Presidential Debate #2: Who Won, John McCain or Barack Obama?

If Sen. John McCain had had his way on the debates, all of the Presidential debates would have been of the "Town Hall" format like the one America just witnessed, or slept through, as the case may be. As David Gergen of CNN, a veteran of both Republican and Democratic presidential politics said, this presidential debate was a rather nondescript affair.

In my view, neither John McCain or Barack Obama made any "game-changing" gaffes to hurt their campaigns. The closet thing to a gaffe was when Barack Obama made a remark about McCain suggesting Obama was "green behind the ears". Senator, one is either "green" as in inexperienced, or "wet behind the ears" which inplies the same. However, I don't see voters letting a little Bushism deciding their vote. In the post-debate anaysis, most of the pundits panned John McCain for his "that one" referral to Obama.

Alas, neither man scored any "zingers" which could define this increasingly nasty presidential election either. Like a football coach "sitting on a lead" to run out the clock , Barack Obama played it safe and stuck to his gameplan.

For his part, John McCain, who is clearly playing "catch-up", threw a few "Hail Mary" passes, most nowhere near the target, and ran the draw play on third and long. A Lot. With such a tepid response to trailing in all the polls with less than 30 days to go before election day, John McCain might as well punt, or have his "enforcer" Sarah Palin punt.

That's somewhat of a mixed metaphor, I suppose, as Sarah Palin constantly refers to herself as a "hockey Mom" and played basketball in school, but John McCain's seeming strategy of hiding behind Palin's skirt is a sure way to lose the election of Nov. 4.

So, with both John McCain and Barack Obama "playing it safe", who won the latest Presidential debate? America didn't win for sure, but by staying calm Barack Obama seemed "Presidential" while John McCain seemed erratic and scattershot in his attempts to undermine Obama's lead in the polls. McCain's attempts at humor went over like a turd in a punch bowl. The one thing many viewers may take away from McCain's performance is the comment about needing "hairplugs".

In my opinion, along with having the lead, Barack Obama played it safe due to taking hits from Sarah Palin and other GOP "hitmen" about the stage in Denver on which Obama accepted the Democratic nomination for President and his soaring rhetoric in the primaries. Obama's handlers must have stressed to their man the importance to appear "down to earth" and able to relate to the average "Joe Sixpack" as referred to several times in the Vice Presidential debate by Sarah Palin.

Whatever the reason both candidates played it safe, GOP pundit Alex Castellanos of CNN said McCain was the first guy to play the "four-corners" offense while behind, in a basketball reference, a tie or close McCain win in the debate clearly favors Barack Obama. I would give this debate to Obama by a close margin and the early polls agree, which is a huge edge for Obama.

The game is in the fourth quarter, "my friends" to borrow a phrase John McCain used at least 20 times in the 2nd Presidential debate. John McCain faces at least a 2 touchdown deficit, to use a football analogy. If the self-professed "maverick" doesn't condense his attacks on Obama to a few coherent talking points that resonate with independent voters, rahter than the scatter-shot approach he has been using, this race is over. On the one hand, John McCain tries to paint Barack Obama as naive and accomodating to foreign dictators, on the other hand as belicose and itching to invade Pakistan.

In this 2nd debate, McCain, who one moment claims to have Teddy Roosevelt as his "hero", the next moment it's Ronald Reagan, lectured Obama as the opposite of TR: "Teddy Roosevelt spoke softly and carried a big stick, Senator Obama talks loudly". Which is it Senator McCain? It reminds me of the 1992 election when George H.W. Bush would call Bill Clinton an "elitist" in one breath, then later imply Clinton was some backwater "Hillbilly" Huey Long. Kind of hard to be both, don't you think?

In any event, history teaches us that when Presidential candidates start talking about such tripe,they know they can't win by talking about the issues. Sometimes it works as in 1988, 2000 and 2004. Other times it does not, 1992 and '96,for example. With the economy in the toilet, 57% of those polled after last night's debate thought Obama would handle the economy better than the 36% favoring McCain, this looks very much like the 1992 campaign.

Then, as now, the GOP tried to win by flogging the Democrat as inexperienced and risky. Daddy Bush as the incumbent President was much more formidable than John McCain. It didn't work in '92 and unless Barack Obama commits a major blunder or the economy miraculously fixes itself in the next 4 weeks, John McCain's only hope is that people are lying to pollsters and won't go into the privacy of the voting booth and vote for a black man.

You may consider that "playing the race card", but race is still a reality in this race. if you don't think so you must be one of those persons who thinks that this recession is "mental" or that America is a "nation of whiners" as John McCain's economic advisor, Phil Gramm famously said.