In the torrid wake of the third presidential debate, I pose (in awe) one question for undecided voters: what are you waiting for?! The previous two debates revealed policy stances (in so far as two minute speaking slots can summarize complex problems). Thanks to Schieffer's penetrating questions and McCain's exegesis to throw a knock-out, the third revealed character. So then, who won? And does it matter? Surely you have an opinion. Or a defense. Shall we discuss over coffer or tea? You decide... ok, then I will.
McCain's vociferous approach kept Obama on the defensive. Many analyses will give this tactical advantage to McCain, thereby projecting a passionate McCain pro-actively taking control of the debates. Obama strode in with the lead and didn't go for the kill, seeking to portray a calm, resolute confidence as a necessity in these tumultuous times. Voters are left to decide: the passionate, aggressive McCain or the steadfast, focused Obama. However, this is a Picasso depiction: good from far but far from good.
I was decided before the debate on policy; last night cemented my decision on personality. At the beginning of this campaign, I respected both candidates: Obama for his intelligence and potential, McCain for his dedication and integrity. In fact, I calmly concluded that this government would be in trustworthy hands regardless of the outcome. I am no longer so certain. The resulting race has revealed an increasingly competent and focused Obama and an increasingly petty and impotent McCain. The VP selection was a turning point. Biden is a long-term focused choice. He does not bring a surge of votes to the ticket; he brings post-election value in terms of experience and expertise. Palin brings nothing but votes. She is starkly unqualified for the position and was clearly picked to arouse a surge of voter motivation. I lost respect for McCain for selecting such an unqualified person for such a high position. It was a short-term focused choice that put election first, country second.
The third debate did little to change these trajectories. Obama tried to steer the debates to policy rather than personality, but McCain focused on the latter. I had not held McCain responsible for the many inappropriate and irrelevant accusations continuously hurled at Obama regarding Ayers and ACORN (Swiftboat anyone?), even as his cumbersome running mate disrespectfully tried to sow these tethered threads. A recent Politico cartoon labeled "Mountains and Mole Hills" hits the nail on the head. It depicts the media obsessively huddled around a group of mole hills labeled "Ayers, Wright and Keating," oblivious to the mountainous words "WAR, ECONOMY, JOBS and HEALTH CARE" looming in the background. (http://www.politico.com/wuerker/) Last night McCain drew himself into that cartoon. After blaming and chastising Obama for this race's negativity, he proceeded to use those very same tactics with no hint of irony or self-awareness. He would not drop Ayers and ACORN. Keep beating that dead horse old man; it reveals how out of touch you are. America has moved past these flimsy accusations; it's time you did the same. McCain was petty to link Obama to terrorism.
Obama's response was unflinchingly assured. His clear explanation of the limited relations highlighted the baseness of the accusations, capped off with this zinger: "I think the fact that this has become such an important part of your campaign... says more about your campaign that it says about me." That is the night in a nutshell. This was the debate's pattern: McCain attacks Obama, Obama's defense neutralizes the attack, occasionally revealing the desperation behind it. For example, McCain accused his opponent of condoning Rep. Lewis's remarks when in fact Obama's campaign (and later Lewis) immediately declared the remarks inappropriate. When McCain tagged Obama's suspicious votes on abortion and education, the democrat clearly explained how the votes were due to the bills' unjust clauses that McCain neglected to mention, suggesting McCain had either not done his homework or was mischievously distorting the reasoning. The democrat's adept counter-attacks occasionally won him points, particularly when illustrating how autism education would suffer from McCain's spending-freeze hatchet, highlighting the advantage of Obama's scalpel. McCain talked personality, Obama responded with policy.
McCain likewise had his strong moments, most memorably: "I am not President Bush. If you wanted to run against President Bush, you should have run four years ago." Very effective. Perhaps legitimate, but I wouldn't know because he preoccupied himself with railing Obama rather than explaining how he differs from Bush. He rightly criticized Obama's worrisome record of consistently towing the democratic party line while highlighting his own bipartisan successes. I respect McCain for repeatedly standing up to his party (immigration, campaign finance, etc.), but recently he has rallied around the most ill-repute of his party's orthodoxy. Unfortunately for McCain, foreign policy was not discussed. While Obama demonstrates an impressively nuanced understanding of this field--supposedly his disadvantage--his insistence on a rapid withdrawal timeline is shaky. Yes, his opposition to Iraq from the start was brave and prescient. But the main concern now is what must be done, not what should have been done. McCain staked his career on supporting the surge; its success credits his foresight. Let's hope Obama keeps this in mind if in office.
But the confident McCain of the past has not shown up in this campaign. Instead, we've seen an honorable man slouch to a jittery, petty curmudgeon. Obama's gazelle-like grace and his self-assured, focused approach is the kind of leadership the government needs in such perilous times. There is a paradoxical tragedy (or humor) in that if McCain loses, Bush will have effectively destroyed the careers of the two most respectable Republicans of the last two decades: McCain and Powell. But then again, you reap what you sow.
No comments:
Post a Comment