As promised, we will be concluding our series on the debates, and what they promise for the Candidates, with this week's rANT.

When we last left our heroes, we were looking at Kerry 1, Bush 0. This was based on Kerry's complete trouncing of an ill-prepared Bush during a debate that Bush was mostly expected to slam-dunk. The rightward co-opted media - ever trying to make a silk purse out of a pig's mouth - tried to declare the debate a tie, but it was anything but.

Since then, we've had three more debates: a "town hall" for the Presidentials, a standard format for the Vices, and a final, standard format for the Presidentials. We learned that Bush gets really confused really easily and falls back on pat repetition and the occasional good zinger from the hip. We also learned that Kerry can stumble and stammer with the best of them, and knows how to play to the audience - and against his opponent.

Meanwhile, Cheney is a bad liar and a controlled grouch, and Edwards is a good liar who can't think on his feet at times. It was a shame that Edwards couldn't come up with good answers to Cheney, because it would have been great to see him knock Dick down a peg or two, and let the grouch all the way out of its trashcan. But it was also a shame that Dick wasn't able to bust through Edwards' perpetual smile and score a real blow, too.

The verdict? As I've said before, I think the press was right to declare the second Presidential debate and the Vice Presidential debate draws, due to the well-struck blows and good performance of both sides. And that leaves the score at Kerry 2, Bush 1 prior to the third, and final, debate between the Presidential Candidates.

What we saw during the last round was both enlightening and disappointing. The disappointment was with Kerry, because I expected a lot more out of him, while the enlightenment came from Bush, who came back with a second and third wind I didn't know he had.

Much like during the second debate, Kerry kept his cool but seemed like he was struggling to avoid going for a real knockout blow. Either that or he seriously misjudged how much Bush could take before losing it, and decided to play it safe. He mostly avoided specifics - "I have a plan" - and stretched the numbers out to fit the arguments, but I didn't expect exacting detail or the exact truth, just a real rock'em, sock'em debater.

Meanwhile, Bush got a hell of a lot better, which was something I wasn't convinced could really happen. Gone was the utter lack of energy and oomph - and funny faces - of the first, disastrous debate, and gone was the overcompensation and scrappiness of the second. He didn't slurp his way around the questions, but he didn't explode off his seat and offer wood to the moderator, either.

Kerry's strategy was primarily to attack. Every time he got the chance to mention one of the big buzzword failings, he did, even if the question didn't quite warrant it. And there were some rather surreal couplings in there, almost as surreal as some of Bush's topic changes in earlier debates.

Meanwhile, Bush's strategy was to defend, first by attacking back and then by honest defense. He usually offered a plan in motion or tried to "clarify" what had really been done, or what the numbers actually were (or not), and then brought up how Kerry did this or that, or didn't do this or that. And this forced Kerry to take time out of his response to say that, no, he didn't do that, or he actually had.

I think the things to watch were:

* Kerry reminding the President of how he'd said that he didn't think about Osama bin Laden all that much. Bush claimed he'd never said that, when in fact he had. Of course, most people in the audience probably didn't remember that he had said that, either, so it may have been lost.

* The following exchange:

SCHIEFFER: Mr. President, what do you say to someone in this country who has lost his job to someone overseas who's being paid a fraction of what that job paid here in the United States?

BUSH: I'd say, Bob, I've got policies to continue to grow our economy and create the jobs of the 21st century. And here's some help for you to go get an education. Here's some help for you to go to a community college.

And then went onto education, and what he'd done for it.

* The now-infamous question of Gay Marriage, with Bush saying he didn't know if homosexuality was a choice, and Kerry saying it wasn't, and bringing up the fact that Mary Cheney is a Lesbian, and that she'd most likely say the same.

* The go-around on insurance. Schieffer asked Kerry where the money was going to come from, and Bush shredded the answer in top form. When Kerry responded, he defended his position, but also attacked the situation at our VA hospitals. And this caused Bush to spend his entire counter-response dealing with that attack.

* Bush's zinger on Kerry, after he tried to pooh-pooh the "global test" thing again: In 1990, there was a vast coalition put together to run Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait. The international community, the international world said this is the right thing to do, but when it came time to authorize the use of force on the Senate floor, my opponent voted against the use of force. Apparently you can't pass any test under his vision of the world. 

* Kerry's zinger on Bush, regarding the assault weapons ban, which Bush said he'd sign if only people would send it to him, but didn't really work to make it get to his desk: Terrorists can now come into America and go to a gun show and, without even a background check, buy an assault weapon today. And that's what Osama bin Laden's handbook said, because we captured it in Afghanistan. It encouraged them to do it. 

So what have we seen with our candidates?

Kerry is a skilled debater, and he will literally say anything to win. He disarmingly fudges statistics, plays the same number games as Bush does, and takes credit for things he didn't do, or only partially helped with. He realizes that the devil is in the details, and doesn't want to risk boring people with the tiny gee-gaws of his plans, or risk their finding the holes in them. What we have with him is a lot of style - not all of it good - backed up with a quiet substance that pokes its head out occasionally.

Bush, on the other hand, isn't as skilled, but learned very quickly: the progress from the first debate up to the last one was something to see. One major stumbling block is that he can't lie very well, and whenever he's forced to step back from what he really believes and give an answer he tends to stumble and mince his words. He can, however, goof the numbers with the best of them. He also prefers not to give all the details, knowing that people are looking for the holes in them and not giving too much to chew over.

What we have with Bush is a lot of substance - not all of it good - and a style that has actually gotten a lot better as we've gone along in these debates. The problem is that Bush doesn't do well with hostile questions, or any implication that he might be wrong. He's at his best when he's giving a speech in front of a receptive audience and soaking up the love. Kerry, on the other hand, expects a fight whenever he opens his mouth, and thrives on that kind of communication.

I think the first debate really threw Bush, because it'd been a long time since he'd been in the position of being grilled and questioned like that. But he was able to rally back in the second debate because he was talking to people, and actually interacting with them, rather than just having them as a part of the audience. By this last debate, I think he'd regained his confidence enough to be able to respond to the moment, rather than pre-scripted comebacks.

But you could tell that Bush was still stepping far outside of his zone of comfort. He'd have rather been anywhere but there, at that debate. And that's because he's not used to fighting for what he wants: he either overpowers folks with the massive band of cohorts behind him, or else waits for someone else to hand it to him. And isn't that what we've seen over the past few years?

Conversely, Kerry didn't want to be anywhere but there, at that moment, with his eyes locked on his opponent (and his back turned to him, when he could do it). Make of that what you will.

The final score? I'm going to be perverse and claim that Bush actually won the last debate. I say that because he was able to answer Kerry on more or less equal footing on the debate that Kerry was supposed to ace. This makes for an odd turnaround, since Kerry handled the first debate so well, in spite of Bush's expected aceing of that one. Neither side got the knockout blow, but if his strategy was to defend and then attack, then Bush did just what he set out to do.

And that makes it Kerry 2, Bush 2.