So who won? Who lost?

First, a few of Warren’s political TV criteria. Number one: VISUALS. When I watch a political commercial, or a political debate, I do so – for all or part of it – with the sound off. That’s because TV is a visual medium. As I said to a fellow on Newsworld Wednesday afternoon, it’s 70 per cent how you look, 20 per cent how you say it, and 10 per cent what you say. That’s sad, but it’s the way it is.

Two, HOAG. That is, the “Hell Of A Guy” or “Hell Of A Gal” test. Being a Hell Of A Guy won Jean Chrétien every election he faced; it helped Stephen Harper in 2006, when he aggressively adopted the Tim Horton’s Everyman persona. Not being a HOAG sunk John Kerry and Al Gore when pitted against George W. Bush – because you could picture yourself having a beer with Dubya. The other two you could picture with a wine spritzer in one hand, an iPhone in the other – and you could hear them lecturing you about the Arctic ice shelf. Also sad, but true.

Three, LEADERSHIP – and not in the way the Tories have sought to define it in Campaign 2008. In my view, TV “leadership” is strength, calm and the Royal Jelly stuff. Who looks, acts and speaks most like a Prime Minister?

Finally, MINUTES. As Dick Morris has pointed out, “winning” a debate is pretty hard to do. “Defining moments” are mostly a crock, a false media construct. You “win” a debate by managing the dialogue. So, if you are a conservative, voters tend to think you have more latent credibility on issues like taxes, law and order and government waste. If you are liberal, you come to the party with more heft on things like health care and protecting social programs. So, under my minutes test, you can determine who wins with your watch. If Stephen Harper was forced to discuss health care for most of the debate – no matter how terrific he looks or sounds – then he will lose. And if Stéphane Dion is obliged to debate crime – even when overall crime rates are way down – he, too, cannot win. When the other guy’s issues dominate the show, you will always lose.

So, using those criteria, who won? Who lost?

VISUALS: Gilles Duceppe was the winner (so, too, regimental ties – Duceppe, Layton and Harper all wore one). Since Chrétien left, the French debate has been his home turf, and he defends it without breaking into a sweat. Forcing the leaders to sit at a round table took away a natural Harper advantage – on TV, you hardly ever see Prime Ministers sitting down. In the French debate, Harper looked uncomfortable. Dion, meanwhile, looked somewhat frail, and not a few of us wanted to reach up and fix that errant lock of hair. Layton looked good; May was fine, in an environment that is very, very intimidating. Her French was pretty good, too. [Post script: I was amazed the French-language media folks permitted that big Maple Leaf in the middle of the debate table. Amazed.]

HOAG: Jack Layton, because he’s been working hard at being a HOAG throughout this election campaign, and it’s paying off. The NDP guy made certain his language and approach were accessible and understandable; most of the time, he was the guy you could picture pulling over to help you change a flat tire. Harper? He’d drive by, worried about a roadside carjacking by a Young Offender. Dion? He’d be paying too much attention to the speed limit, computing his carbon footprint, and he’d totally miss you and your predicament. Duceppe? He’d screech to a stop, steal your car and your gal, and speed away. And you’d laugh.

LEADERSHIP: A tie: Stephen Harper was the winner, mostly due to the economic segment that kicked off the debate; but Dion was a winner, too, particularly when he lectured Harper about respect, and when he handled the question from the Dawson College professor about assault rifles. Sitting down, Harper’s smile seemed forced and his posture a bit hunched, but he still looked like a Prime Minister (or, more preferable to many Tories, a President). Dion, too, kept his temper in check, and avoided the temptation to sound too professorial. During the listeriosis discussion, 40 minutes in, there was a lot of overtalk and finger-pointing, but Harper and Dion were cool in a medium that only rewards those who keep their cool. Throughout the environmental segment that came halfway through, where all of the Opposition leaders sought to mug Harper, he looked completely unfazed. Foolishly, May called Harper a “liar,” a “joke,” and a fraud artist over Kyoto; whether you think those epithets are accurate or not, May looked less like a leader, Harper more – because he didn’t erupt. Dion was excellent in briefly discussing his Green Shift, but that wasn’t necessarily an achievement; on the economy, he hit Harper with a zinger early on: “Economic risk? You are the risk.” But, truth told, he made me ill when he said he was a citizen of the Quebec “nation.” I suspect I’m not alone in that. And, I must say, Dion didn't talk all that much. Maybe that was a good thing, but he seemed AWOL for some of the show.

MINUTES: Due to this week’s events in Washington and in the markets, most of the debate was pre-ordained to be about the economy – and properly so. Being an economist who also is a Prime Minister, he was most at ease in discussing our troubled economic times. On the difficult question about gun control – where many expected him to sound callous and cold – Harper turned the tables, and spoke passionately about victims being more important than criminals. He was awful on the cultural cuts, even though he knew he would be under assault. And, when he pandered to Québec nationalists, the Tory leader infuriated me, but all of them pandered to Québec nationalists. But, truth be told, it was Gilles Duceppe who was – not surprisingly – most fluent (literally) in everything that was up for discussion. He seemed conversant in every issue; he didn’t step back. As a result, he didn’t lose out in the crucial “minutes” calculation.

OVERALL WINNER: Gilles Duceppe. Agree with him or not, it was his sandbox. He set the rules. He won.

GRATUITOUS COMMENTARY ON THE SHOW: The moderator, Stephen Bureau, was excellent - firm but fair. The format – particularly the unexpected stuff at the one hour mark, in which the leaders got to say what they liked about each other, and in which you half-expected them to get up and hug each other for closure – was fun, if weird. The questions from “citizens” (with the exception of the woman from Dawson College) were unremarkable, and could have just as easily be asked by journalists. No plagiarism jokes, either: why not, darn it? (And, on my format: no live-blogging for me, tonight or tomorrow night. It's too hard to read. Check out this laundry-list journalism to see what I mean.)

You're welcome.

Now, we get ready for the really important debate, the one that will be watched by millions of Canadians: Biden and Palin!