Editorial: Debate puts Bush closer to re-election

COMMENT


By general consensus, the first United States presidential debate was crucial to Senator John Kerry's chances of claiming the White House. Only by easing Americans' concerns about his leadership ability during a one-on-one confrontation with President George W. Bush could he hope to overturn the incumbent's re-election bandwagon.

Only by demonstrating a resolve and succinctness that would cultivate a connection with the electorate could he hope to reverse polls that show the race leaning to the President.

The Democrat challenger was partly successful. Rarely did he meander, and occasionally his eloquence was put to good use. Iraq, he said, was "a colossal error of judgment, and judgment is what we look for in the President of the United States". Yet as well as Mr Kerry performed, it is doubtful that he did enough.

Those who write off Mr Bush on virtually any count received a sharp rejoinder, even if this was a debate marred by its contrived and restricted circumstance.

The topic - security and foreign policy - should have boded ill for the President. The rising American death toll and increasing chaos in Iraq makes a mockery of Mr Bush's claim of progress towards stability and democratic elections.

Likewise, the failure to capture Osama bin Laden and the persistence of global terrorism hardly suggests the President has succeeded in making the US a safer place. Indeed, White House policy has been, and continues to be, severely flawed.

Mr Bush, however, has been able to deflect attention from these shortcomings by concentrating on what he perceives to be his opponent's weaknesses. In particular, Mr Kerry is accused of flip-flopping between support and opposition to the war in Iraq. This is said to send "mixed messages" to America's troops, its allies and the Iraqis. Always, a contrast is made with the President's absolute certainty. Mr Kerry is also said to be willing to sell out American interests in his quest to repair the US image.

These generalities were hammered again during the 90-minute debate. Often the President was glib - the US, he said, would succeed in Iraq because "Iraqis want to be free". Rarely was he considered. Always, however, he was relentless. There would, he said time and again, be no uncertainty or weakness while he occupied the White House.

Mr Bush's flippancy and detachment from reality would have cut little ice with many in the international audience. They would, instead, have applauded the manner in which Mr Kerry cleverly uncoupled Iraq from the war on terror, and cheered the challenger's insistence that the invasion had been a rushed, unnecessary risk.

But international viewers do not have a vote. Those of middle America do, and the President was undoubtedly telling them what they wanted to believe about their own country, and about a happy ending in Iraq.

His was probably the stronger connection. Strong enough to ensure that Mr Kerry, despite his sounder grasp of issues, did not succeed in in convincing Americans that he would be a strong, steadfast leader.

This was Mr Kerry's chance to deliver a telling blow. He could not manage it. Mr Bush has taken a significant step towards a second term in the White House.