By Sabine Muscat

The second presidential debate was tailor-made for John McCain. But he blew it.

Translated By Ron Argentati

8 October 2008



Germany - Financial Times Deutschland - Original Article (German)

Here’s where John McCain is most comfortable: in the village square, in the town hall, in direct give-and-take with the voters. The second presidential debate was tailor-made for John McCain. But he blew it.

The conditions were ideal: no barriers separating John McCain and his audience, 80 undecided voters from Nashville, Tennessee. The candidate can move around here, allow his gestures and glances to communicate. Here, he could pat retired Navy Chief Terry Scherry on the shoulder and say, “Thank you, my friend,” – for his service to the country.

The “town hall” debate had to have been John McCain’s big night. The chance to reverse his sinking poll numbers. But the problem this evening was someone else moving around the audience convincing voters that he understood their problems. And in the end, a snap poll conducted by CNN showed Obama the victor with 54 percent for the Democrat, while McCain convinced only 30 percent.

Obama isn’t one to pat shoulders. When he answered the audience’s questions with a serious look and no-nonsense arguments, the law school professor in him awakened. He was the professor who took his students seriously, but also challenged them. According to many, Obama’s lecturing style was supposed to be his weakness. But the situation in the country has since become so serious that his weakness has become his strength. In these grave times, American voters don’t seem to be looking for someone to go have a beer with. They’re looking for someone who can help them make sense of the world.

Oliver Clark wanted to know how the $700 billion bailout plan for the financial industry recently passed by congress would help him. McCain emphasized his own role in plans to give taxpayers much needed relief and than attacked Obama, accusing him of accepting campaign funds from already heavily indebted Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

“Oliver, let me explain what the bailout plan means for you,” Obama said. When credit markets are paralyzed, it means that businesses can’t earn money. Then jobs are threatened, perhaps even the existence of the whole company. Obama’s lecture conveyed the feeling that one could understand the connections here, perhaps even solve the problem, even if it didn’t convey the empathy with which Bill Clinton defeated George H.W. Bush in 1992.

And Obama promised protection during uncertain times. The focus group of voters interviewed by conservative broadcaster Fox News after the debate found that McCain, with his call for lower taxes and less spending, had won the economy portion of the debate. But they crossed over to Obama’s side when he spoke of the right to general health care and not, as McCain did, of government’s responsibility to make private health insurance less expensive. They also apparently failed to note that McCain was diverging greatly from his pro-business credo in suggesting that, in order to help individuals, the government should buy up mortgages threatened with default in order to stabilize the market.

McCain appeared focused and engaged, his showing more convincing than in the first debate where he seemed erratic. But Obama also remained relaxed and to the point and countered McCain’s attacks. “We can’t afford any on-the-job-training!” McCain cried when the subject turned to foreign policy, and pointed a finger at his opponent. Obama, who didn’t address McCain’s charge that he was inexperienced in the first debate, responded to this accusation, attacking McCain for his “failed judgment” in acting as a cheerleader for the Iraq war. McCain countered by criticizing Obama’s timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, calling it a plan that would have troops leave Iraq in defeat rather than a return with honor.

Whoever had hoped to hear new arguments or witness emotional scenes that might allow a candidate to succeed or to fail will have been disappointed. If the world still looked as it did two weeks ago, they might have called this debate a draw. But the whirlpool of collapsing financial markets has given wings to the idea of regime change in the White House.

A Democrat who made no mistakes was automatically the winner.