John Kerry: "Fighting for Proliferation"

Besides that ill-timed slip about nuclear disarmament, I think that tonight's presidential debate ended in a clear draw, in a contest where Kerry needed to squeeze out a clear victory in order to restore his flagging candidacy. This is especially true in light of the fact that both candidates have staked their campaigns on foreign policy--the very focus of tonight's debate.

To be fair, I think Kerry is decent, articulate debater--he lived up to expectations in this regard. His aura was more statesmanlike than the President, and was successful in hammering away his key Iraq spin that the Bush administration has not been focussing on the "real terrorist threat". Kerry portrayed himself as the candidate who would change the "style" of Bush's foreign policy, but not the general substance. However, his frequent allusions to his "plan" to solve the current difficulties in Iraq would have been more compelling except that he didn't adequately identify what his plan was. His support for "another round of resolutions" in dealing with Saddam completely ignored the decade of UN resolutions which failed in securing any progress towards engaging Saddam Hussein. The Senator also lost points for his inability to look straight at the camera, which made it seem as if he was talking at rather than speaking to the American people.

Bush, though no oratorical mastermind, won points for his style. He portrayed himself as a straight-shooter, with a consistent and non-vacillating value set, while being honest enough to indicate that his foreign policy has alienated some individuals. The President could aptly be described as "brilliantly folksy", something which plays well in America but is anathema to the self-righteous chattering classes in Canadian politics. Bush perhaps relied too much on platitudes like "we will win (this war)" and "we need to be resolute" instead of substantive policy proposals, but alas, this debate was about the President's record and not the future of Iraq. Bush also rightly focused on Kerry's inconsistent positions on the War, and hit the best punch of the debate when he stated that Kerry's only consistency was "that he is inconsistent". Brilliant.

The most intriguing (and ironic) portion of the debate had to be the focus on North Korea, with Bush coming out as the multilateralist, with Kerry supporting bilateral negotiations with the People's Republic. Kerry, to fault, paid homage to the Clintonian doctrine of engagement with North Korea, which only resulted in the rogue state accelerating its nuclear programme. But Bush's failure to link the current crisis with the Clinton's decision to facilitate the North's access to nuclear technology illustrated his inability to capitalise on what could have been pivotal, knock-out moments in the debate--opportunities of which Bush had far more than Kerry.

I'll reiterate--no candidate won this debate. But on an evening where Kerry could have distinguished himself from Bush, and during which he had a tremendous opportunity to make the debate a referendum on the incumbant's record, he succeeded only in failing to answer the $10 million question--for what exactly does John F. Kerry stand?