For those searching for a way to waste 90 minutes of their life, last Thursday's debate was quite the success. Perhaps this is only true for the bona fide political junkies out there. Regardless, the recitation of trite, pre-programmed talking points by both Bush and Kerry held my interest only slightly longer than Jane Eyre. Cynics everywhere are vindicated for even the least-jaded, most optimistic true believer out there could not have accepted that intellectual battle and discourse in civil society has all but died. Any veneer lifted over our eyes to hide that truism from us before is gone now; all that is left is the waste of reality TV politics. Who's going to be voted off the island this year?

So let's get to it then: who won? What's the sound byte?

Substantively, this debate was only marginally less hollow than Jessica Simpson's skull. Judging only the words of either the President or the Senator, few things said by either candidate is of great interest. I found both candidates' responses to the question about Russia and Putin troublesome, and I would have liked a clearer condemnation of his anti-democratic policies toward both dealing with the Chechnya problem as well as his imprisonment of billionaire oil magnate Mikhail Kodorkovsky of Yukos for opposing him politically. They both took similar positions on that issue, and I find them equally misguided. Putin cannot be considered as close an ally as was once hoped, and this reality had better sink in fast for whoever wins this November.

Beyond that, Bush laid out his plan for Iraq, Kerry his, and once again, the American people are forced to weigh whether or not they actually believe Kerry to be capable of bringing in a wider coalition to help in Iraq. I personally found him to be less than convincing, and found Bush's point about not insulting those who are our allies to be well founded. The Daily Show may mock Poland and our other allies all it likes, but any Commander in Chief does so at their peril. Disparaging our allies will only serve to isolate us even more, rather than building a wider coalition. In Kerry's world, the opinions of France and Germany are the ones that really matter. Combined with his "global test" doctrine, our national security and foreign policy would be held to the whims of those whose interests conflict with our own. Indeed, I wonder how much of our support for Israel would pass such a test. This myopic and dispassionate worldview, combined with his disparaging those who are there with us (including Iraqi Prime Minster Ayad Allawi) makes his case about his capacity to lead the global war on terror less convincing.

Anyone who came into watching the debate with a clear and defined view on foreign policy was likely unmoved by the words of their opposed candidate, and it is for this reason that I have to call the debate a tie. Both candidates missed this opportunity to shine far above the other, missing points to go for the jugular with a retort or attack. Maybe it was the pressure, but I think that two people other than Bush or Kerry who believed exactly as they do could likely have had a better and more skillful debate.

Nevertheless, in the spin room, ties don't bring home the bacon in terms of likeability points in the polls, so let's see who performed better for the audience. Ultimately, Kerry proved victorious in the acting realm: his calm and confident attitude will clearly help him bridge the gap between those who are voting for him only to oppose Bush and those who actually like him. But how much? This remains to be seen.

I actually think Bush did well enough for himself though, but he needs to do a better job next time if he wants to keep his current one. Everyone knows he fumbles over words, gives long pauses, and speaks very slowly, so anyone claiming that he did any of these things as a negative is just plain desperate. It is an inherent handicap he gets, not because I'm giving it to him, but because we all know him, and we are all over it by now. His sighs arguably are reminiscent of Gore in 2000, but I and many were sighing along with him all the way. In the end though, it is a weakness and a sound byte he did not need. Karl Rove needs to get to debate prep, and fast.

Over the course of this election, I have come to an important realization: Americans do deserve better. Better than Kerry and Bush, that is. Where is the Reagan or Lincoln of our time? The Trumans and FDRs? The ones who inspire us with their deeds and attitudes, speaking to the very core of our souls with their words. I can't find them today, and I wonder if anyone can.

Someone call John McCain. We need a statesman to lead us, not the bad taste and ill residue of political puppetry.

Zach Stern ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in political science.