[Marxism] The Third Debate

["Joaquin Bustelo" <jbustelo@xxxxxxxxx>]

        Not sure what the instapundit gasbags on TV are going to say about
the just-concluded debate. Scoring the debate on the basis of the six
subjects posed (if I counted right), with ten points assigned for each,  and
being extremely generous, I'd say Obama scored in the mid-to-high 20's, sat
27, McCain in the low 20's, say 23. 

        That's well below a failing grade for both, and that's even given
them (some) credit for scoring bourgeois points on the issues. 

        What was most striking is that on a day when Wall Street signaled
unequivocally that the U.S. economy is in deep doo-doo, even with all the
rescues and give-aways, here and elsewhere, neither had a program to address
it, nor even seemed to recognize that a program was needed to address it. 

        I suspect Obama will be judged the winner by the instant polls
because he has now a 7-8% advantage in the who would you vote for today
polls, and people tend to say "their guy" won, and because he seemed to be
smoother and more prepared. But I'd be surprised is the polls give him a
large margin of victory.

        However, the story is completely different when considered in the
context of the race for the white house. Looking at it in the context of the
campaign as a whole, I think the debate was an unmitigated catastrophe for
McCain at every level. 

        Obama addressed the "Ayers" and "Acorn" issues (distractions)
effectively, and McCain did not really try to rehabilitate them. 

        Worse, strictly from within a bourgeois framework, what people saw
was two perfectly respectable bourgeois candidates for President discussing
the small change differences between the bourgeois parties. Far from
presenting Obama as below the dignity of the presidency, the whole conduct
and tenor of the debate was such that it re-enforced the idea that Obama was
just as legitimate and qualified a potential president as McCain. The one
difference on this was McCain's not infrequent verbal stumbles and groping
for words.

        McCain needed, in essence, to bring into question whether Obama
should be up there debating him at all. That Obama is all sizzle and no
steak. All glitter and no substance. His attempt to do this --"praising"
Obama's oratory-- worked only to the extent that I think it might have
rehabilitated "straight talk" McCain a little bit with him recognizing one
of his opponents strong points. I don't think McCain succeeded at all in
communicating with those comments that behind Obama's verbal pyrotechnics
there was only hot air, except to the hard-core "kill him" Pailinite wing of
the Republican base. 

        And McCain's attempt to say that Obama was running the more
"negative" campaign I thought were downright counterproductive. Everyone
knows by this point that the central argument of McCain's campaign is that
Obama has neither the experience, temperament or judgment to be trusted with
the Oval Office. McCain would not say that to Obama's face, and the attempt
instead to portray Obama as being the one running a "character debate"
centered campaign based on your opponent's lack of "character" came across
as all the more ridiculous as a result.

        But the refusal by McCain to look Obama in the eye and call him
unqualified 

        Obama's low point was his refusal to address the nuclear power
issue. It stuck out like a sore thumb. McCain brought it up first, building
dozens of nukes, and Obama ducked and talked about Detroit and gas-efficient
cars. But McCain wasn't sharp enough to exploit this, and instead of
hammering Obama and re-enforcing the "character" attack by saying Obama
didn't talk about nuclear energy one way or another, and the reason is he is
unwilling to stand up to the environmental extremists in the Democratic
Party, McCain just never brought it up again. I followed McCain's campaign
(I had to, it was my job) eight years ago against Bush and I don't think
THAT McCain would have let such an opening go unnoticed or unexploited. 

        While the general public almost certainly didn't notice, I expect
that among the chattering and scribbling classes, the noticeable decline in
McCaine's acuity will inform a certain amount of commentary, even if it
turns out that most of us hacks are too polite, not to say conscious of how
the years have also affected us, to bring it up directly.

        Apart from the debate, as usual the bad news on Wall Street is good
news for Obama. No matter how much McCain proclaims the contrary, he IS the
candidate of the President's party. But worse, his central proposals are
inspired by the same ideological outlook. Cut taxes on big business and the
rich, and the benefits will trickle down.

        CNN has now joined RealClearPolitics in giving Obama an electoral
college majority, on the basis of Obama leads in state polls averaging
roughly 7% or more. And one or another "red" state (safe McCain) has become
pink (Montana and North Dakota, of all places). Some "pinks" have turned
tossup yellow (Missouri and Florida), and on yellow light (leaning Obama)
blue: Virginia.

        Pollster.com less stringent requirements (to me it looks like a poll
average 5% lead) now gives Obama 333 Electoral College Votes, with Obama
leading in tossup states with a total of 20 electoral votes. But
RealClearPolitics.com "no tossup" map now shows Obama with 364 Electoral
College votes to McCain's 174, officially --albeit barely-- in 2-to-1
"landslide" territory.

        Barring a catastrophic mistake or revelation about Obama, or some
cataclysmic external event that completely changes the context of the
contest, I think McCain's chances of winning after the debate go from
"unlikely" to "remote," and "almost impossible" isn't far behind.

Joaquin


________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: 
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40archives.econ.utah.edu