So, anybody see the debate? I did. In my opinion, Kerry won hands down, on both substance and style, as I expected him to. He had better plans for America and a much better composure in the debates.

To illustrate one example, let's go with the current problem of job loss. Bush's answer this is to send people back to school. Sound like an intelligent and forward thinking solution? It isn't. Its ludicrously impractical and will not aid the vast majority of people who lose their jobs. Allow me to explain with an example.

John Doe, a middle-class or low-class worker, loses his job.
Bush's response: Don't worry! We'll send you back to school so that you can make more money than you did before!
Doe: The government is going to pay for me to go to school?
Bush: Yep. Through scholarships and loans, you can afford to go back.
Doe: Okay, but I have three kids. How am I supposed to support them in the mean time?
Bush: Just keep looking for a part time job.
Doe: But that's the problem. I can't find a job.
Bush: Well, I guess that means you'll have to go on unemployment pay or welfare.
Doe: So the government is going to take care of both my family's living expenses and my school expenses?

Think about it. If you aren't making money, how exactly is going back to school going to ensure that you make money? It seems to me that this would end up with the government paying out a whole lot of money to low income families who've lost jobs. Welfare gets expanded, and a lot of our tax dollars end up down the drain.

In addition to this, it is very atypical for a graduate to get a high paying job right out of college. More than that, most of them don't even get a job in the field they studied. And even more important than that, college graduates have to be payed more and are overqualified for the simpler jobs. This means that, once John Doe graduates from college, it is extremely likely that he will have a more difficult time finding a job then before he went back to school. And this is our President's plan to help the economy? To run the government further into debt with a disastrously misguided "solution" to problems of unemployed America?

Maybe he should have addressed the actual question of unemployment in America rather than tossing us the red herring of education reform.

Now, I want to make one thing clear what these debates were NOT about. They were not, as the Bush camp seems to be depicting it, about Mary Cheney. It seems everyone is in an uproar over there over the "attack" on Cheney's daughter made by Kerry. Attack? I'm confused. Perhaps they are using a different definition for "attack" than conventional dictionaries. Can anyone explain to me how the statement Kerry made was in any way negative? In case you haven't read it on any of the dozens of news sources covering this right now, here is the "controversial" statement Kerry made in response to the question "Do you think homosexuality is a choice?":

"We're all God's children, and I think if you were to talk to Dick Cheney's daughter, who is a lesbian, she would tell you that she's being who she was, she's being who she was born as."

THAT is an attack? Um, it kind of sounded rather amazingly supportive, mature, and understanding from what I can tell. In fact, the only way this statement could be construed as an "attack" is if the Cheney's are ashamed of their daughter's orientation. Also, its not as though he "outed" her on national television. She is famous all over the country for her orientation. How can he be criticized for saying a fact that is common knowledge throughout the country?

In fact, Kerry could have made this a negative political move. He could have criticized Cheney for the hypocrasy of claiming that he supports his daughter's sexual orientation at the same time that he supports a ban on homosexual marriage. But you know what? Kerry hasn't done that. The Democrats have been admirably respectful of Cheney and his family regarding this issue.

And there's one more thing I want you to remember. When Edwards expressed a similar sentiment to Cheney in the Vice Presential debates, Cheney thanked him. Apparently, according to CNN.com Cheney is now changing that stance and claiming he was offended. Can we say, flip-flop?

The Dems actually have an impressive history of "playing nice" throughout this election. Remember the Democratic National Convention? How many times was Bush's character attacked? Answer: None. There was a policy of remaining respectful, though critical, of the president's term in office. Did the Republicans extend the same generosity to Democrats during their convention? No, they did not. They vehemently attacked the character of Kerry in every speech, rather than addressing more important domestic and foreign issues. And now, here they are attacking Kerry again for a statement he made SUPPORTING Cheney's lesbian daughter. People need to recognize the Republicans for the nasty politicians that they are. Considering this is a group claiming to be a moral center for America, their campaign is an insult to both American intelligence and American decency. If they were a strong political party they wouldn't need to misconstrue the statements of their opponent, and they would stick to issues which impact American life rather than running their campaign on character assasination.