Last week's debate between the U.S. presidential candidates should end any doubts about the value of such face-offs. The 90-minute encounter in Miami, Florida, did exactly what it was supposed to do: It provided U.S. voters -- and the rest of the world -- a pointed comparison of the two candidates. While both men sometimes sidestepped the questions they were asked, there was no escaping the sharp contrast between them in policy, personality and approach to problem solving.
There were ample reasons for skepticism about the value of this debate. Its form and format were the subject of intense negotiations. Reportedly, the two campaigns produced some 30 pages of conditions that stipulated everything from the height of the podium to how the two men would be made up. For example, there was to be no direct exchanges between the two candidates and cameras were to focus on the speaker. The television networks disregarded that last proviso, much to President George W. Bush's disadvantage. The shots of him reacting to Sen. John Kerry's comments -- ranging from anger to apparent disgust -- may be the most enduring memory of this debate.
The first encounter focused on foreign policy. This was supposed to be Mr. Bush's strong suit. His campaign has made his leadership in the war against terror the centerpiece of his re-election effort. Highlights include the defeat of the Taliban in Afghanistan, the removal of former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein and Libya's decision to abandon its programs to develop weapons of mass destruction. Mr. Bush also hoped to force Mr. Kerry on the defensive with attacks on his "flip-flops" -- for example, voting to give the president the authority to wage war in Iraq and then saying that he opposed that war.