I think the most uncomfortable people in the entire US last night had to be Bush and Republican surrogates who had to come out after the debates and defend their candidate who, by any measure, just performed miserably. Bush was so bad it was shocking. Not only did he seem unprepared for the attacks levied against him, but he was uncomfortable at the podium, he couldn't wait to get Jim Lehrer's attention to make a rejoinder, but then had nothing to say. It was really astonishing to watch him stammer, to constantly say "um" and to stare into the camera with long pauses when he was trying to, I think, collect his thoughts and respond. It was awkward and painful to watch. On the other hand, Kerry was calm, collected, and concise. He stood tall at the podium where as Bush was slouching and hunching. Kerry needed to come and look presidential and he did. So on style points, which seems to matter more to most Americans, Kerry clearly was victorious.

For the meat of the debate, each candidate made their case which basically comes down to change versus status quo. If you're happy with the way things are going, you'll vote Bush. If you think we're on the wrong track and need change, then you'll vote Kerry. People will have to make up their minds eventually. Of course it gets more complicated than that. Do you believe Kerry has the character to be president or does he send "mixed messages", which I suppose is the polite form of "flip-flopper"? Do you think Bush's approach to war is steady and measured or do you think his stay the course no matter what mentality is just a stubborn unwillingness to admit mistakes, adjust to facts on the ground and move forward? I know where I stand. Where do you stand?

I was surprised at a few things. I thought that Kerry missed many opportunities to turn the tables on Bush. He couldn't find a way to explain that his vote against the $87 billion which makes sense if you believe Kerry thought there were fundamental problems with that bill that another similar bill could address. Instead he apologized. Kerry also missed a really opportunity to turn the charges of flip-flopper against Bush with regards to the 9/11 commission, going to the UN, having Condi Rice testify and so many other events that the Bush administration has changed course on during his term of office. Since this has been the most damming attack by the Republicans, Kerry really ought to have addressed it with the same frequency and ferocity with which he was constantly charged as delivering mixed messages. He also missed the opportunity to demonstrate that world opinion about the US, which was at an all time high after 9/11, has reversed course completely to the point that we are more feared and hated than ever before. He missed the chance to talk about how our standing in the world affects our ability to win the "War on Tara". Since his campaign slogan is "Stronger at Home, Respected in the World", he really needed to take this opportunity to explain why it so important for America to be respected in the world, because so many people don't see why, and he blew it. Kerry missed the chance to talk not only about Bush, but about his administration, especially about the incompetence of Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and the rest of the DOD. He missed a chance to talk about what difference did it make that he voted against the 87 billion because the DOD is so disorganized, it can't figure out how to spend the money. While he did a fine job, he could have done much, much better.

All in all, despite all the problems, the debate was fascinating. There was more give and take then the rules suggested there might be. Hopefully many Americans watched and won’t rely on news outlets to distill the debate into packaged sound bytes.