A closet divided

Though the Thursday night presidential debate didn't pause for a single commercial, many undecided voters were able to reflect on the candidates while President Bush took one of his notorious "siestas" from words: \n"Um, um ... (five seconds later) Saddam Hussein ... I mean, bin Laden," he grappled. \nIn the midst of his silence, viewers may have thought, "This is so monotonous. Any moment, they're going to gouge each other's eyeballs out, right?" \nYet at the end of the evening, each candidate's eyeballs were unscathed. It was time to take out the legal pad and weigh the candidates for the one obviously controversial difference between them. Suspend all ideas about Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, North Korea and Sudan for a moment. \nKerry: red tie. Bush: blue tie. \nBut more importantly, what does this "controversial difference" mean? \nRed versus blue ... red v. blue ... Roe v. Wade? No, too convoluted, and frankly, I'm not sure what that would imply. \nSearching for an explanation to this contrasting tie phenomenon, PBS's show "Tucker Carlson: Unfiltered" attended to the enigma.\n"You pointed out that Bush was wearing a blue tie, Kerry, a red tie. Maybe it's a frivolous question," Carlson pre-empted to his Washington Post guest Tom Shales, "but what color tie should you wear in a presidential debate, and why?"\n"Well, you know, it's old wisdom you are always supposed to wear red," Shales said. "The red in the tie brings red out in your face, and you look more robust or something like that. Blue is a nice, soothing color, but you would normally wear a blue shirt, not a blue tie."\nOh, snap! In your face, Bush! Kerry is so totally robust-ing up the White Hizz-ouse. \nAren't you glad Carlson didn't "filter" that question out of his interview?\nBut why rely on PBS? Certainly, other journalists are considering the implications of choosing the wrong primary color. \n"Cojo," ET's fashion reporter Steven Cojocaru, knows what's crucial in these debates. \n"It's not foreign policy," he assured. "It's how they look."\nAlthough the politically savvy Cojo has many comments on the candidates' hair and bronzer products, he failed to notice the neckties. \nThat's because the red tie/blue tie stand-off is a subliminal message that only this columnist fully grasps. \nBased on the Electoral College, Democratic states are labeled as blue, and Republican states are always red; however, Kerry wore a red tie, and Bush wore a blue tie. \nAm I blowing your mind yet? \nKerry's red tie says, "Hey, Dick Cheney may say I'm the most liberal senator on Capitol Hill, but look at me. I have on a conservative tie. I'm liberal in policy but conservative in personal values." That's no flip-flop, my friends. That's pure genius. \nBush's blue tie says, "Check me out, ladies. Kerry's not the only one who cares about your interests. I have on a very non-threatening-colored tie. Hey, deep beneath the surface of this war commander is a sensitive guy. I care about families and mothers. I put the 'dubya' and 'man' in wo-man." Plus, it articulates much more than Bush has ever in his lifetime. \nEvery analyst or journalist commentator has something to say about the character, demeanor and mannerisms of the candidates presented during the debates. It seems almost justified to base this election completely on tie-choice. An undecided voter looks for professional in-depth analyses of the opponents' responses to policy, and all they'll find is superficial time-filler on who seemed more relaxed or who spoke to the common people (Flashback to the moment Bush referred to terrorists as "a group of folks"). \nWouldn't it be helpful to the viewers if the post-debate wrap-ups had something of substance to say on the critical issues? \nAs for me, I'm not an undecided voter. The entire time I watched the vice presidential debates Tuesday, I was just imagining Sen. John Edwards wearing nothing but his tie.