There are a lot of questions about these three upcoming debates, like since the candidates can't address each other and rebuttal times are limited, are they in fact debates, or just another chance to make stump speeches. Hopefully Jim Lehrer will ignore the 32 pages of rules that the Commission on Presidential Debates arranged and the candidates agreed to and we can have a real debate on the issues. What could the consequences be? The American people deserve a real debate.

The other question that keeps pooping, at least me, is the nature of "winning a debate." It's been said again and again that neither John Kerry nor George W. Bush has lost a debate. But what does that mean? If it means each candidate never lost an election following a debate, which it seems to mean when the talking heads say it, then I guess they are right. But since elections are far more complicated animals, it's very a simple minded definition.

I think by any measure, Al Gore killed Bush in their 3 debates. Gore understood what he was talking about, had a grasp of the issues, understood his plan and his opponents. He was dominant. And if the popular vote is anything to judge by, he won the debates.

I don't know why there hasn't been much emphasis in the press about this, but if you look at what W said in the debates and contrast them to his record in office, on defense, on judicial appointments, on taxes and on and on, he suffers heavily in the balance. Here's one sharp example from the first debate in 2000.

MODERATOR: New question. How would you go about as president deciding when it was in the national interest to use U.S. force, generally?

BUSH: Well, if it's in our vital national interest, and that means whether our territory is threatened or people could be harmed, whether or not the alliances are -- our defense alliances are threatened, whether or not our friends in the Middle East are threatened. That would be a time to seriously consider the use of force. Secondly, whether or not the mission was clear. Whether or not it was a clear understanding as to what the mission would be. Thirdly, whether or not we were prepared and trained to win. Whether or not our forces were of high morale and high standing and well-equipped. And finally, whether or not there was an exit strategy. I would take the use of force very seriously. I would be guarded in my approach. I don't think we can be all things to all people in the world. I think we've got to be very careful when we commit our troops. The vice president and I have a disagreement about the use of troops. He believes in nation building. I would be very careful about using our troops as nation builders. I believe the role of the military is to fight and win war and therefore prevent war from happening in the first place. So I would take my responsibility seriously. And it starts with making sure we rebuild our military power. Morale in today's military is too low. We're having trouble meeting recruiting goals. We met the goals this year, but in the previous years we have not met recruiting goals. Some of our troops are not well-equipped. I believe we're overextended in too many places. And therefore I want to rebuild the military power. It starts with a billion dollar pay raise for the men and women who wear the uniform. A billion dollars more than the president recently signed into law. It's to make sure our troops are well-housed and well-equipped. Bonus plans to keep some of our high-skilled folks in the services and a commander in chief that sets the mission to fight and win war and prevent war from happening in the first place.