And the winner is...

I managed to watch the Great Debate this morning (my time). The candidates belied the title (candidate). Candid they were not. They both remained on message, stubbornly so it seemed to me. Lots of lost opportunities to actually say something. That might well have caused coronary problems with the staff though, so it's probably best they just read from the prepared statements.

However, I was pleased at the performance of one person. I was cringing at the thought that I was going to have to witness Jim Lehrer struggling to be right-down-the-middle-to -the-second fair to both uncandidates. He far exceeded my expectations. He has grown so much since his previous outing in 2000 that I am tempted to either nominate him for an Emmy, or vote for him!
For the rest, it seems that there is much confusion between a 'war on terrorism' and a 'war on Iraq'. How the two have become confused is puzzling to me. Aside from the fact that the occupation of Iraq is creating large numbers of rank and file terrorist soldiers, that operation has as much to do with overcoming terrorism as Vietnam (sorry to bring it up) had to do with halting the spread of Communism. That is, it has nothing to do with it at all. However, I do believe I was wrong in January of 2003 in my belief that the President wouldn't be able to keep the electorate believing that things were going okay in Iraq. If he'd waited 'til 2004, maybe, but over 18 months, I thought the results would be pretty easy to see.
I guess I was wrong about that, too.