On the Trail: Candidates fail to deliver a knockout blow

A tie is a situation where there is no real way to distinguish the winner from the loser. Oftentimes, ties can be likened to a boxing match in which neither side is able to deliver the big punch that wins the bout. The recent debates have had their share of sparring, but neither side really landed any great punches.

Many political pundits and campaign workers felt similarly about the candidates’ performances after the first presidential debate held on Sept. 26. Both candidates brought their A-game and neither made any major gaffes; however, neither made any significant momentum-changing statements either. Both looked presidential, yet neither instilled any more confidence in this nation’s government in solving the pending economic crisis.

Though the debate was originally meant to focus only on foreign policy matters, the crisis on Wall Street and the faltering Congressional bailout plan to save it demanded a change to the discussion topic. This is where Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) shone. Obama has strong poll numbers when it comes to who Americans trust more with the economy (a 15 point edge over McCain in most polls), and the reason for this confidence showed. Obama chastised the Bush administration for the recent debacle that occurred on Wall Street and connected Sen. McCain (R-Ariz.) to a policy of “more of the same” that would dig the nation into a deeper hole economically. Though McCain is visibly weaker in this particular topic of discussion, he did not back down. McCain combated by saying he had proposed regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac back in 2006 and that his economic policies included not putting millions of dollars into studying the DNA of bears and sending hundreds of billions of dollars a year in foreign aid to countries “who don’t like us very much.”

Unfortunately for Sen. Obama, the entire debate wasn’t devoted to domestic and economic issues but shifted toward foreign policy and national security. McCain did fairly well in discussing the economy and was prepared to dominate in his area of expertise. And dominate he did.

He painted Obama as “naïve” and “unprepared to lead” due to his promise to meet with leaders of rogue nations without any preconditions. McCain, according to many political pundits, succeeded in portraying Obama as a novice in dealing with global evildoers. McCain made it clear he is ready to lead on day one and “will not require any ‘on-the-job’ training” due to his decades of national service.

Obama, to his credit, was able to present a cohesive case for a difference in policy that includes restoring America’s global diplomatic standing. This stance deflected some of McCain’s stronger points. End of round one and the scorecards were tied up. Neither really gained a significant edge through the debate.

Less than a week later, there was another debate held: the one and only vice-presidential showdown. Expectations for the debate were interesting in that there were very little, if any, for Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK), who had performed poorly in nationally televised interviews the week before. Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.), who has plenty of experience but a tendency to come off as arrogant and condescending, was expected to demonstrate his expertise but keep his answers short so as not to sound like he was lecturing Palin. The debate itself focused on several different topic areas that covered a range of national, economic and international issues.

In the vice presidential debate, it was clear that Palin and Biden represent two clearly distinct roles for their respective campaigns: ‘outsider’ change and proven experience. Palin emphasizes her message of change and her portrayal as a “normal, Main Street” mother who is not affiliated with Washington politics. Biden, on the other hand, has a wealth of national and international policy experience that could prove valuable in the coming months as America responds to its problems.

The candidates are great examples of the basic issue the American electorate struggles with: we want someone who is not a “Washington politician” and at the same time want that person to bring a degree of Washington governmental experience with them. The reconciliation of these two ideals is what all national candidates strive for.

It was difficult to determine a winner for the VP debate. Biden definitely shined, as expected, through his knowledge of national and international affairs. Palin showed that she could emphasize her talking points and not falter on a big stage. Both candidates seemed to dodge the moderators’ questions at times. No real knockout blow to be found here either.

Now the voters wait and watch with anticipation as we get closer and closer to voting. Time has come for the candidates to ramp up their attacks and try to get the last punch in; it may determine who wins in 2008.