Governor George Bush has passed the foreign policy test in his second debate with Vice-President Al Gore, and has certainly helped his chances of being the next President. But it is still one of the closest presidential races in recent times.

Both contenders went into Wednesday night's debate deadlocked in the opinion polls, which have been bouncing every way since the Republican convention in early August. It will take another week to see how this debate has influenced voters, especially those in the "undecided" category.

The instant polls taken after the debate cannot be fully trusted but they all indicated Mr Bush was a clear winner, which elated him and his supporters. They will be conscious, however, that the same polls declared Mr Gore the winner after the first debate in Boston and that that was the beginning of his slide in the regular polls, as the post-debate commentary concentrated on criticism of his overbearing manner and exaggerations.

In that debate, Mr Bush had shown himself uncertain in his answers to the few questions on foreign policy where Mr Gore has far more experience. But Mr Bush got through the 90 minutes without any of the gaffes and verbal blunders to which he is prone. He also came across as more likeable in contrast to the loud sighing and grimacing by a heavily made-up Mr Gore which were a turn-off.

In other words, Mr Gore won on substance but Mr Bush won on style - and style is all-important in an American presidential election, as witnessed by the debates of Kennedy versus Nixon, Reagan versus Carter and Clinton versus Bush snr.

But in this latest debate, Mr Bush showed surprising fluency and ease in discussing foreign policy during 40 minutes. He covered the Balkans, Russia, Somalia, Haiti, East Timor, Rwanda, Iraq and, of course, the Middle East. On most of these areas he agreed with the Clinton administration and had a super-restrained Mr Gore nodding in agreement. At one stage, Mr Bush said the debate was becoming like a "love fest".

But Mr Bush made clear that he is less likely than Mr Gore to commit US forces to overseas operations unless there is a definite American vital interest involved. He was especially critical of what he called interventions to help "nation-building" such as in Haiti or the Balkans, from where he would withdraw US troops as soon as is feasible.

Mr Gore took issue with this approach, pointing out that "nationbuilding" was precisely what the US was engaged in during the post-second World War period in Europe and other areas. Mr Bush cited East Timor as the kind of US action which he approved of, where American logistic support was made available to Australian forces restoring peace in the area. He also cited the training of Nigerian troops as the right way for the US to intervene in African problems.

So it would be wrong to characterise Mr Bush's approach as isolationist but it obviously reflects the views of one of his mentors, retired Gen Colin Powell, whose caution in committing US troops to the Balkans exasperated the then UN ambassador, Madeleine Albright. If Mr Bush wins, Gen Powell is likely to succeed Dr Albright as Secretary of State.

Mr Bush was less comfortable when Mr Gore challenged his record in child health care in Texas, which ranks 49th among the 50 states. Mr Bush tried to twist this into Mr Gore, accusing him of being "hard-hearted" towards children, and reeled off the billions of dollars now being spent on making up for lost time. But Mr Gore made the point that it was not a question of Mr Bush's heart, but of his "priorities".

The two debated their differing views on gun control, the environment and education, but without giving any ground. Mr Gore made Mr Bush uncomfortable on whether he blocked a "hate crimes" Bill being passed in the Texas legislature following the murder of Mr James Byrd, a black man who was dragged to his death by three white men in a pick-up truck in 1998.

Mr Bush insisted there was an adequate "hate crimes" law in Texas and said, wrongly, that the three men had been convicted and sentenced to death and "it's going to be hard to punish them any worse after they get put to death". In fact, two of the men are awaiting execution and the third received life imprisonment.

The Bush campaign later apologised and said it was a "mistake" but the Gore campaign insisted that "Governor Bush made serious errors, including errors of life-and-death issues. Mr Bush needs to be held to the same exacting standards applied to Al Gore last week."

Mistakes and "embellishments" by Mr Gore have become a hot issue and are cited by the Bush campaign as casting doubt on his credibility. Not surprisingly, it was raised in the latest debate when the moderator asked Mr Bush if he believed "this is a serious issue that the voters should use in deciding which one of you two men to vote for on November 7th?"

Mr Bush at first answered humourously saying: "Well, we all make mistakes. I've been known to mangle a sill-a-bell or two myself." But he went on to single out claims by Mr Gore that have been shown to be false, and said that it is "important for the President to be credible with Congress" and with "foreign nations".

Mr Gore replied rather weakly that he got some details wrong in the first debate. "I'm sorry about that. And I'm going to try to do better." This was a very different Mr Gore from the first debate and from the man who savaged his opponent, Mr Bill Bradley, in the primary campaign. One commentator described him as "defanged".

But such a sudden change may have only increased the electorate's bafflement with the Vice-President, who has spent much of the past year reinventing himself to escape charges that he is "wooden", "boring", "arrogant". Which is the real Mr Gore is becoming a nagging question for the man who has been running for President since his first bid in 1988.

Americans are feeling that they now have a fairly accurate fix on Mr Bush, warts and all. He is not the "Bush-lite" lampooned on the chat shows, while he obviously does not have the high-level experience of his opponent. And he is just more likeable for an American electorate which finds the complex economic policies of Gore and Bush cancelling each other out.

After all, the "I like Ike" slogan helped to get the second World War general elected against the liberal intellectual, Mr Adlai Stevenson. But history doesn't always repeat itself.