That one

It has been proved before in this campaign that at some point, where the other side becomes rather desperate, vulnerable  or insecure, the elements of a ‘negative’ campaign have to rise up from under the carpet. To careful observes this is a sad news, for it is the insults and unpleasant language taking the stage, and merits fading away. However, those ascendancies and downfalls in terms of a debate level are inherent in politics, saddening, but always present.

This was also the pre-debate atmosphere last week before another showdown between presidential candidates in Nashville, Tennessee. Both camps exchanged rather ‘unfair’ in terms of courtesy remarks about respective candidates.  Polls indicated increasing, but still not decisive lead of Senator Barack Obama over John McCain, therefore both participants had relative benefits that could be gained from the debate. What thrilled many commentators was McCain’s well-known ability to debate in a town hall fashion, not to mention his insistence and encouragement posed on Obama to participate in such a debate earlier – unfortunately that did not meet Obama’s consent.

The debate especially due to its setting and configuration was in my view the most interesting of ALL to date. Questions posed to the candidates focused on new issues and helped a great deal to draw a more visible line separating both parties and their strategies. The issues under discussion were the same as previously, with heavy emphasis on the economy, which no doubt will play a decisive role until November 4th. Polls show that Americans in general are cautious in their assessments of governmental conduct towards resolving the crisis – and somewhat fear what the future would bring. What post-debate polls also indicate is that Obama in terms of economy won by a two-digit margin over McCain. Indeed, his insight in a situation of Americans throughout the United States was quite impressive. His strategy again, was linking McCain with the Bush administration, and profoundly contrasting it against his vision of America. Obama throughout two debates is extremely consistent on elaborating on his wide range of propositions and neglecting McCain’s remarks regarding his alleged incompetence, or what the Arizona senator recently referred to as ‘risk’. Silence these comments met, which to rock-solid democratic electorate could be deeply disturbing, disappointed his voters in the previous debate – this time, however standard Mccainian – ‘He doesn’t know’ was answered very craftily in a prudent, tame tone.

Senator McCain had a lot at stake in this debate. Polls were consistently in favor of his adversary, it is only the extent to which the lead is estimated , which makes his situation better or worse respectively. His famous capability to impress the crowd during the town hall debates ignited even further the expectations that were addressed to his performance. Indeed, the first few questions posed, he answered in a great fashion, his body language being more firm, straightforward, having a close verbal and physical contact with the audience. Obama did not obviously have his level of experience, which he demonstrated while answering first questions in the middle of the stage and gradually adjusting manner of responding to the audience afterwards. McCain however had to win this debate, to gain more points in the polls, and despite his strong overall image there have been visible signs of either condescension or a bit of uneasiness. It was easy to notice, he would never address Obama directly, focusing either on the audience or Tom Brokaw, never looking him in the eyes. It is hard to distinguish whether it was his desperation or a sense of superiority over his younger adversary when he addressed him using ‘that one’ – which to some observers was clearly impolite and should not have been used in the debate on the national level. In parallel to this – those words raised a rage of discussion in the media, and reached even Michelle Obama in her interview with Larry King – turning a long story to short – undoubtedly did not help him score the points that would make a difference his strategists sought.

If there would be a one thing to say about that debate that brought something new to the political knowledge of the electorate, it is foreign policy. The candidates, thanks to the audience had a chance to elaborate on their future foreign policy doctrines as presidents as well as approaches towards most challenging aspects of America’s current leadership in the world. John McCain referred to Theodore Roosevelt, while describing his view on America’s role and attitude towards the world. ‘Talking softly and carrying a big stick’ is a well known doctrine in terms of American foreign policy tradition. Question here is whether the history and Roosevelt’s views on America will be intertwined with McCain’s and whether they will play an essential part in his foreign policy. The big stick policy derived directly from the Roosevelt Corollary allowed the states as an actor in the international system to act solely in defense of its national interest, furthermore to intervene in domestic affairs [military invasion included] of other nations if proved incapable of maintaining their economic and political stability. Moreover, McCain’s comments (expressed in the debate) are not always soft – ‘seeing KGB in the eyes’ of Russia’s prime minister Vladimir Putin supports this point – for the same sort of imprudent comments were exchanged over the Atlantic during the Cold War – a war, which  Senator McCain does not wish to see revive. That approach may also mean further alienation of the United Nations, (for only the Security Council provides consent for the military intervention) therefore further reducing its importance in global relations, which was one of the calamities of the Bush administration.

Obama on the other hand spoke in a tone specifically clintonian or that of Woodrow Wilson – appealing to American values and to moral responsibility of the United States to  ensure and maintain peace in the world. McCain focused on that as well, though what was different between the two, was the concept of practical approach. Obama while discussing America’s position towards Russia and situation in Afghanistan pointed out the importance of including regional U.S. allies to pursue goals fulfilling both national interests –[‘Poles, Estonians, Lithuanians’ and the European Union] and American values – thereby being inclined to rather collective response to challenges facing the United States. Both candidates however made it clear, that they will act unilaterally, if necessary with force in case of major crisis related to  principal national interests (Israel’s position being one of them).
Who won? Again, it is very difficult to distinguish – however it is safe to admit – if this debate was to be McCain’s breakthrough– it certainly was not. Both candidates maintained their statue from previous debates, with campaign rapidly reaching its end, if that trend persists – factors other than debate performance – including negative campaign and mutual insults will play a larger role – sweeping away the most important – the merits .