There's been a lag time in getting our impressions of the first Presidential debate out - for reasons both of the drama swirling about the situation, and the lack of drama at the event itself.

First the situation - With the banking system faltering, and a partisan fight building up, John McCain does what John McCain does and suspends his campaign to go back to DC and broker a deal - this after being contacted by Senator Obama to issue a joint statement addressing the issue (which McCain agreed to). In a confusing series of moves (lately called "crazy Ivan's" - borrowing the term from the Russian Navy and the film "Hunt For Red October") McCain showed up in Washington, at the Senate, the White House, Treasury, and all media outlets except David Letterman - with mostly what looked like Obama in tow. The Republicans largely ignored him and the Democrats gave the lead role to Obama in furthering negotiations with the Republicans. Back room sources tell the tale of Barack getting off on the wrong foot with the Republican leadership (We've already discussed his magical ability to not be funny when trying to be funny - apparently the Reps were not amused...). And here we are on Tuesday with no bill yet. Score McCain even for just being McCain, and Obama negative for allowing himself to get sucked into McCain's drama.

Which leads to the on/again - off/again debate and the controversy surrounding it. Old Miss spent a bucketload of cash to get the venue in order. They put on a good game face, but they were sweating it out. A brief controversy rose about "fairness rules" if only Obama showed, and Jim Lehrer considered the benefits of a pre-emptive dose of single malt scotch. Then, out of all the turmoil, everyone showed and the debate occurred.

And what an anti-climax - both candidates sticking to their talking points and not veering off of them unless dragged by Mr. Lehrer physically. They were loathe to engage each other, and even when they did - it was to further the talking point of the minute. Granted each candidate had a sparkling moment or two - or at least it seemed that way in the loop reel of stump speech soundbites we were fed - and occasionally they would take a swipe at each other (each landed one good punch that sparked some fireworks) - but there was no drama, no zingers, and little passion. We saw two well-prepared men answer fairly well-crafted questions with mostly canned answers.  Nobody "won" and nobody "lost" - no minds were changed, and the undecideds still don't have that piece of meat that they are looking to sink their teeth into.

Ralph Nader posited in a piece in US News and World Report, that the debates have sunk to the level of a 30 second commercial stretched out for an hour and a half. That assessment was markedly accurate in this debate. It had the look and feel of dueling commercials, and almost no passion. Every debate does not need a string of zingers, or a huge gaffe - but the American people look for an emotional, as well as a rational reason to cast a ballot in a certain direction. The old "I'd have a beer with him" test is, still, a measuring point in electability. The American people need to feel that not only does the occupant of the White House knows what the facts are, but he cares about how those facts affect everyday American lives. There doesn't seem to be a lot of doubt that both of these men have the potential to be good Presidents. America always looks to a great President - and that will take a bit more passion to sell.

Onward to the VP debate where there should be no shortage on the passion