Debated failed to show candidates' differences

Monday night's first presidential debate was a production of style over substance. Both disappointing and chaotic, the match-up between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton failed to live up to expectations in many ways.

Trump failed time and time again to strike Clinton on her most vulnerable issues - immigration, her private email server, Benghazi or the Clinton Foundation.

Those who were hoping - as I was - for a more refined Trump with a little less pizzazz and a little more substance, were left wanting.

But Clinton's well-scripted and over-rehearsed answers did little to move her needle of support either.

Trump gave Clinton far too many free passes on issues that are important to the American public. He was clearly knocked off balance by the personal attacks that came right from the first question.

When attacked on his failure to release his tax returns, Trump responded by proposing a swap of his returns for her missing emails. Yet when Clinton failed to take the bait, Trump stood silent.

Rest assured, the issues of immigration and Clinton's loose relationship with the truth will be fodder for the second and third debate.

But those upcoming debates will likely lack the luster of the premiere face-off and that issue alone gives Clinton a little breathing room.

Since Trump is so unconventional and Clinton so establishment, it should come as no surprise that this debate looked nothing like prior presidential debates. And yet Trump's style dominated the discussion and the substantive differences between the two rarely surfaced.

One telling difference was all but drowned out in the clamor over Trump's abrupt style.

On the issue of race, Clinton put all of the blame for our current concerns at the feet of law enforcement. Not once in her response did she lay any blame in the hands of those who have turned "peaceful" protests into displays of anarchy.

Trump by contrast stressed the critical importance of law and order and promised to help rebuild inner cities with funds expected from new trade policies.

When the smoke cleared, it's doubtful that the debate had any major impact on voters' impression of either candidate.

If pressed to declare a winner, I'll go with Mrs. Clinton only because she was better prepared and had no major stumbles.

But the larger question still remains.

If Americans are satisfied with the trajectory and path of this country, then Hillary Clinton will be elected Nov. 8 for Barack Obama's third term.

If Americans are dissatisfied with our direction, then welcome President Trump.

I doubt that this debate or the future debates will change that fundamental question.