First presidential debate kicks off with clean, solid start

In the first of three Presidential debates, both President Bush and Senator Kerry appeared to hold their own, with no clear winner emerging. Neither candidate had a memorable stumble that might play endlessly on every news cycle. But neither had a stand-out moment capable of winning over undecided voters.

The two campaigns negotiated strict rules for this debate. Using a traditional format of candidate responses to questions posed by neutral moderator Jim Lehrer of PBS' "News Hour," the topic was America's foreign policy issues. Strict time limits applied to the candidates' responses, and they were not permitted to address questions directly towards one another.

The result was a remarkably substantive debate, free of provocative personal attacks or cheap shots. At one point, the candidates even spent a good chunk of their precious response time complimenting each other's children and spouses. But the debate nevertheless exposed significant differences in personality and personal style, with Bush coming across as pugnacious about America's proper role in world affairs and exasperated, even condescending, towards Kerry's opposing views. For his part, Kerry appeared less emotional, exuding a calmer and more nuanced approach to the issues.

Bush spoke with simpler messages – that Kerry's flip flopping is not the sign of a good president, and consistency is the best course of action – which he repeated early and often. Kerry's views and answers were a little more complicated which did not lend themselves as well to the two-minute periods allowed for answers. Bush's simpler, even simple-minded presentation of serious issues was probably more effective for most voters. Too many constituents probably find Bush's simpler formulation more attractive. Kerry's biggest flaw is that he cannot seem to find a direct way to declare his views. Bush had his simple declarative sentences, his mantra repeated over and over, which will probably have a better chance of sticking in people's minds.

The scope of the debate revealed the candidates' different views on a vast array of issues. Kerry reiterated his opposition to the war, stating that he thought Bush did not use war as a last resort; Bush made misjudgments about Iraq and should not have gone to war in the first place. "Iraq was not even close to the center of the war on terror before the president invaded it," Kerry said. However, the fact that he wished Bush had not led America to war in the first place does not mean that, if elected, he would abandon the efforts in Iraq completely. Kerry stated that now that Americans are overseas, it is important that they succeed.

In addition, Kerry emphasized his hopes at bringing alliances back to America. He fears that the war in Iraq has damaged the credibility of the President of the United States. He cited an interaction that Kennedy's Secretary of State, Dean Acheson, had with then Prime Minister of France, Charles deGaulle. When Acheson went to France to brief deGaulle on the Cuban missile crisis, he offered photos for proof of the desperate situation in Cuba, but deGaulle waved him off and stated that the word of the President was enough.

The issues were not solely focused on Iraq. When the subject of North Korea was examined, Kerry was adamant in his view that North Korea needs to be dealt with in a more intensive matter by bringing back the bilateral relationship between the U.S. and North Korea and by reinstating inspectors in the country.

Bush countered this argument by stating that creating a bilateral would simply cause the current multilateral efforts to evaporate, which would in turn damage the progress that has already been made. Bush constantly spoke of his own experience as President in an effort to be more credible and also accused Kerry on several occasions of being a flip flopper and of sending too many mixed messages to the country. These messages, he said, would simply hurt the morale of the troops, and he insinuated that Kerry's attitude is unpatriotic. Bush's overall position was that consistency in and of itself is a worthwhile foreign policy goal. Changing the current course in Iraq would have too many negative effects.

Kerry and Bush both agreed on a couple issues. They both feel that the biggest threat to the American population is nuclear proliferation, but they disagreed on how it should be handled. Kerry thinks that nuclear arms needed to be controlled and eliminated, including America's own, while Bush said they just need to be taken out of the hands of terrorists.

They also both agreed that the situation in Darfur is genocide. Regardless, neither plans on sending troops to Sudan - Kerry because he thinks our military is already over-extended and Bush because he thinks the UN should be in charge of establishing some semblance of peace.

Both candidates were quite effective in getting their ideas across since they did not stray from the main issues at hand and merely confirmed the public personas that they have created over the course of their campaigns. The debate did a good job of showing their differences as well. There were no dramatic moments where one candidate could have gone off on a good insult or taunt. Instead, there were merely a series of exchanges highlighting the two candidates' differences in character and stances on issues. The debate showed the stark contrasts between the two candidates in personal style and substance, but even so, in the end, there was still no clear-cut winner.