Beyond all the debate nuance, there was substance

Somewhere in all that took place in the first presidential debate were some things that really matter when it comes to deciding who should be the next president.

Such as the important question of how the two candidates would govern if elected to the nation’s highest office.

Somewhat lost among all the nuance of style, manner, appearance, facial expressions, sighs, eye rolls, breathing, shoulder shrugs, voice modulation and other stuff were some actual issues facing the country.

Beyond the blatant bias of the Hillary Clinton-friendly moderator, who cast himself as a second person on the stage for Donald Trump to deal with, there was substance in things both candidates said.

Admit it: Weren’t we really looking for some defining moment from a gaffe or clever quip or “gotcha” comment that would either help our preferred candidate or hurt the opposing one?

That didn’t happen. Pundits across the spectrum of political pontification seemed, at first, to have somewhat of a common conclusion: Neither candidate helped himself or herself or suffered any real damage.

Then the establishment media began to bolster Clinton’s claim of prevailing at the podium.

So let’s look a little deeper and see what they said they would do as president to address our concerns and interests about the direction our country should take in the next four years.

On the matter of the economy, the issue that the non-partisan Pew Research Center has found 84 percent of Americans identify as the most important, we have two very different approaches.

Clinton says she will move the economy ahead by government management of incomes, profits, wages and benefits for workers by advancing new laws and regulations to control free enterprise and productivity.

Or, more simply, doing more of the things already being done by government.

Trump offered something that Clinton cannot match: actual experience in developing successful businesses, creating jobs and meeting payrolls.

While critics will quickly say running the government is not the same as running businesses, we might want to ask ourselves how well that has worked in the slowest recovery in modern history and whether a new approach might produce better results.

On the matter of conquering terrorism, the second highest priority according to Pew, Clinton said she would cope with it effectively.

Trump observed that the Islamic State group had gained strength and spread through more countries of the world under the current administration and Clinton’s leadership as secretary of state.

He rightfully asked why she had not dealt with that problem successfully during her time on watch and why we should expect anything different if she became commander in chief.

On the matter of foreign trade, Trump emphasized how our country’s crippling debt and bad deals with other nations had cost our country billions in lost revenues and countless jobs.

He asked again why, with the almost 30 years of experience Clinton cites as preparation for the presidency, she has not achieved better outcomes for our country.

By the time the debate was over, Trump had clearly made a case for a vigorous and innovative approach to these problems and offered himself as the agent for change.

That is precisely what the great majority of the people of our country say they want.

Such a realization among all the distractions of the 98-minute encounter may explain why millions of people responding to online snap polls across the traditional and electronic media said Trump had won the evening.

The massive crowds at his rallies following the debate suggest he may have won a lot more.

This story was originally published September 30, 2016 at 6:05 PM with the headline "Beyond all the debate nuance, there was substance."