidates used their hands well in the initial questions. by the last 30 minutes, however, bush was doing something i've seen him use time and time again; he would occasionally lean on the podium, trying to be folksy, but in my opinion coming across as arrogant- saying with body language, "i am so cocky that i don't need to stand up straight and show the respect that other men and women need to."
this podium-leaning wasn't as decisive to me as to when the camera showed the candidate not speaking. each time senator kerry was shown while president bush was speaking, kerry was either jotting down notes or attentively listening. president bush, on the other hand, spent the first half hour stareing straight ahead.
as to the actual speaking, i thought both men did a good job. in fact, i think they both did better than their respective reputations would have lead us to expect. kerry did not come across as the stuffed-shirt intelectual, and bush did not come across an idiot.
lehrer had announced at the beginning that he may allow discretionary time, and bush was really the only one to utilize it. after the second time, he didn't wait for lehrer to give him a go ahead if he wanted to say more, he just took it. while some might point this out as an annoying trait, i would disagree. the president probably got close to four or five minutes more "allowed" speaking time than his opponent. plus, it allowed him to look like he was in control of the debate, not lerher and certainly not kerry.
content-wise, the only thing that i thought worth mentioning, because it's the first time i've heard the candidate do this, was kerry's use of colin powell against the bush. on two occasions, kerry said that powell was doing the right thing and then bush did a reversal, making matters worse. instead of denying that he was contradicting his secratary of state, all the president did was say at a point late in the debate, "on this colin and i agreed".
my final conclusion is that there wasn't really a winner. the president didn't win. the senator didn't win. and if we are to believe nbc news, undecided voters didn't win (there panel of six undecided voters before the debate, was a panel of six undecided voters after the debate). but, nobody lost either. it's too bad that there are only going to be three debates. the country needs more head-to-head discussion on important topics not less.
i thought bush did surprisingly well, but i thought that kerry came across as very firm and stayed on message the whole time. this election is a lot closer than i wish it were.