The debates are over, and political pundits and spinmeisters now are having a field day telling the public who won the three presidential encounters and the one vice-presidential debate.

There are not many unbiased analyses of the debates. Representatives of each political party find ways to say their man won the face-offs. Network television officials try to have the public believe their respective debate experts and the opinions of their own broadcasters and correspondents provide the best perspective of the debates, but, here again, political bias plays a major role in judging who did well and who failed to score points with the public.

Past Saturday columns

Recent disclosures about the monetary support given to the Democratic and Republican political efforts by the leadership of television networks show a heavy bias in financial support for the Kerry effort over the Bush campaign. Is this reflected in how they judge the debates and who they tell the public won?

All this aside, the question remains: Just how important are the debates?

Should a president be selected on how well he can debate, or are there far more important considerations on which to base the selection of the person who will occupy the most powerful position in the free world?

Someone could be a superior debater, be a marvel at the use of the English language but be a very poor choice as a national leader.

How does the general public gauge the integrity, honesty, courage, vision and leadership ability of a candidate? What qualities are the most important for a president? Should personal appearance, conduct and the ability to look good on television be of utmost importance in the voters’ minds as they consider whom to support?

In any debate between an incumbent and a challenger, it is so easy for the challenger to say what he or she would have done differently in a particular situation, suggesting the incumbent had done a poor job or failed to measure up to the responsibilities of the office.

The incumbent has to live with his record; there is no way to dodge how he handled a situation. In many cases, an incumbent president doesn’t have the luxury of hindsight or the time to wait days, weeks or months to see what might develop before making a decision. Many critical decisions must be made quickly, using the best possible information and then having the vision and courage to act. In Kerry’s case, his record in the Senate is about the only way to judge specific actions and his positions on major issues. The recent disclosure of a directive from a top ABC network official to his associates to step up positive news about Kerry raises many questions.

Sometimes, a president’s decisions are winners in every respect, while at other times, it is easy to second-guess whether the right decision was made. It’s just like Monday-morning quarterbacks offering their advice on how a football coach should have played the game the previous Saturday after having two days to dissect the game, its outcome, mistakes made by the players and coaches and how the opposing coach and team played the game.

In any debate between an incumbent and challenger, the challenger can make all kinds of charges, observations, pledges, promises and explanations of how he would have handled a situation better and more successfully. However, there is no way in the world ever to know whether that would indeed have been the case if that individual had been forced to take action or make a decision in the same pressure-cooker environment and time frame that faced the incumbent.

According to some observers, President Bush held a slight voter approval margin over his challenger before the debates. Generally speaking, it is believed by many that Kerry won the first debate, it was a closer contest in the second debate and maybe Bush evened the score in the third debate. Others claim Kerry won all three debates in a convincing manner.

Who knows? And who knows how many voters will base their decision about whom to support on the debate performances of Bush and Kerry? Did the debates really change the minds of a substantial number of voters or had a vast majority of voters already made up their minds before the first debate?

Again, how important are the presidential debates and are debates a good way to decide who becomes president of this country?