Although debates are largely regarded and accepted as being primarily scripted in nature, Gard took this notion to a new level.  He stares directly into the camera, making himself appear awkward, as if he is scared to move.  Never once does he turn his attention to the audience before him, only his TV audience is of concern.  He looks like a statue, but with words running out of his mouth.  This distracts from his responses, which only prove to attack Kagan and do very little to provide the audience with much else.  

Kagan addresses both the camera and his audience.  He is more relaxed and although he does sound rehearsed at some points, he maintains a flow in his rhetoric that makes listening easy.  While I cringed at his commercial-like slogans such as, "I hope to go to Washington and turn down the temperature of our climate" (in reference to global warming), I do believe that through repetition, he reminds the audience of his ultimate goal: a vote in his name.  

In terms of the issues presented in this debate - immigration, Medicare/Medicaid, and global warming (to name a few) - neither candidate presented much in the way of substantive policies.  Gard managed to slide a few assertions about his position on taxes in between his numerous attacks on Kagan. Likewise, Kagan delivered little in terms of content, continually attacking President Bush and the Republican Party.  He focused on the need for change and a strong leader to facilitate this change.  Isn't that idea already inherent in democracy?

Overall, each candidate skirted the issues while tossing blame back and forth between podiums.  Knowing nothing else about these two candidates from Wisconsin, I would give the debate to Kagan solely because he knows how to address an audience - at least more effectively than his opponent.