John McCain, the old warrior, came to Oxford, Mississippi, on Friday to punch
out an opponent. Barack Obama, the former law professor, came to take part in a
conversation that he presumed would favorably showcase his elegance and
expertise.
That was the story of the first presidential debate at Ole Miss’ Gertrude Ford Center right
there, and it should have been prefigured by the way in which the previous week
had gone. On Wednesday, as we all subsequently learned, Democrat Obama reached
out to Republican McCain to see if the two might make a joint statement
concerning the ongoing bailout negotiations in Washington.
McCain’s response was to call a press conference in which
he made the shocker announcement that he intended to “suspend” campaigning,
return to Washington to do… whatever. And this could well mean he would miss
Friday night’s much-ballyhooed one-on-one down in Oxford. Meanwhile, he let it
be understood that Obama could follow him to Washington if he cared to.
In the sequel, we all saw the photo-op shots of McCain at the conference table
three seats to the right of President Bush, and, sure enough, there was Obama
three seats to the left. God only knows what either of them contributed to a
dialogue that, as of Sunday morning, had not yet come to an agreement.
Meanwhile, down in Oxford, preparations for the debate went
on feverishly if somewhat nervously, in the knowledge that Obama would
definitely be down for something, — a “town hall” meeting if nothing else. And
when, on Friday morning, McCain finally allowed as how he’d be there, too, all
seemed well.
If the Arizona senator had wanted center stage, he’d got
it. For better or for worse. Had his off again/on again attitude toward the
debate stamped him as a waffler? Or would he know how to use the spotlight, now
that it was turned fully on himself?
IN EITHER CASE, the initiative was McCain’s. If it hadn’t
been obvious before, it certainly was when–only minutes before showtime — Cindy
McCain, wife of the Republican candidate, came onstage for an unexpected cameo
just when Janet Brown, executive director of the Commission for Presidential
Debates was getting ready to say her lines in the ritual dog-and-pony show that
preceded the debate proper.
It was obvious in the candidates’ characteristic tics as
the debate wore on. As one of the network summaries would note, McCain uttered
countless variations on the phrase “Senator Obama doesn’t understand…” meanwhile
looking stonily ahead. Obama’s refrain, on the other hand, was agreeable in
the extreme – consisting of frequent nods of the head as his adversary talked,
followed by equivocations beginning, “Senator McCain [alternately “John”] is
right….”
All of this came off unpredictably. In the immediate
aftermath, a reporter for the BBC, a certifiably neutral source, would begin his
TV stand-up with these words: “”Whatever the spin doctors will say, the reality
is that Barack Obama has always found it hard to match his debating skills with
his inspiring oratory. John McCain was far more aggressive on foreign policy. He
made his experience count.”
And there was this, from Rhodes College professor (and
sometime blogger) Michael Nelson, a longtime pol-watcher who has written several
books on political campaigns and the presidency: “McCain didn’t look like an
old man!” Meaning that he came off as seasoned rather than doddering.
But the first poll soundings, like one from CBS giving
Obama a 14-point edge among uncommitted voter and another from CNN showing a
51-38 percent differential, seemed clearly to lean toward the Democrat.
Some key to this disconjunction may lie in the curve thrown
the two aspirants right off the bat by moderator Jim Lehrer, who announced:
“Tonight’s [debate] will primarily be about foreign policy and national
security, which, by definition, includes the global financial crisis….”
AS TRANSLATED into what actually ensued, what the meant was
that issues relating to “foreign policy and national security” weren’t touched,
even tangentially, until some thirty minutes into the hour-and-a-half
proceedings when Lehrer happened to ask a more or less pro forma question about
the economic impact of spending on the Iraq war.
In the half hour preceding that foot-in-the-door on what
had been billed as a foreign policy debate, McCain and Obama traded licks on the
ongoing financial crisis, focusing rather more on their standard economic
boilerplate than on the current bailout crisis itself.
Thus, each of them deplored the moment in the roundest
terms. Obama: “We are at a defining moment in our history. Our nation is
involved in two wars, and we are going through the worst financial crisis since
the Great Depression.” McCain: “We’re not talking about failure of institutions
on Wall Street. We’re talking about failures on Main Street, and people who will
lose their jobs, and their credits, and their homes….”
Each of them touted his own health-care and energy
proposals and deplored his opponent’s. Obama got to talk about his proposed
middle-class tax cuts to benefit “95 percent ” of the public (the percentage who
consider themselves “middle class,” it would appear) and his determination to
close tax loopholes for the wealthiest few. McCain got to complain about
earmarks and porkbarrel spending and what he said was the second highest rate of
business tax in the world.
As for the issue of the moment – the threatened insolvency
of the nation’s economic structure, both candidates claimed to have done
something substantial to fix things.
Obama talked about the four general propositions he had
proposed as add-ons to the $700
billion bailout package: enhanced oversight, a means by which taxpayers might
recoup their investment, a lid on “golden parachutes” for CEOs, and help for
homeowners on foreclosures.
McCain made the case for the efficacy of his own bailout –
from the campaign trail. “And yes, I went back to Washington, and I met with my
Republicans in the House of Representatives. And they weren’t part of the
negotiations, and I understand that. And it was the House Republicans that
decided that they would be part of the solution to this problem.”
Whatever.
In any case, when asked point-blank by Lehrer, both
candidates said they were inclined to vote for the emerging bailout deal.
ONCE A CLEAN TRANSITION was made into foreign policy
discussion per se, McCain, whose own military background is so well known,
seemed to feel himself on more confident ground. “I have the ability and the
knowledge and the background to make the right judgments, to keep this country
safe and secure,” he said. “I don’t think I need any on-the-job training. I’m
ready to go at it right now.”
Obama was more tentative, to the point that some of his
hesitations were built into the transcripts that were handed out irregularly to
the attendant media: “And part of what we need to do, what the next president
has to do – and this is part of our judgment, this is part of how we’re going to
keep America safe – is to – to send a message to the world that we are going to
invest in issues like education we are going to invest in issues that – that
relate to how ordinary people are able to live out their dreams.”
There were moments of heat, moments of light, and some nice
extended dialogues on policy, though – largely at McCain’s insistence – far too
much time was devoted to the pluses and minuses of The Surge, and to the
Republican candidate’s repeated praise of the “great general” David Petraeus,
current commander of American forces in Iraq.
EACH MAN earned style points, and these may have benefited
McCain disproportionately, since much of what he had said and done in recent
weeks (notoriously his pronouncement, early in the bailout crisis, that the
American economy was “fundamentally sound”) had seemed curiously off point,
arousing speculation here and there (and anxiety among his supporters)
concerning his age and fitness.
Early in the debate, when Lehrer, playing bad-boy
moderator, commanded Obama to direct a rather professorial and abstract
criticism to McCain directly, the Arizona senator managed a wry grin and said, “Are
you afraid I couldn’t hear him?” When Obama chided McCain for not promising an
audience to the prime minister of Spain, the following exchange ensued:
Obama: If we can’t meet
with our friends, I don’t know how we’re going to lead the world in terms of
dealing with critical issues like terrorism.McCain: I’m not going to set the White House visitors schedule before I’m
president of the United States. I don’t even have a seal.
Even more impressively, McCain seemed to have an all-purpose instant recall when
he needed it. At one point, after Lehrer had cited a platitude from former
president Dwight Eisenhower, McCain responded simultaneously with an apt
reference to letters Ike had written as commander of the Allied Expeditionary
Force on the eve of D-Day in World War Two.
Sometimes, however, McCain
over-played his hand. When he chastised Obama for talking out loud about the
prospect of invading Pakistan, Obama was quick to remind him of a famous
indiscretion of his own: “Coming from you, who, you know, in the past has
threatened extinction for North Korea and, you know, sung songs about bombing
Iran [“Bomb, Bomb, Bomb/ Bomb, Bomb Iran!,” to the tune of the old rocker,
“Barbara Ann”], I don’t know, you know, how credible that is.”
In the end, neither man gained a
decisive victory, nor did either commit an error so serious as to undermine his
chances. The debate might well be regarded as a draw, though even before the
next two presidential forums this Thursday’s debate in St. Louis between
vice-presidential candidates Sarah Palin and Joe Biden could tilt things one way
or another.
Only one thing is surefire about
that one: Win, lose, or draw for Republican Palin, a resurgent Tina Fey and
Saturday Night Live will have new fodder for two nights later.
That’s if the congressional
version of Deal or No Deal? doesn’t end in disaster between now and then.
In which case – literally – all bets are off.
See also “Behind the Scenes: What the Public Didn’t Get to See About the Debate.” and “Oxford turns the Presidential Debate into a Political, er, Party.”
