The irony of ironies: The Biden-Ryan debate was more about foreign policy than the economy and jobs. Yet another irony: Paul Ryan, an expert on all things fiscal, disclosed a much better knowledge base of foreign policy than anyone thought existed. Shows how smart and well-rounded he really is.

Mr. Ryan’s Benghazi slam, right out of the chute, won him the debate. This terrorist attack is going to be a huge presidential-race issue. Americans are furious at the Obama-Biden-Clinton stupidity and mismanagement surrounding the tragic Benghazi deaths. They are enraged at the Benghazi cover-up. Mr. Ryan accused Mr. Biden of malfeasance in every aspect of this tragedy. It was a tremendous body slam right from the start.

Vice President Biden misled everyone with a string of falsehoods. He said the administration did not have complete intelligence at the start of the crisis. We now know they did have sufficient intelligence to realize that the killing of Ambassador Stevens and three others had nothing to do with spontaneous reactions to a YouTube video, and that it was a planned al-Qaeda attack.

Then Mr. Biden denied that the State Department asked the White House for stronger Benghazi security and was turned down on several occasions. But we know this to be true from various sources. We even know that State Department officials saw the Benghazi attack in real time. These untruths will dog Mr. Biden on the campaign trail.

The Benghazi round clearly went to Mr. Ryan. Later in the debate, when the discussion turned to Afghanistan, Iran, and Syria, Mr. Ryan went toe-to-toe with Mr. Biden, the supposed foreign-policy expert. He was every bit Mr. Biden’s equal and more, which is one of the surprising outcomes of this debate. The confidence factor in young Paul Ryan will rise as a result.

On the economy, Mr. Biden adopted President Obama’s redistributionist, tax-the-rich, go-after-the-millionaires approach. Mr. Ryan, the free-market capitalist, pounded hard for Mitt Romney’s tax-reform plan, which would lower tax rates across-the-board, provide new incentives for growth, and put limits on special deductions in order to balance-out revenues.

A clear choice emerged: Mr. Biden is for a government-directed economy. He blathered on about a non-existent, $5 trillion Romney tax cut for the rich, which Mr. Ryan easily parried. Heck, even the Brookings institute has pulled back from that charge. Mr. Biden also proudly touted a $1 trillion tax hike on successful earners. Now there’s a great idea to solve the worst economic and jobs recovery in modern times.

Mr. Ryan, in contrast, came out for free-enterprise, rewarding success, and creating opportunity, growth, and jobs. He was the candidate for lower tax rates, increased take-home pay for the middle class, and incentivizing investment and risk-taking for successful entrepreneurs.

However, Mr. Ryan should have said what Mr. Romney said a week ago: There will be a strict dollar cap on special tax deductions, probably a $20,000 limit that will be even lower for top earners who get a marginal tax-rate cut. This would have been a good specific to include in the tax-reform argument. It’s a huge revenue-raiser, at lower tax rates.

On the other hand, Mr. Ryan echoed a key Mr. Romney point: Mr. Obama’s leadership failure. Mr. Obama failed last year to get a grand-design deal, as chronicled in Bob Woodward’s book, The Price of Politics. This year, Mr. Obama was too busy campaigning and appearing on daytime TV to hash something out with Speaker Boehner and the Republicans to avoid the recessionary fiscal tax cliff.

Mr. Ryan also emphasized Mr. Romney’s successful bi-partisanship point: A Romney administration will be willing to reach across the aisle to get a grand-design package of spending reduction, pro-growth tax reform, and entitlement reform, exactly where Mr. Obama failed. Actually, I think the Romney bi-partisanship offer is big reason why the Romney-Ryan ticket is doing so well in the polls, particularly among undecideds and independents. These people want to see the parties work together to get these problems solved before America goes bankrupt and lapses into permanent, European-like stagflation.

Another key point: President Obama has yet to provide a real reason why he should be reelected, and Mr. Biden failed completely to construct one. What is Mr. Obama’s raison d’être for reelection? No one knows. Including Barack Obama.

Finally, there was Mr. Biden’s snarky smile. His demeanor during the debate was off-putting. It was like he was forcing his aggressiveness, attempting to make up for Mr. Obama’s lack of it a week ago. The fierce grins, the Ryan put-downs, the interruptions, the inappropriate laughter — it really hurt Mr. Biden.

Polls will show a Ryan victory in this debate. Perhaps Mr. Biden stopped the bleeding after the president got clocked in Denver and proceeded to chase Big Bird all over the country. Dumbest thing I’ve ever seen. The big point is this: Governor Romney’s march to the White House continues, and it was helped mightily by Paul Ryan on Thursday night.