the "last debate"...

or will it really be the last?

Everybody watching the debate saw something different. No one sees the same thing in the same way.

The best example of this is the classic Japanese movie Rashomon that Akira Kurosawa did about an attack on a woman witnessed by several people. Each saw something different happen. One even blamed the victim.

In reading the papers, watching the news stations, and reading what blogs and commenters are saying, there are as many views of the debate as there are people who watched it. Each person watches for what s/he is looking.

Last night, I watched facial expression, speech pattern, and eye movement of both candidates. These are all signs of what a person is saying versus what is actually going on in their thinking process.

Obama stammered quite a bit; his eyes blinked quite noticeably; and his facial expression was mostly motionless. Clinton, on the other hand, did very little of this. Her voice was steady and had inflection; her blinking was normal, and she used facial expression that reflected what she was saying.

These behaviors, in research studies, point to uncertainty on the part of the speaker in what s/he is saying or indicate cautiousness to not slip up. These things don't address what is actually being said, but what is behind them.

In effect, what I am referring to is that how you say something can be more important than what you say. There is meaning behind words not just in them.

As far as the Farrakhan matter, pundits are exclaiming that it was a useless question and unfair. It was a fair question to ask and Russert asked it as a "yes/no" question. Obama didn't answer yes or no. He hedged. something that he does quite a lot. That Russert kept pushing it was remarkable. [Russert actually did this more than once and to both Clinton and Obama.] More telling, imo, was Obama's "final answer": "I both reject and denounce...." I'm not sure is he was saying that he still had to have it his way or if he didn't want to offend a specific community/voting bloc. Having lived through seven years of 'fudged' answers, more people should be able to spot this.

The media and pundits have been asking Clinton for an apology for her 2002 vote authorizing the Iraq incursion. Why should she apologize? She understands that she did what she did and can't take it back. She admits that, had she known what she does today, she wouldn't have voted as she did.

She also made the point that Obama, when asked directly if had he been in the Senate at the time of the vote, would he have voted for it. He previously has answered that he doesn't know. Yet Clinton is consistently faulted on her vote. She made it very clear what her position has been for quite some time now. It's basically being ignored.

The other point that is now being brought up more and more is Obama's record and previous experience. No one can deny that it is lacking in amount. Charlie Gibson on ABC national news did a story on Obama's record in Illinois. It was not all that promising. There was more questioning than supporting of it by the Illinois politicians who were interviewed.

The members of the media are saying that the debate was even and, therefore, Obama won. He made no mistakes. Has anyone been allowed to see him make mistakes or know about mistakes he's made? I'd like to see how he'd handle it. So far, we don't really know.