Bayonets vs Binders, Obama Romney Final Debate

From a shocking first debate (due to Obama's unexpectedly poor performance) to a relieving second debate (which I found rather balanced in terms of the candidate's performance, but at least Obama was back on track), via a entertaining interlude (Biden-Ryan), the third and final debate between Obama and Romney was, well, rather bland. The candidates were clearly tired. The messaging was repetitive (fair enough, it strategically should be). And the topic of foreign policy was, well, as a friend on Facebook posted, dealt with at around Wikipedia level.

I'm a foreign policy person. I studied international relations, and have worked in security studies and international development for most of my career. I know that diplomacy involves subtle, detailed nuances that can make a world (or a war) of a difference. I know that the Middle East is one of the most complex, long-term political, religious and military muddles possible.

But I felt that both candidates radiated a "why on earth do we need to bother" aura on this topic. They both tried to draw a connection to what US voters are likely to vote on - their economy. During the last ten minutes of the (1.5 hour) debate, foreign policy was dropped from the agenda. It felt like they were in their exhaustion trying to make sure that the memorized list of countries to mention would include all the important, relevant, and even exotic ones.

The press focused on Obama's statement about "bayonets and horses", just as after the last debate, they picked up on Romney's "binders full of women". Will these be the statements that the election campaign will be remembered by? Where was the message, where was the mission, where were those ideals?

Maybe I'm also tired after all of these debates. It's time to vote. Here is my symbolic vote for Obama.