The image each presidential candidate creates is important; first in determining the outcome of the election, but in the longer term, determining the future of our nation.

The 2004 presidential debate last Thursday and the two upcoming presidential debates provide Sen. John Kerry and President George W. Bush a forum to expose, explain and exchange ideas while giving voters a closer look into their candidacy and an opportunity to put their image under the microscope.

Both candidates’ values and how they portray themselves in speech with responses to one another and support for their claims in the debates reflect their ability to lead and represent our country.

Their inclination to wander from or focus on subjects presented by the moderator, ability to provide examples and use facts to support their stance and plans for presidency are indicators of their aptitude to lead.

But what should receive the most scrutiny from Americans, however, should be each of the candidate’s strategies to solve problems.

Kerry’s confidence and ideological mirage of solutions to our nation’s problems may have given some Americans the illusion he has the ability to lead because he held his own in speaking stature. But he lacks in certainty, stability and strength. A proper leader should change tactics, but not strategic beliefs.

Having Kerry in office would jeopardize our efforts and send “mixed messages,” as Bush said, to our soldiers, allies and enemies.

From the beginning to the end of the first presidential debate, without even looking at his career record, Kerry contradicted himself. Bush did not appear as smooth talking as Kerry, but I prefer firm and open decisiveness over crowd pleasing conformity that sweetly slides off the tongue.

Kerry knows what to say to get Americans on his side through generalities, but he is not practical.

Kerry has positive intentions, but many of his plans, like the one for homeland security, are simply not financially plausible. Kerry has even voted against some of the solutions he has suggested. He said troops need additional armor and equipment, but previously voted against $87 billion in supplemental funds.

Kerry also continues to spread the misconception that the U.S. has not been working toward building alliances to solve world disputes, such as the conflict in Iraq, when the Bush administration has established alliances. Oddly enough Kerry supports bilateral negotiations while Bush continues to support multilateral negotiations with North Korea.

Having five countries at the table will have more force than having the U.S. alone, which did not work during the Clinton administration.

Why should the U.S. support bilateral negotiations with North Korea when both Kerry and Bush agree on building multiple alliances for the conflict in Iraq?

Kerry also said the U.S. should not have been focusing so much energy on capturing Saddam Hussein.

The U.S. had every reason to chase Saddam. In addition to deceiving U.S. inspectors Saddam was openly offering rewards to families of suicides bombers.

As Bush said during the debate, “Anyone who doubts the world is not a better place without Saddam doesn’t deserve to be President.”

Perhaps if the majority of Kerry’s declarations were remotely true, possible, practical or consistent, he would make a good president and have my vote.

I do not agree with all of Bush’s stances and similarly I do not disagree with all of Kerry’s, but the way any election works is to vote for who you believe can perform the job best.

Bush may not have articulated his ideas best in the first debate, but has the better understanding, strategies and credentials our country needs in a leader.