When Jim Lehrer asked confirmation from both Bush and Kerry that nuclear proliferation was the most serious threat facing a president both concurred and Bush added : “In the hands of a terrorist enemy”. Now given what went on before, can we infer from that that in the case of sovereign entities this administration has all but given up on curbing the nuclear threat? Are we just going to be looking after terrorists and their affiliates, like A.Q. Khan? North Korea has them and Iran will shortly have them too. So, Bush appears to be arguing that the focus should be on preventing them from falling into the hands of terrorists rather than taking on the very source of the stuff. If that’s the case than to me that was the most revealing and disconcerting part of the entire debate. Kerry rightly went after Bush on the issue and the President had nothing new to present on the subject, recycling the ongoing regional talks for North Korea (by the way: are there any results, is Hu Jintao on the ball?) and offering this on Iran:

We worked very closely with the foreign ministers of France, Germany and Great Britain, who have been the folks delivering the message to the mullahs that if you expect to be part of the world of nations, get rid of your nuclear programs. The IAEA is involved. There's a special protocol recently been passed that allows for inspections. I hope we can do it. And we've got a good strategy.

That’s it. Our "folks" have been delivering a message to the mullahs, and that’s good enough for us. Not that Bush could not have tapped into a plethora of think-tank studies and policy ideas, no, he has done exactly what he has accused Kerry of: delegating the security of the US to others, among them France and Germany of all nations. In addition, he apparently has abandoned pro-activity which is what he preaches in the war against terror. And Kerry, while not overly convincing in laying a plan for North Korea and Iran on the table was far better able than Bush to articulate and address this indeed “most serious issue”. That’s why it stuck with me more than any of the other topics of the debate.

On Iraq it was a draw: Kerry offered no plan to win the peace but raised some interesting points (border protection, for one); Bush cruised through the Iraqi part on his experience, again reiterating past themes. Overall, I would agree with the general sentiment that Kerry came across pretty well, articulated various issues in a focused way and presented himself as a viable alternative without damaging Bush. The latter was not as inspired as he should have been: he did enough to get by, which is not good enough in any race.

The problem with the debate is that it is not a debate, the absence of direct rebuttals (they only address the moderator, not the opponent) have turned these events into glorified press conferences. That’s a shame for it extricates the candidates from a real test and in last night’s case that was probably good for Bush and unfortunate for Kerry.

Here’s a round-up of reactions:

Steven Taylor wonders if Kerry gets momentum, can he stay on message?
Ann Althouse nodded off but noted that Bush was irritated over being called to account;
Kevin Drum, has some numbers and struggled with MT;
Pejman Yousefzadeh argues Kerry eked out a win, but not enough to change the race;
Matt Yglesias thinks it was a marginal Kerry win;
Boi from Troy thought Jim Lehrer lost: the debate was too narrowly focused on Iraq.