The most telling moment in the 2004 presidential campaign came during President George W. Bush's town hall debate with Sen. John Kerry in St. Louis. After a questioner asked Bush to list three mistakes he had made during his first term, the president, after a long pause, could think of none, except perhaps some regrettable appointments.

Even Bush's most ardent supporters can think of a few mistakes that he and the people under his command have made since he took office in 2001 - the assertion in his 2003 State of the Union address that Iraq's Saddam Hussein was about to acquire nuclear weapons, for example, or his since-disproved assertions that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and planned to use them against U.S. targets.

Successful American presidents admit their mistakes, tacitly, if not openly, and move on. Successful presidents understand that admitting mistakes allows the American people to understand the foreign and domestic policy adjustments that inevitably occur during the course of a presidential term. Successful presidents are agile-minded enough to navigate the ambiguities that stem from the world's cultural and economic complexities.

If President Bush had the capacity to be such a president, there would be reason to hope that during a second term, U.S. forces would gain sufficient control of Iraq to effect a less bloody, even peaceful transition to self-rule. There would be reason to hope for a sharper focus in the prosecution of the war on terrorism at home and abroad. There would be reason to hope for an end to the federal government's fiscal hemorrhaging and a more reasoned approach to domestic policy. If he had that capacity, we would urge his re-election.

But Bush seems really to believe that every move he has made as president has been perfect. As a result, the policy adjustments he makes are often bewildering, even contradictory. His certainty he is right when so much has clearly gone wrong explains the malaise that most Americans, including many who voted for him in 2000, are feeling these days.

Bush's challenger for the presidency, John Kerry, has flaws of his own. But as president of the United States, Kerry would bring to the Oval Office the humility necessary to understanding when he has erred and the agility of mind necessary to making adjustments. If American voters give him the chance to put those assets to work, as they should, things will go better abroad, especially in Iraq, and at home.

Against the backdrop of frantic, even fantastic, attacks on his character from the president and his supporters this past summer and fall, Kerry has built a persuasive case that he can correct the president's egregious mistakes in Iraq and in prosecuting the war on terrorism. Rightly decrying the nation's Iraq adventure as a wasteful, bloody distraction from the war on terror, Kerry would assign enough U.S. troops to the occupation to secure Iraq and its borders, while enlisting broader, more significant international cooperation in setting up a legitimate government and rebuilding the country.

Kerry would correct the Bush administration's mistakes in not adequately securing Charleston and other U.S. ports against terrorist incursions, while more vigorously securing nuclear stockpiles abroad - a critical task that the administration also has handled poorly. Despite the president's often-derisive assertions to the contrary, President Kerry could prosecute the hunt for Osama bin Laden and the ongoing quest to extinguish terrorism around the globe more effectively than Bush. We have no doubt that Kerry understands the magnitude of this challenge as well as, if not better than, Bush does.

If not for his unfortunate propensity to promise programs and middle-class tax cuts that he probably couldn't pay for as president, Kerry would be the superior choice to take charge of domestic policy as well. But he at least understands that Bush and the Republican Congress irresponsibly have run up the national debt, and that this problem casts a pall over the private side of the U.S. economy.

Honest, fiscally aware people can disagree over how large a deficit the American economy safely can handle, as a percentage of gross domestic product. But Kerry rightly criticizes Bush and congressional Republicans for giving away too much of the federal tax base in the form of tax cuts while spending borrowed money like drunken sailors.

Bush, like any president, has a responsibility to use his veto powers to keep congressional spending in check. But he has failed to veto a single appropriations bill. And he has done nothing to signal the markets that he intends to tackle this problem during a second term - which goes a long way toward explaining why the markets remain lackluster as the recovery, especially job growth, remains stuck in second gear.

Kerry, at least, would exhort Congress to raise revenue by repealing some of the tax cuts passed on Bush's watch. That would constitute a better start on tackling the deficit than relying, as Bush does, on wildly unrealistic projections of economic growth that said tax cuts supposedly will unleash. The economy can't take off until the federal government shows private-side decision makers that it has the will to rein in spending and improve federal revenues. Kerry seems likelier than Bush to come to this realization near term - and to act on it.

Kerry is far from perfect, and his lack of down-home appeal can be off-putting, just as his detractors say. But far better than Bush, he has demonstrated that he understands the daunting challenges America faces in the next four years. For that reason, he receives The Sun News recommendation.