If you watched last night’s debate – and I’m not thinking the audience was nearly as large as the previous two debates -- it was clear that the real issue driving this campaign is the economy.  For a debate that was supposed to be about foreign policy, the candidates clearly eager to pivot (stole that from Obama) to the economy whenever they could.  Obama even managed to score several class warfare lines, including two in his closing stump speech alone!  Yessir!  Once again Obama showed that the main thrust of his first four years will be held over to be the main goal of his last four – if, that is, the voters of this country are ignorant enough to give him four more.  That thrust?  Taxes simply MUST be raised on the evil rich.

But when it did come to foreign policy, it was really tough for me to come up with a clear winner.  In fact, I would say that there were two winners last night … a winner for low-knowledge voters, and another for voters with a greater understanding of America’s foreign policy problems and opportunities.  Low-knowledge voters would be impressed by Obama’s “I got bin Laden” bravado.  More informed voters would be impressed by Romney’s recitation of our failures to more deftly manage the changing situation in the Middle East.

All in all, though, it would seem that no clear winner can be declared. That being the case, the victory goes to the incumbent.  So, on substance, Obama takes the foreign policy portion of the debate by managing not to lose.  No doubt, Romney (or anyone in his position) was at a disadvantage in a debate like this.  But while Obama may have “won” the point-by-point case in the eyes of many, Romney did what he needed to do: He came across as presidential and ready to lead. 

Here’s what Romney faced going into last night’s debate, and where he got some very good advice.  American women – mothers – are sick to death of war.  They want their husbands, brothers, sisters, sons and daughters home.  Frankly .. who can blame them?  Obama was going to work extra hard last night to paint Mitt Romney as a warmonger .. as a loose cannon .. as someone who would send even more sons, daughters, brother and sisters, husbands and wives overseas to fight a war that America really had no will to win.  Romney foiled Obama’s plan by coming off as reasoned and deliberative.  The warmonger gambit failed.

The “I got bin Laden” statements from Obama were predictable and shallow.  But .. when you’re speaking to a shallow electorate, shallow works.  The Frank Luntz focus groups showed that some Florida swing voters were very impressed with Obama’s “I took the shot” bravado on bin Laden. Romney helped to take some of the “I took the shot” bravado away from bin Laden at the very beginning of the debate by congratulating him on that very point.

Wouldn’t it be sad if this election went to Obama simply because he did not prevent the Navy Seals from nailing bin Laden when they had the chance?  Remember – Obama called off the attempt on the advice of his chief confident Valerie Jarrett three times before he finally said “go ahead.” 

And one other point:  The goal of killing bin Laden was set by George W. Bush.  The mission was carried out while Obama was president.  JFK set the goal of putting a man on the moon by the end of the decade of the ‘60s.  Richard Nixon was president when the goal was accomplished.  Nixon never claimed credit for putting Americans on the moon.  But then, Nixon had more class than Obama. 

Where Romney failed -- at least to conservatives -- is to point out the massive security failure and subsequent cover-up relating to the Islamic terrorist attack in Benghazi.  Some might have seen this as being presidential.  The point of the debate was to illustrate foreign policy objectives – how you would do things differently.  Not to rehash failures.  Perhaps Romney got this one right.

Did you notice, by the way, that Obama never ever used the words “Islamic terrorism”?  Just sayin’ …There are a lot of people who are truly disappointed that Romney didn’t nail him on Benghazi, but I wouldn’t fret.  In this debate, it was clear that Romney wasn’t playing for the Right … he was working for those independents, the undecideds.  These are the same undecideds who, by the way, don’t like it when people interrupt one another and come across as childish or condescending, as Obama did on several occasions.  The line about “we have fewer horses and bayonets … we have these things called air craft carriers.”  While they are definitely memorable, they seemed small and patronizing compared to Romney who repeatedly tried to remind Obama that attacking him was not an agenda for solving our problems in the Middle East.

Will anyone be helped or hurt by this debate?  Prolly not.  They have exactly two weeks to make their case and finish the job.

Oh and I’m just glad that Bob Schieffer wasn’t the storyline of today’s post-debate analysis.  Guess that means he done good. Not bad for a Texas boy.