Question Number Twelve: What did you think of the debate on Friday night? We're not asking for a winner or loser necessarily, although you may name one. What were the high points? What were Bush's best moments? Kerry's? Should this debate - should any debate - sway the votership?

I thought both sides would likely think their guy won. I personally thought it a draw. Kerry and Bush said very little that had not been said before on foreign policy, and there were some domestic issues on which I had not heard before from Kerry.

Again we have the little lines drawn that the candidates could not walk toward each other. "Crossing the line" . . . was moderator Charles Gibson of ABC supposed to zap them with a cattle prod if they did? The time lights help because all politicians are like the Energizer Bunny and will not shut up (with the exception of Vice President Cheney, who no doubt runs out of batteries in his heart thingamajig).

I'd just like to see a normal group of people, with equal distributions of class, income, gender, and political orientation asking the candidates questions. And I would let the candidates question each other - maybe even walk toward each other (are they afraid they will exchange blows? Bush wouldn't go after Kerry because Kerry has the arm-reach advantage over him, and Kerry wouldn't take a swing at Bush because Kerry cannot break a nail).

I thought Kerry's high point was his plan to allow "seniors" between ages 55 and 65 buy into Medicare, and allow the uninsured to buy into the Congressional Plan (hey, I want that), and his low point was his failure to elaborate on how this change to Medicare would work. The Kerry/Edwards Web site was short on specifics (one vague sentence).

How are they going to incorporate this with the new Medicare laws (2007) that require seniors earning $80,000 a year to $200,000 a year to pay a higher percentage of their premiums, means-testing them (using all sources of income and cash/savings) into significantly higher premiums?

By 2011 (the year first-generation baby boomers turn 65), the premiums will be as follows:

Under $80,000/$160,000: $66.60 per month per person (no change)

Over $80,000/$160,000: $71.93 in 2007, rising to $93.24 by 2011

Over $100,000/$200,000: $79.92 in 2007, rising to $133.20 by 2011

Over $150,000/$300,000: $87.91 in 2007, rising to $173.16 by 2011

Over $200,000/$400,000: $95.90 in 2007, rising to $213.12 by 2011

I cannot imagine any scenario in which adding more people earlier to Medicare would be feasible during the baby-boom generation. They are now seriously considering increasing the Medicare age (to piggyback with Social Security's later retirement age) and have already adopted means testing.

The remainder of the Kerry plan appears to allow small and large businesses to provide their emplyees with Federal Employees Blue Cross/Blue Shield. That is the plan federal employees and Congress currently enjoy. This plan provides very good coverage, but it is expensive. Now, we are told that tens of millions in this country are uninsured, and one assumes that many of them are uninsured because the premiums are costly and the cannot pay for them. So how will Kerry make up the difference?

I thought President Bush's highpoint was staying awake and alert (no, really) during the debate. Never very articulate, he did manage to convey his message that terrorism is a real threat.

I thought the low points for Bush were missed opportunities.

Bush cited a few occasions from 1991 to 1998 on which Kerry said that Saddam was a threat, a terrorist that had weapons of mass destruction, and was a danger to the region and "beyond." Bush did make a few such mentions, but I don't think he hammered home the point as he might have done. Kerry simply has changed his views so he can get elected.

Bush blew it also on the draft. I think his response should have made the point that all this talk about the draft is a Democrat-inspired whisper campaign. The only people I have seen discussing a draft are Democrats. Charlie Rangel discussed a draft measure on PBS on Jan. 9, 2003, and other Democrats have taken up the theme, proposed bringing back the draft to reduce the perceived racial inequities in terms of white/black/Hispanic in the military.

Kerry says he is going to increase troop strength by 40,000, and some Democrats want to bring back the draft, so the logical conclusion is that it is the Democrats, not Republicans, who want a mandatory draft (six degrees of separation, as it were.)

Kerry says he is going to hunt down and kill terrorists across the world but apparently not in Iraq, although he says "terrorists are pouring into Iraq." Gee, while they are there, why not hunt and kill them?

Bush should have made the point that if Kerry were president of the United States, not only would Saddam Hussein still be in power but he would also be in Kuwait because Kerry voted against the 1991 war even though we had total United Nations approval to go in. Had Saddam not been challenged in Kuwai, he would have told his generals he was headed to Saudi.

Bush should have pounded home the bribes the U.N. Security Council were taking from Saddam Hussein. This bribery scandal is shocking and includes Secretary General Kofi Annan and his son). Most Americans who did not actually read the new CIA report (available online only) do not know the extent of the $11 billion dollar oil-for-food scandal (which really should be called the "oil-for-loot scandal"), or that members of the U.N. Security Council were among those bribed.

So Bush blew it on those points, and they are very important.