Forget Barack Obama's acceptance speech for a moment - the Democrat who stole most of the thunder in Charlotte was John Kerry, the party's most articulate and knowledgeable expert on international relations.
Speaking to a rapt audience he jumped happily on the Republicans' claim that the US is much worse off under Obama than it was four years ago. Oh yes, continued the presidential hopeful of 2004, just ask Osama bin Laden if he feels the same way.
His stinging attack attracted cheers as Kerry rammed home the point that Obama has not been so dusty on the world stage as his opponents have claimed. As evidence he spoke of the beginning of the drawdown of US forces in Afghanistan, the neat unseating of Colonel Gaddafi without embroiling the US in Libya and the authorisation of the mission to take out the al-Qaeda leadership.
The polished intervention will boost Kerry's claims to replace Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State should Obama win a second term, but there was more to come.
Claiming that the Republican team of Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan were foreign policy tyros, Kerry accused them of outsourcing their policy-making to advisers who were little more than neo-conservatives of the same hue as those who advised the Bush administration.
For many in the audience this not only made stirring listening but it was a welcome change from endless discussions on the economy and other domestic issues. Foreign policy doesn't always get a look-in at party conferences. It also went some way to divert attention from a potential pitfall in the party's platform manifesto when it was discovered that it had failed to make any mention of Jerusalem as Israel's capital. Republicans joyfully pointed out that this indicated a less than caring attitude towards America's main ally in the Middle East but as the same document was also criticised for not mentioning God, the possibilities for rebuke were endless – as if the Israeli capital and the deity were one and the same thing.
Nevertheless Obama gave the order for the restitution of Jerusalem, fearful no doubt of the crucial Zionist vote being diverted to his political rival. This is a real fear for the Democrats and one that Romney wanted to exploit at his own party conference in Tampa, Florida where the Zionist vote is especially strong. It's no secret that Obama has a chilly relationship with Israel's prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu but that's more about personalities than policies. Common sense tells Obama that he has no option but to stand alongside the Israelis, whatever he thinks of their politics.
Apart from the fact that Obama is commendably even-handed in his attitudes towards the Palestinians – a leaning deplored by the Republicans – both presidential candidates have adopted remarkably similar policies towards Israel and the wider Middle East. True, the words are different but the meanings are not dissimilar. Whereas the Democrats have promised an "unshakable" commitment to guaranteeing Israeli security, the Republicans claim that their obligation will be "unequivocal".
There is other common ground. Both Obama and Romney insist that the Palestinian administration must learn to accept the fact of Israel's existence and both have been careful to avoid any precise requirements for the terms of a final peace settlement. On the other hand neither party manifesto has much to say on still smouldering issues such as Iraq and Somalia or the combustible problem of Syria. Kerry didn't even make any mention of the latter even though US interests are involved and will remain so if Obama is re-elected.
On balance, the foreign and defence policy tussle has been a win on points for Obama. In office, he has done enough to prove that as the US commander-in-chief he is a safe pair of hands who knows what he is doing whereas for all his late burst, Romney still gives the impression of playing catch-up. Kerry was not far off the mark when he made the point that now isn't the time to be outsourcing presidential responsibilities – a final telling jab at Romney and his right-wing foreign policy advisers.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article