Saying What Needed to Be Said.... Sort Of

Finally! The debates are done and we're finally free of these things at least until January 2009 when I'm sure the campaigning for the 2012 elections will begin. I shudder to consider that fact but it's probably what will happen given that this campaign for both parties has been going on since Ronald Reagan was still acting in Bonzo movies. Whether you are a fanatical politico or passive listener, one can't help but be interested in what's happening with this election simply because the results will no doubt have tremendous impact on all of us.

The repeated references to real-life Joe the Plumber (obviously not his real name) was something both John McCain and Barrack Obama latched onto many times during their final debate at Hofstra University in New York last night. At first it was like one of those classic political moments where a politician will make reference to someone regarding their plight and the story will relate to how the candidate will solve the problems plaguing the person. In this case however, Joe was used more like a tennis ball that was being whacked from McCain to Obama and back again. I figured that if the Vice Presidential debate drinking game had maximum drinks consumed for the use of the word "maverick" then this debate's maximum drinking phrase would have been "Joe". I kept tally and lost count after a couple of hundred times.

It seemed that McCain was hellbent on referencing Joe in order to show his not being out of touch with the common man though many people began to interpret the references later on as being gimmicky. Regardless, I think both candidates used the person as their own platform for launching into discussions as to what their plans were for the country. I'm just glad that Joe the Plumber wasn't referenced when the question of foreign policy was on the table. I for one dread such a prospect and though I know most politicians wouldn't make such a rash decision stranger things have happened. I remember just moments after the second plane hit the towers on 9/11, some other 'Joe' watching the television in our office with me commented that we ought to nuke China. Now granted that was a knee-jerk reaction but I think you understand what I'm saying.

And in terms of knee-jerk reactions, I don't think any debate this campaign has been as lively as this one turned out to be when the question of negative ads came up. The transformation of John McCain during those discussions was tremendous and I was stunned that he would choose to unload on those. Sure he may have repudiated every single statement made by his supporters but when Obama raised the point that some people at his rally's have shouted statements like "terrorist" and "kill him" (in reference to Obama himself) I don't think it's wrong of him to expect repudiation nor is it a knock against those attending the rally. I don't think it was ever implied by either candidate that the people making these blanket statements (wrongly I might add) represented every one of the supporters for either McCain or Obama but still, when your own running mate is stoking those fires, you better say something!

I think the best line of the night had to go to McCain when he made the statement to Obama that he (McCain) wasn't President Bush and that if he wanted to run against President Bush he should have run four years prior. It was a line that will undoubtedly go up next to Senator Lloyd Bentsen's "Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy" line from his debate with Dan Quayle during the 1988 Vice-Presidential debates. Isn't it eerie how twenty years later we're hearing similar lines being uttered. Perhaps it is truly a case of history repeating or at least proof that candidates just say what they are safe in saying. And that's my whole issue with these debates. I think party hardliners are going to support whichever party they are allied to no matter what. I know there are staunch supporters of McCain and Obama who are voting simply because they are the candidates that their party has chosen; regardless of whether they like or agree with them or not.

So then who are these debates for? I think mostly for the people who are undecided. If the last two Presidential elections have told us anything it's that every vote does count and it makes a tremendous difference in the end. Some elections in some states have been won with margins as close as a few hundred votes. Just think about that; that's not many more people than may be working in your office building. And I think what these swing voters were hoping to do was put up a strong enough case for their Presidency to convince people that they had a plan and were well-versed in the role to have an end goal in mind. For once, the candidates seemed to break out of their practiced talking points mode and answer honestly but they didn't stray so far. I think what may end up hurting McCain in the eyes of many (and many pundits agree) is that McCain seemed to hem and haw quite a lot and was angry and harsh at many points during the debate. Maybe it was interpretation but the reality comes to the fore in such cases. Did they say what they had to say? Sort of. Did they convince those still on the fence? We'll find out in three weeks.