OBAMA WINS BIG OVER MCCAIN IN TWO DEBATES

Now, we know that in war or in a shoot-out in an “OK Coral” movie, the person who blinks first loses, because your opponent pulls out his gun and shoots you squarely on your temple.  And that’s exactly what happened in that high-stakes brinksmanship that Senator McCain orchestrated.  McCain, a war hero, who should have known better to issue a challenge to a much more accurate and younger quick draw, lost badly and got it on his temple.

Letter to Africa

I could understand people scratching their heads and asking whether I have gone cooky, and asking what two debates.  “We thought there has only been one debate, which occurred yesterday Friday, the 26th of September,” to that question I would say yes, you are absolutely right.  But I want to take you through the scenario of why I said two debates.

Earlier on Wednesday morning, September 24, (actually I read the results at 12 midnight when Washington Post changes to the next day’s frontpage) an ABC News/Washington Post poll found that Obama had jumped to an statistically significant increase in poll numbers over John McCain, which found that Obama led 52% to 43%.  This was a stunning development, because in their earlier poll, McCain led 49-47. 

Just before 3 pm that same day, Senator John McCain stunned the world when he announced that he was suspending his campaign temporarily to focus his attention on the financial crisis crippling the American economy.  He said he was returning to Washington, DC, to participate in the discussions his congressional colleagues, Republicans and Democrats, were having on the bailout proposed by the George Bush administration, a bailout that Treasury Secretary Paulson had put at a staggering $700 billion.  McCain also said that the first debate on Friday, September 26, at the University of Mississippi, Oxford, that was supposed to focus on foreign policy, should also be postponed. 

“America this week faces an historic crisis in our financial system,” McCain said in his announcement.  “If we do not act, every corner of our country will be impacted.  We cannot allow this to happen.” He then called on the president to convene a meeting with the leadership from both houses of Congress, including Senator Obama and himself.  “It is time for both parties to come together to solve this problem,” he said.

Obama felt being blindsided again by McCain and another stunt, but recovered quickly to issue a statement that such disruptive measures were unnecessary. 

“Presidents,” Obama said, “are going to have to deal with more than one thing at a time.  It’s not necessary for us to think that we can only do one thing and suspend everything else.” The Obama campaign went further to libel McCain’s theatrics a “stunt.” “So make no mistake.  John McCain did not “suspend” his camapaign.  He just turned a national crisis into an occasion to promote his camapgin.  It’s become just another political stunt, aimed more at shoring up the Senator’s political fortunes than the nation’s economy.  And it does nothing to help advance this criticial legislation to protect the American people during this time of economic crisis.”

President Bush did invite both presidential candidates to Washington, DC, as well as Congressional leaders. Democratic Congressional leaders cried foul about McCain trying to meddle in the face of the bi-partisanship they had already reached on principles regarding the bailout.  After the meeting at the White House, the two parties came out more divided than when they went in, and Congressional Democrats blamed the fallout on McCain.

Now, we know that in war or in a shoot-out in an “OK Coral” movie, the person who blinks first loses, because your opponent pulls out his gun and shoots you squarely on your temple.  And that’s exactly what happened in that high-stakes brinksmanship that Senator McCain orchestrated.  McCain, a war hero, who should have known better to issue a challenge to a much more accurate and younger quick draw, lost badly and got it on his temple. 

Just to recap, he said he was temporarily suspending his campaign, which really didn’t happen since his ads attacking Obama were still up in the air, his surrogates were on tv still attacking Obama, and he was busy still taping interviews in New York.  Even David Letterman called him out on his deception.

The above brings us to the second event, the Debate that occurred yesterday September 26, at the University of Mississippi in Oxford, Mississippi.  Pundits have dwelled too much on the anger and grumpiness shown by McCain, attributing it to contemptuousness and disdainfulness towards Obama.  I would say that most of these pundits missed the salient issue here: if you pulled the kind of stunt two days before the debate and lost badly, wouldn’t you be angry and grumpy? 

First of all, McCain said he was temporarily suspending his campaign, it didn’t happen; he said he was rushing back to Washington, DC to take charge of the discussions on the bailout, it didn’t happen, on the contrary the right-wing conservatives of his party rebuffed him; the parties went into the White House thinking they had an agreement in principle about the bailout, but they came out more divided, and the blame was led on McCain’s shoulder; McCain had said he would not debate unless there was an agreement on the bailout, it didn’t happen.  He said he would not debate, but he was forced to scurry over to Oxford, Mississippi and face his nemesis.  As a gambler, he bet all his chips and he saw them cleaned out by Barack Obama.  As a rational individual, would you be happy to face the man who has just vanquished you big time?

You be the judge.  But the judge of public opinion has spoken, and Obama won the debate big time.  According to instant-polls immediately after the debate, on CNN watchers said Obama won by 51-38 percent; on CBS News, it was 39-25 percent; even on anti-Obama Fox News, their poll of undecided voters conducted for them by a Republican pollster, found Obama winning the debate.

There is going to be all kinds spins, especially why, according to Fox News, Obama repeatedly said about eight times, that he agreed with his opponent, “John is right,” “You’re right.” I was spooked by those remarks by Obama, and I thought he was differing too much to McCain.  He also left unchallenged, McCain’s attempts to belittle his experience, by referring to Obama’s “naivete.” The question is why Obama didn’t respond to these assertions, which McCain made three times.  Why didn’t Obama come back with a rejoinder as to who was more naive, the person who voted for the war, and said American troops would be welcomed as victors.

Well, it is so easy for those of us in the outside during a boxing match between two heavyweight opponents.  We can easily see how our candidate could have landed this punch or that uppercut.  In the end, it is the end result that matters most and in the court of public opinion, Obama won big time. 

To comment on this article, please click here.