Obama Won This Battle, But Not the Whole Campaign: Impressions of the Second Pre-Election Debate in the US

“A blessing in disguise” — U.S. President Barack Obama can probably breathe easily, having won the second pre-election debate against his Republican opponent, Mitt Romney, on Tuesday. At the same time, however, the race is far from over and its outcome remains unclear.

According to the canons of political contests in the U.S., direct personal attacks on opponents are considered counterproductive. Voters don’t like that; the childhood playground rule, “it takes one to know one,” is in effect. Naturally, it is especially frustrating when the attacks are more forceful. This is probably why Obama conducted himself remarkably passively at the first round of debates two weeks ago, and unequivocally lost as a result.

This time, as everyone knows, he had nowhere to go. And this understanding essentially freed his hand, allowing him to strike back, if not fully, then nearly at full force. Throughout the duration of this match, he made the case that his opponent was saying things that were not true. Essentially, he constantly assured the voters (and the tens of millions of people from all countries who were watching the debate on television) that Republicans simply lie to them.

Of course, this was not unexpected, even for Romney himself. But all the same, to “take a hit” of this type from the current president of the country is remarkably difficult. The opposition leader tried to argue with both Obama and the debate moderator, CNN’s Candy Crowley, and also to counterattack, blaming the head of the government for failing to fulfill many of his previous pre-election promises. However, the smile which simply shone on his face in the first round now quickly faded, and then disappeared altogether, replaced with a glued-on, wry smirk. In his gaze there appeared a trapped, spiteful expression, which very much hurt him — even without that, he does not inspire much personal sympathy and is considered an insincere and unkind person.

Neither participant of this political duel stayed in his place; both constantly moved around the stage and, because of this, more than once strayed into each other’s “personal space.” At times, it seemed as if they were ready to move from verbal to physical attacks. However, Crowley later confirmed that she did not feel any sharp personal dislike from them for one another, and in fact the atmosphere was not so tense.

By content, the argument was completely predictable. The struggle was for the votes of the still undecided voters, especially women, and so the corresponding themes were emphasized. Romney depended on his experience in business and at every convenient opportunity promised Americans that he knew how to create enough jobs for them. Obama, naturally, gave similar assurances, pointing out that employment rates in the country are growing, although slowly. He also addressed specific women’s-rights concerns, such as the prevention and termination of pregnancy, in the context of the overall socio-economic problems of the country.

There was little discussion of foreign affairs, although one exception — the discussion of recent terrorist raids in Libya and the murder of the American Ambassador in that country — was dramatic and memorable to all. The Republicans were considered to have won on that theme, because it gave them the chance to blame the current administration for underestimating the terrorist threat and neglecting the security interests of their diplomats.

But when at last there was discussion on this, Romney failed to manage this opportunity. He argued over whether Obama had immediately described the events in Benghazi as a terrorist act. And although the Republican was basically correct, technically the White House described the incident as a terrorist act the very next day, so the president was the winner of that episode. He also gained more points by taking full responsibility for the security of American diplomats, indignantly rejecting doubts about the motivations for his actions and blaming his opponents for “politicizing” events that were tragic for the U.S.

Aside from what the debates covered, it is curious to consider what they did not cover. For example, at both rounds there was not even half a word about Romney’s Mormon beliefs, although many devout Americans are not likely to be indifferent on this topic.

It is also interesting that on Tuesday, up to the very end of the discussion, Obama was silent on his opponent’s recent public statements that nearly half the country’s population is freeloaders who don’t know how to independently take care of themselves and need government help. Clearly, Romney had to have some “homework” prepared to parry questions and accusations on this score. But he did not have to use it. The White House resident kept this card in reserve for his final word in the discussion, in which he had the second and the last turn to speak. The conclusion was effective.

But all in all, the last word in the pre-election race will come only on November 6, and it will belong to the American voters. They will lean heavily not on knowledge, but on faith; according to independent observers and the press, the promises and assurances of both candidates leave much to be desired. For example, Ezra Klein, a blogger for the Washington Post who follows the elections, wrote on this topic: “Romney can tell you exactly what he wants to do, but barely a word about how he’ll do it. Obama can’t describe what he wants to achieve, but he can tell you everything about how he’ll get it done. It’s a campaign without real policies against a campaign lacking a clear vision.”