Editorial: Biden, Ryan put on a partisan show

• Biden succeeded in stemming the bleeding.
• Ryan was substantive, intelligent and thoughtful.
• Nowhere were their differences more stark than on the issue of Medicare.

The question going into Thursday's debate between Vice President Biden and Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin was whether Biden would succeed in stemming some of the bleeding the Democratic ticket has sustained coming out of President Obama's poor showing last week in his debate with former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney.

It will take some time to sort out reactions and polls, but the instant reaction is that he might have. Biden was much feistier and less professorial than Obama had been, and scored points on issues ranging from Afghanistan to fiscal matters.

But Ryan, for his part, achieved a crucial goal of any non-incumbent vice presidential candidate in that he came across as substantive, intelligent and thoughtful.

It was for all immediate purposes a draw, nothing like like last week when virtually all the instant analysis saw an overwhelming Romney win. Partisans on both sides seemed pleased, and an instant CNN poll found Ryan winning 48%-44%, a statistical deadheat given the poll's plus or minus 5% margin of error.

But that does not mean the debate was lacking in information, substantive and subjective, that could influence voters' decisions.

The most fundamental observation is that both men are qualified for the office they seek and could take over the presidency if necessary, a consideration important to the younger, less experienced Ryan and a departure from the circumstances four years ago when Sarah Palin seemed hopelessly out of her depth.

Ryan, 42, demonstrated his mastery of domestic policy and economic issues, confidently arguing toe-to-toe with the 69-year-old Biden.

Much of the debate focused on foreign policy matters, however, with Biden generally having the edge, particularly in his forceful advocacy of bring American troops home from Afghanistan in 2014. He pounded home the administration's unequivocal commitment to turn over the war to Afghans by that date, while Ryan was left struggling to explain his ticket's more limited commitment to that date.

But, predictably, differences were not confined to foreign affairs. The two men offered starkly different visions on taxes, how to deal with the deficit and what the proper size and roll of government should be. Their differences give voters the benefit of a clear and crisp choice.

Biden, like Obama, takes generally liberal positions on social issues ranging from abortion to gay marriage, while Ryan is staunchly conservative. Biden preaches little change for benefit programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, while Ryan wants to remake the former and dramatically scale back the latter. Biden helped champion the 2010 health care overhaul, which Ryan wants to scrap.

Nowhere were their differences more stark than on the issue of Medicare. Biden attacked Ryan's plan to end the traditional program and have the government write checks to people to buy private insurance. Ryan fired back that Obama's health care overhaul took too much money out of the program for seniors. What neither of them was willing to say is that sacrifices will be needed no matter what approach is taken and who is elected president.

They also sparred over abortion rights, with Biden making a point that has gone largely unremarked during this campaign -- that the next president could determine the future of Roe v Wade through Supreme Court appointments.

None of this was surprising. And in any case, vice presidents and vice presidential debates rarely have a significant impact on voters. Only a tiny percentage of people polled say that the selection of a vice presidential candidate makes any difference. But in this case, at least voters can be assured that they have a choice of high quality candidates -- even if they are miles apart on major issues.