The last of this year's long slog of presidential debates Monday night was about foreign affairs -- that is, the state of the world and America's place in it. By the end, the essential question raised by the debate should have been clear: Which candidate is living in the real world we've all experienced the past four years? And which in a world of denial and excuse-making?
Debates are high-pressure, high-risk events, and they often offer low rewards. A candidate's first goal is not to win the debate, but rather not to lose -- to do no harm to the campaign. A simple misstep can change the course of an election.
During Monday's debate, we went into some foreign territory. The election is going to be about the economy and the size of government, not foreign policy, but the task of a president—and, let’s not forget, a government—is most essentially to protect Americans. It is, at the most basic level, not as a manager or prophet or pop star, but as a commander-in-chief.
President Barack Obama won the final presidential debate because it was on foreign policy, and the president's foreign policy -- unlike his domestic spending -- is popular with the American people.
Sarah Palin criticizes the State Department for knowing the attack in Benghazi was a terrorist attack 'in real time.'
Charles Krauthammer praises Romney's critique of Obama's "Apology Tour."
Tonight's debate will center on foreign policy. The problem with foreign policy is that as President you just need so many of them. It's a big world. There are 193 members of the United Nations and 192 of them are not named The United States of America.
The Hill's Managing Editor sets high expectations for tonight's third and final presidential debate.