PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE: This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus use an image from my favorite sport, golf. Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all of my professional positions, including as a Congressional press secretary in Washington, D.C., an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and a private sector lobbyist. This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.

Well, who won the first Presidential debate?

The answer, I submit, is in the eye of the beholder.

If you were in favor of Donald Trump before the debate, you are probably still in his corner.

If you were for Hillary Clinton before the debate, you are probably still there.

As the Wall Street Journal’s Joseph Rago emphasized this week, voters tend to come away with different impressions from such a debate as this than do political professionals – or even, like me, retired political operatives…read lobbyists.

Moreover, I think most debates are terrible ways for voters to gather or make impressions on candidates. Many people watch for the pithy quote or the smart rejoinder. Others watch for the gaffe. Call them “zingers. Hill.com joined the fray this morning by emphasizing what it called the five best zingers, but frankly, none of them will rank with past memorable lines.

Neither the quote or the gaffe tell us much about what we, as voters, need to know about how a candidate would handle the demands of the nation’s highest political office, one that matters to the entire “free world,” as well as the “unfree world” (if that is a phrase).

Debates don’t have much to do with the serious business of governing.

As a voter, I’d rather than take my time to assess a candidate’s overall credentials instead of relying on 90 minutes of made-for-TV hype.

For me, the debate allowed Clinton to reinforce her theme that she is qualified to be president and has the experience for the job. Experience, she would say, matters in a position where “on-the-job” training could be a disaster.

On the other hand, Trump managed, through awkward and bolloxed-up language, to reiterate that he is the choice for change. Put another way, if you want four more years of the Obama Administration, vote for Clinton.

Back to my main point. I think neither candidate moved the needle much in their direction. So, besides all the other information available to us as voters, there will be two more presidential debates, plus one for the vice presidents, before the time comes to cast a ballot in this “choice between evils” election.