So how ’bout those debates last night? I didn’t catch all of the debate, but enough to ramble on about today.

My biggest frustration is something I’ve expressed before, that both candidates rarely deal with clear, justifiable facts. There’s always something left out, or something not explained, or somebody’s perspective that colors everything. I just wish Jim Lehrer would jump in when somebody throws out a quasi-truth and make them explain what they’re talking about. CNN did a semi-helpful job this morning with their fact-checker.

But overall, I was very impressed with Kerry. He came off pretty well and spoke intelligently without being an incredible bore. He did make some mistakes and missed some opportunities. But the bigger story is how Bush came off. Part of this is that I’m biased against Bush, so you could argue that I want to see him fail, but I think my reaction goes beyond mere bias.

He came off as a bratty little kid who wants to get his way. He kept scowling and scoffing and repeating the same so-so barbs at Kerry that really weren’t working. He wasn’t on top of his game (I’ve seen him appear so much more, I don’t know, presidential, in any number of speeches). I didn’t see any of the debates in 2000, but I’d love to see a debate comparison for how Bush did then compared to now.

But more than the prime time vibes (which can mean a lot), I found some of the content very interesting. Bush continually made the point that being president is about sending the right messages and staying true to your convictions. He tried to paint Kerry as a flip-flopper who sends the wrong message. But what I saw was a lack of sophistication in Bush’s position. He’s so intent on sending a strong message that he refuses to acknowledge the reality that things in Iraq suck, and take the appropriate steps to make it right (not that’s it’s an easy fix). Kerry is being honest. He says that he did support the war initially, provided we went about it the right way. But we didn’t do it the right way, and now it’s time to fix it.

Part of being a leader is being able to admit your weakness. As humans we’re all broken and weak and sinful. There’s strength in admitting your weakness, as odd as that sounds. Look at Christ. That doesn’t mean you wallow in your failings, but you have to know when you’ve botched something up. A leader needs to be honest about mistakes, not ignore those realities.

Bush continually said that Kerry called Iraq “the wrong war at the wrong time at the wrong place,” and asked how he could send that kind of a message. Kerry can say that because it’s truthful. The truth is most of us thought invading Iraq was acceptable based on intelligence showing Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. There were other reasons, but that reason was the trump card. Based on that premise we decided to go to war, and eventually found out that premise was totally wrong. A leader can’t simply put a positive spin on what’s become a painful reality for the sake of boosting troop morale.

I thought the biggest whammy Kerry made on Bush was when Bush made the claim that we had to protect ourselves after 9/11 and so we went after our attackers. Kerry nailed him, pointing out that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Bush made the point that terrorists are streaming into Iraq, proving that we’re in the right place fighting terror. Which made me scratch my head. Terrorists weren’t pouring into Iraq until we invaded and gave them a big fat target within striking distance. Now terrorists are pouring into Iraq, not because they hate freedom, but for the chance to strike out at the U.S.

Have we made the world a safer place? Doubtful. If we ever finish the job it’s possible things will be safer. Saddam being gone is probably a good thing, but at what price?

The Iraq war and terrorism have made foreign policy an issue that’s so much closer to home, and it made for a lively debate last night. I’m curious to see how the remaining debates go.