It was a bit disheartening to read yesterday that some analysts considered Monday's presidential debate dull and disappointing.
Frankly, we thought the president was aggressive throughout the debate and challenger Mitt Romney was responsive to the questions. In fact, we thought it was the best of the three debates.
But, no, nobody talked over the other fellow's responses and there were no bombshell revelations. There were differences of opinion on the handling of foreign policy but, all in all, it was a civil discussion.
It appeared that both candidates realized that no matter who wins the election, one of them has to go on and govern. Therefore, wrecking each other on international relations may not be a good idea for the country.
Perhaps that is too tame a view of the situation but it is obvious that neither party is going to have complete control of Washington when this election is over. Our nation's capital will remain a city divided and maybe it is dawning on both sides that a way is going to have to be found to work with each other.
The country's problems are too big to allow the gridlock of the last two years to continue. Right after the election the parties are going to have to work in earnest to avoid the "fiscal cliff" that is coming in January if automatic spending cuts and tax increases are not averted.
A raucous debate on international relations would not have helped the healing that has to begin soon.
So, don't be too disappointed that Monday's debate was not a shouting match. Sometimes the greatest trait leaders can show is restraint.
* Editorials reflect the opinion of the publisher.
