Posted on: Friday, October 1, 2004

EDITORIAL
First presidential debate is a winner for voters

Last night's debate between President George Bush and challenger Sen. John Kerry provided no rhetorical knock-out blows for either candidate.

But by the same token, both men managed to avoid making serious, or silly, mistakes that can be ruinous in high-stakes events such as these.

Instead, what viewers got was a focused and informed debate over key international issues, particularly the war in Iraq.

Since the theme of last night's debate was foreign policy, war and peace and international matters, the theory was that the advantage would go to Bush since he is leading the nation in a time of war and in a time of international terrorism.

And Bush took every occasion to remind viewers that he is the steadfast, focused and determined commander-in-chief.

With that, he would add constant assertions that Kerry was a flip-flopper on Iraq and other matters.

But Kerry gave as good as he got. He was particularly strong on the issues facing the Korean peninsula, where he offered a coherent and cogent prescription for lowering tensions there.

On Iraq, Kerry cemented his point that his main difference with Bush isn't about whether Saddam Hussein was bad or whether Iraq posed a potential threat to international security.

Rather, Kerry's criticism is that the war was rushed, badly thought out and did not have a plan, as he put it, to win the peace.

And on the issue of consistency, Kerry made the telling point that it is possible for a person to be consistent and still be wrong.

Debates such as this are often reviewed for the atmospherics as much as for the substance. Both men appeared comfortable on stage, kept their comments largely on the high road and played by the rules.

Bush might have turned off a few undecided voters when the camera caught him looking peevish and irritated when Kerry was talking.

Kerry, in turn, might have turned off some viewers when he would directly and somewhat casually point to Bush with his thumb when criticizing him or by referring to his opponent as "he" rather than "the president."

These are small matters. What counts is the candidates gave the voters a clear lesson in their foreign policy plans and where they differ.

The lesson to take away is, if you missed this one, tune in for the next two debates. They will be well worth your time.