Minot, North Dakota - the final presidential debate

I took a lot of notes, but to be honest, it was pretty boring. Same old same old most of the time - the same stats, the same responses, in a lot of cases even the exact same phrases that have been used in previous debates. This is depressing given the huge amount of material they could potentially discuss - they seem stuck on a few topics.

Listening to it, rather than watching it, made me notice the difference between the candidates' voices - Obama's is deep, soft and rather mellow; McCain's slightly scratchy, higher and certainly less pleasant. But I thought both of them sounded tired, and at times Obama sounded bored of the whole thing. They probably are, but it seems a shame when this may be the last time some people hear them setting out their vision and plans for America.

I feel like I am constantly bemoaning the fact that neither candidate is setting out a compelling vision. I wonder if this is because I am a consultant - and if actually this is the last thing the electorate wants. But still, I can't help thinking that only a vision can really get people excited about this election. I think Obama has succeeded in setting one out for his foot soldiers, but it hasn't made it out to us, (or indeed Joe the plumber), the ordinary observers.

A couple of details took me by surprise. Both candidates plan to end all imports of oil from the Middle East (and Venezuela) within 10 years. Does anyone have any idea what this would do to those countries if it actually happened? It also sound completely unrealistic.

Obama mentioned the story of a woman whose equal pay for equal work claim was dismissed and McCain did not support her case (or perhaps her appeal - I missed some key moments). Does this mean there is no federal equal pay legislation in America?

McCain seems to be accusing Obama of wanting to "spread the wealth around" - when I first heard this I thought that was supposed to be a good thing, but apparently not.

Finally, all this talk about health care is getting me down. Even laying aside (or taking as read - and in need of change) the inequity of the American system, it is stupendously expensive (America spends twice as much of its GDP on health - 16% - as the average for developed countries). Both candidates were asked if they were interesting in containing costs, and of course both said they were. But their strategies for doing so are likely to have minimal impact - making medical records available electronically, tackling obesity and opening more walk in clinics are all good ideas, but they won't save 8% of GDP.

A couple of weeks ago the New Yorker had an ad publicising a request from more than 500 doctors for the candidates to go further and advocate establishing a single payer system, which is something that could dramatically reduce costs. But even with healthcare so high on so many voters' lists of priorities, it looks like neither candidate sees this kind of radical solution as palatable to the electorate.