The Vice Presidential debate last night between Senator JD Vance(R) and Gov. Tim Walz(D) was worth watching for three reasons, the professionalism and competitive kindness between the candidates, the performance of the CBS debate moderators, and to see if the event moved any undecided voters. First, Senator Vance offered a professional, calm and confident image last night. A professional relaxes all participants, the moderators and the audience. Professional, unemotional responses offer an opportunity for comparison & compromise, where both sides can feel progress is being made toward a supposedly shared goal. During last night's debate, several times, each candidate responded to their opponent's comments with cautious agreement and with 'we are not that far apart on this issue'. This debate, and those kinds of exchanges, should soften the heart of both candidates supporters. If it didn’t, then those supporters have a different objective than seeing the USA continue to prosper and lead the world. Many politicians are professional, calm and confident. The most recent such candidate is former president, and current puppet master, Barack Obama. His immense oratory skills got him elected President twice and the admiration of many. In tonight's debate, Senator Vance display some of those same skills. What we as the audience are required to do is separate those skilled professionals based on what they say and do, not just what they say. We have to determine what they really mean. This oratory skill which calms and relaxes us can also be the veil behind which evil hides. Many people revile Senator JD Vance and many revile former President Obama, for they fear the veil of evil. Does JD Vance mean what he says about individual rights, how to expand the economy for everyone and make america great again? Or, is that the veil of evil. Does Kamala Harris really mean she is for the people, for their rights, and as Barack Obama famously said, for 'hope & change'. Was 'hope and change' a goal for America or a veil behind which hides the evil of Marxism? Are the progressive 'word salads' of Harris & Walz goals for America or the veil behind which hides the evil of big government control of our lives? Should we replace equal individual rights with the idea of unequal rights based on group identity? We must decide that, also. One of the problems in our political environment is that each side has drawn a line that requires 100% agreement, or else you are not welcome. This creates a 'we vs them' argument, vs a debate. This was started by, and continues on the left, while the right has established that as a defensive position to stop encroachment of the left onto what the right believes are the basic elements of America. That can seem a necessary position to both parties, but it doesn’t lead to honest, negotiated solutions that help the country at large. It leads only to one ideological perspective and success. For those who don’t want this kind of bi-partisan cooperation, there is only one way this debate can end, with a 100% win for one side and a 100% loss for the other. We all know there is a better way. Tonight, you saw it for an hour and a half. A display of political maturity by everyone except the moderators. Two, the moderators. Both parties complained about the moderators, the left, mostly before the debate demanding moderator fact checking during the debate. They became incensed when CBS said fact checking would be on their website and not done by the moderators. The right before during and after the debate highlighted the obvious selection of questions, the writing of questions, selective statements intended to bias, or fact check, and the perceived negative attention towards Mr. Vance. One must admit, while this left-right reaction to moderators is expected, that in order for a debate to be scheduled, the Democrats would only accept a major left-wing network. They would not accept a right-wing network debate (i.e. FoxNews). Both Republican right-wing candidates agreed to a presidential and vice president presidential debate on the left-wing network. The left considers these networks mainstream, professional and truthful. Of course, Democrats would choose those networks who agree with their candidates and support their political positions. Mr. Trump and Mr. Vance support FoxNews as a mainstream truthful and honest network because the same applies, Fox agrees with them and their political positions. This media alignment creates an inability to provide a professional and truthful presentation of each side because of these political bias. Anyone doubt the reason there were two 'women moderators' last night was to subtly send a message to the viewers that one of the Presidential candidates is a woman, and the women out there need to make note of that fact, no matter what the woman's political positions? Or, was there not one man at CBS capable of handling the moderator seat? Fact checking was an issue. Though the moderators were not going to fact check, they did, of Senator Vance. And the supposed fact-checks were false. One was the question about who was telling the truth about Minnesota abortion law. Another was the migrant count coming through the southern border the past 3 1/2 years. Others involved climate change, the economy & foreign policy. A good moderator would have the ability to correct both parties, but they did not and would not because of their political bias and lack of journalistic curiosity to find out the truth. I heard an idea today that makes a lot of sense going forward. If we are going to continue these debates, let the Democrats pick 2 left-wing moderators and the Republicans pick 2 right wing moderators. The right wing moderators would ask questions of the Democrat candidate. The left wing moderators would ask questions of the Republicans candidates. That way everyone gets to ask their tough questions of the opposition and use their political narratives. Fact checking would be eliminated because it would be done real time by each side. Most importantly the viewer would have a chance to see a realistic debate of issues. Third. Did the debate move any voters? Probably not. Democrats were trying to hold on and expand their approval by women voters and Republicans were trying to maintain their hold on male voters. They were both trying to win men and women voters over to their sides. Senator Vance may have moved a few women to his side due to his presentation style. It doesn’t appear that Mr. Walz’s performance gained male voters for the Democrats, while his performance probably solidified the existing support of left-wing women, particularly with regard to abortion, childcare and healthcare. Mr. Vance performance was surprising, probably to viewers from both sides of the political aisle. Last night Gov Walz started slow but got stronger toward the end. Senator Vance started strong and finished good as well. You also heard political narratives from both candidates. Answers to questions by Governor Walz were filled with left-wing political narratives, outright lies and misinformation on the intent of his policies, or his party, or his running mate. In fact, what Walz said sounded good to his left-wing supporters, but what Harris/Walz actually do and have done is the opposite. Vance referred to Gov Walz unenviable task as 'whack-a-mole'. Mr. Vance was clear, smooth and exceptional in most of his answers. Explanation of some of the Trump/Vance policies left a little to be desired. Examples include abortion, climate change, healthcare & Jan 6th. Though ratings for the debate were comparatively high, most people will have experienced the debate via partial viewing, sound bites, highlights and post-debate reviews. These, depending on media source, will all spin left or right. Thus, if you are a left-wing viewer/reader then the highlights would be pro-left. Was this like the Kennedy-Nixon debate? If you watched Kennedy (Vance) won, if you listened or read about the debate, Nixon (Walz) won? Not sure that works here.