i don't get it. why, after the close of the first presidential debate, does the conversation immediately turn to possible voter shift - did people feel more safe with kerry, or with bush after hearing them debate for 90 minutes? who seemed more composed, relaxed, nonalarmist? who stood taller, smiled more (or less), followed the majority of the legion of rules concerning the debate itself? and how do all the answers to these questions affect voter opinion? were the undecided swayed one way or the other by relatively insignifigant etceteras and warm fuzzy feelings in response to one 90 minute show? what about the record? what about the facts over years and decades? what about the brass tacks - voting records, books authored, testimony from those who were there, who know well, who have stood by over time? are we so much a consumer minded culture that we can change an opinion on something so vital, so paramount as our choice for the next, in effect, world leader on the basis of one hour and a half of not so much new information, but just seeing the opponents sharing a stage for the first time? i believe that in the global landscape, there is no more important job held than our president's, and i find it hard to believe that the vote we cast, our small part in the democratic process that holds such far reaching implications could be decided on what amounts to little more than triviality. we knew where they stood on major issues before last night, and i doubt anything said in the next two debates is really going to bring out a new insight into either candidates proven character. undecideds, maybe instead of watching for a smirk, listening for a stumble over a word or perceiving an inflection, you ought to crack open a history book, chase the paper trail, check the track record - so that you can truly make an informed choice.

here,
here,
here,
here,
and here are a few places to get started...