I don't have the answers yet, but I have learned enough to be dangerous, and ask better questions..

Pundits from both sides will think their guy won. Honestly, I think they both did well. Both had some weaknesses as well. Edwards, who is normally charming, refreshing, and powerfully articulate, stumbled a bit here and there over some rehearsed sections of his speech. However, at the end, he came out strong and spun a beautiful story that actually made me feel like he was going to try to right some long-standing aggravations in this country, like ridiculous rising costs in healthcare and the fact that No Child Left Behind is mandated but unfunded. He pointed out that BushCheney Amalgamated Incorporated are FOR drug companies and against the middle class. Why else would they prohibit cheaper imported drugs from Canada? Why would a senior person even CONSIDER voting with that lot, whose philosophy seems to be "if you're elderly, you better have a nice nest egg established, or else...."

Cheney, though, was no slouch, and was one of the most articulate, self-possessed men I've seen in these debates. Completely pragmatic and articulate, he was unidealistic. This guy is the one you want in your boardroom because he will make the tough calls and unemotional decisions required to move objectives forward. He will also lay off tons of people in the process - that's one of those tough calls that everyone hates in the sometimes heartless world of business. The man was utterly believable when he stated he has no further political ambitions. I believe this - he impressed me as one who'd really rather prefer to quietly pull the strings from behind the scenes. The public spotlight doesn't seem to interest him, and neither does public image. In fact, he has been a rather covert Vice President since taking office.

I also got the sense that he was truthful about their Iraq strategy. They are relying on the ground commanders for troop requirement assessments. That's fair enough. They are trying to get Iraq to stand on its own and take over governing itself, albeit with a President the US put in power, and who will presumably be more hospitable to our oil needs. It seems the diplomacy tactics of the last 60 years are being replaced by a "Service us nicely or be removed and replaced expediently" strategy. McWorld takes over the Middle East, country by country.

At least until they go guerilla and terrorist on us on a massive scale.

But if we are going to continue to have to drive Hummers and behemoth vehicles in this country, I suppose we must eventually gain control of the Middle East so as to assure our continuing supply of oil. The fact that this is selfish beyond belief and completely imperialist seems to deter the average American considering a purchase of a land mammoth SUV not one bit.

Edwards did frighten me when I realized that rather than withdraw from Iraq tomorrow, he and Kerry actually wanted to strengthen our position there and then move for a withdrawal. I don't understand this strategy, but neither have I executed war campaigns before, so perhaps I am unaware of the particulars of this strategy. I appreciate his deft maneuvering at the end, where he showed that he and Kerry clearly plan to continue to draw the distinction between the war in Iraq and its complete lack of connection to the war on terror. They also clearly plan to pin their Republican opponents down on that party's disdain of the real middle class. Health insurance, education, and outsourcing benefits for companies are real issues that need work. Cheney pointed out that new jobs have been created in this economy. True, but they are lower level jobs without benefits - hardly a sign of a booming economy.

There are other points that neither candidate addressed that should be looked at. Why are we continuing to allow carmakers to put out Hummers and other gas-guzzlers, which seem to necessitate wars in countries like Iraq so we can install governments who will be friendly to our oil consumption needs? Can you imagine the picture this paints in the international world? We may think we don't need places like France, or Germany. But any country that alienates all others is doomed to be attacked and sacked itself. What holds coalition forces with us is threat, not idealism. It's better to be aligned with the 600 pound gorrilla than stand against him....for now.

I am also concerned that our manufacturers seem to be following a policy of "throw away and buy new" for all their products. Computers, consumer goods, and even durables now have shorter life spans, and impossibly high repair prices against buying it again new. This is stupid, and assumes that landfills will be forever available and that pollution matters not at all. Right now, that may be somewhat true, But is that the legacy we want to leave for our children?

I hope not.

I will await Friday's debate with eager anticipation. While I am not entirely gung-ho behind Kerry and Edwards, they are gaining my vote by the moment.