Mr Bush has won the campaign, but Mr Gore should win the election

This has been the strangest of American election campaigns; the most exciting in 40 years in terms of the closeness of the contest, yet one in which both major candidates have utterly failed to capture the national imagination. The lead in the polls has changed hands half a dozen times since September and, even at this late stage, only the very bravest dare forecast the outcome.

This has been the strangest of American election campaigns; the most exciting in 40 years in terms of the closeness of the contest, yet one in which both major candidates have utterly failed to capture the national imagination. The lead in the polls has changed hands half a dozen times since September and, even at this late stage, only the very bravest dare forecast the outcome.

Amid the confusion, however, one thing is clear. Al Gore is overwhelmingly the best- qualified and best-equipped candidate to become the 43rd president of the USA.

Campaigning, alas, tends to bring out the worst in Mr Gore. As the standard-bearer of the incumbent party, he should have long since locked up this election. Yet his turgid style, his maddening tendency to condescension, and his craven unwillingness to depart from the script provided by his advisers have combined to squander the "peace and prosperity" factor that should have guaranteed victory.

It should be said, too, that his Republican opponent, George W Bush, has improved considerably as the campaign has progressed. Not only has he won the personality contest, a vital component of any American election, hands down; he has held his own in the debates, adroitly focused his attack on Mr Gore's weak points, and avoided the gaffes that everyone expected. In short, he has done enough to make a plausible president. But that does not mean he would be a good president.

His short attention span, his pervasive lack of curiosity, his general lightness of being, remain unnerving. He has mastered his lines, but all too often does not seem to understand them. On the domestic front, Mr Gore's ideas for using the massive budget surpluses ahead are far more convincing; his ideas on health care, education, and campaign-finance reform more clearly address the problems facing America. Gore-appointed justices in the Supreme Court would offer added protection against a social lurch to the right.

But these are matters for Americans; his position, however, as leader of what the French call the world's "hyperpower" is another matter. In terms of foreign policy, too, Mr Gore is clearly preferable.

With the exception, ironically, of George Bush Snr, the father of his opponent, he would come to office with a better grasp of international affairs than any president in modern times. By instinct, he is more interventionist than Bill Clinton, and probably less squeamish about risking US servicemen's lives in conflict. But nothing in his record suggests recklessness. He knows full well that a national missile defence risks triggering a fresh nuclear arms race. As a specialist on the environment, he is far more likely than Mr Bush to stand up to industry lobbies and make the US, the world's biggest polluter, take its international obligations seriously.

Mr Bush freely admits that he would rely on advisers. They are an indisputably reassuring bunch, led by Colin Powell, his likely Secretary of State, and Dick Cheney, his running mate and a former Secretary of Defence. But what if the advisers disagree? Again, we come back to Mr Bush's lack of depth. The Republican might have won the campaign. But Mr Gore deserves to win the election and the presidency.