(HOST) The first presidential campaign debate, scheduled for tonight in Oxford Mississippi, was supposed to deal with Foreign Policy. But, as commentator Barrie Dunsmore, a veteran diplomatic correspondent for ABC News, tells us this morning, America’s current economic crisis has cast a major shadow on that debate.
(DUNSMORE) When Senator John McCain announced Wednesday afternoon that he wanted the debate postponed: that he was suspending his campaign and going to Washington to push through the legislation that was going to save us all – his critics charged that he was "playing politics." Frankly, making that charge is akin to Captain Renault saying that he was "shocked" to find that gambling was going on in Rick’s Café in Casablanca. Of course he’s playing politics. What would you expect? We’re in the midst of a very close presidential election campaign in which everything the candidates do is the result of precise political calculation.
With or without McCain or Obama, sooner or later Congress and the Bush administration are going to reach a compromise on the economic bailout package – and there will be a debate on Foreign Policy.
Because of the historic, world-wide economic meltdown of recent days – that subject will rightly highlight the first debate because it has huge international and national security implications. Therefore, discussions about other foreign policy issues, such as the Iraq War, are likely to play second fiddle to economic matters.
Actually, the times when differences over foreign policy determined the outcome of the debates – and the election – are extremely rare. Even going back to the very first nationally televised debate – the one between John Kennedy and Richard Nixon – what made the difference was literally cosmetic. Those in the room, including moderator Howard K. Smith, thought that on substantive points Nixon had won. But Nixon had been ill. He was pale but refused to wear TV makeup and perspired heavily under the hot lights. Kennedy projected a youthful, robust and confident image. In short, Kennedy won because he looked better.
In 1992 President George Bush senior clearly knew more about foreign policy than Bill Clinton. But the Cold War had just ended, and people were more worried about the sinking economy than whose finger was on the nuclear trigger.
2008 is a very different year because the country is both at war – and having severe economic problems. I’m not saying that it won’t matter what each candidate says about these problems. But history tells us that these debates are won or lost according to voter’s perceptions and feelings about the candidates themselves. Obama has to come across as strong and decisive – but he can’t be angry because he doesn’t want to be seen as a militant black. McCain needs to reassure working class whites that he’s not just another Republican interested in cutting rich people’s taxes. The major question will be – who appears to be more credible?
The 2000 debates are remembered for Al Gore’s sighing too much and George W. Bush seeming like the nice guy to have a beer with. Considering events of the past eight years and all of the critical issues now at stake, let us profoundly hope that the debates this year will be decided on at least some matters of substance. But don’t bet on it.