The third and final debate is over and the consensus among the so-called experts, is that President Obama, eked out the win.  I called it a draw, as neither candidate delivered a knockout performance.  Both men accomplished which they set out to do.  Obama, the great communicator, was able to get out his message because Romney, the new, softer candidate didn’t call out the President on Benghazi for example.  Romney succeeded in looking Presidential.  In fact, because he was less confrontational than the President it may have improved his image in the eyes of any undecided voters.  Foreign policy is not going to decide this election.  Most Americans couldn’t even find Afghanistan on a map.  It was however, interesting to hear the President’s take on his foreign policy achievements, of which there are few.  The President, may have improved our image around the world slightly, but he has no real, concrete successes to back that up.  He has not been a great friend to Israel as he contended and that’s just a fact.  His plan was to distance himself from Israel in an attempt to look unbiased to the Arab World.  What he doesn’t seem to understand, is that while he may have succeeded in doing that, the Arabs and the Israeli’s don’t respect weakness and that strategy has backfired.  He never did answer Romney on the letter signed by thirty-eight Democrats questioning his stance on Israel and worsening relations.  Then there’s Iran, North Korea, and China, but Romney did not challenge the President the way he should have.  He wanted to play it safe and avoid making any large gaffes, but the challenger must also be aggressive, if he is going to take the title.  I was amazed Romney didn’t come back at the President when they discussed his apology tour through the Middle East, which is exactly what it was.  The President bowed to the Saudi King.  I still have a difficult time understanding that and Romney should have called him on to the carpet for that.  What excuse could he have given other than he dropped a dollar and was picking it up.  There were two main problems with the debate 1) A debate on foreign policy should not have turned to the economy unless discussing outsourcing of jobs to China, for example and 2)  The debate focussed primarily on the Middle East but what about Europe, Pakistan and North Korea?  This was the fault of the moderator, Bob Schieffer, who was responsible for keeping things on track.  In the end, this election is all about the US economy and who is better equipped to put Americans back to work.  The answer to that questions depends on your political leanings.  One thing is certain, no one will remember this debate when he/she is stepping in to the voting booth on November 6th.