The second presidential debate – squabbling while Rome burns

I think that was a draw.

But watching these Obama-McCain debates, I keep find myself having to make two judgements. First, what do I personally think of what the candidates are saying? And second, what do I think the voters might think?

 On the substance, I think the only new thing that we learned was McCain’s proposal that the US government step in and buy all bad home loans and renegotiate them on more favourable conditions. This is such a large proposal with such mind-boggling implications that I find it difficult to get my head around it, at this early hour of the morning. But a couple of questions strike me, initially. First, how is this compatible with his proposal to freeze government spending? Second, what if the value of somebody’s house has fallen – which would be true for almost all homeowners in the US – but their mortgage is not ruinous enough to qualify for this government programme? Wouldn’t somebody like that be fairly irritated to see the government riding to the rescue of neighbours – who had made particularly reckless financial decisions?

Still, at this juncture, the key question is not whether McCain’s proposal makes sense – but whether it appeals to voters?Although both candidates talked gravely about the economic crisis, I dont think either of them exactly took ownership of the issue.

The main change from the first debate was in tone. McCain – as promised – was more aggressive. It’s possible that he will have raised damaging questions in voters minds, by associating Obama with Fannie and Freddie (our discredited friends) and with taxing small businesses. But I gather that the voter-meters – which gauge voters’ responses, as the candidates are speaking -stayed pretty flat, when McCain went on the offensive. He did better, when he made positive proposals. Certainly, Obama remained unflustered and I didn’t think McCain ever really got under his skin.

Since neither candidate scored a knock-out debating point, I think a lot will depend on the atmospherics of the debate. Personally, I rather like Obama’s cool and relaxed style – and I think it makes him look presidential. But, at a time like this, I think he could probably have done with some Clintonesque emoting, which might have allowed him to connect with some of the voters in the hall – and therefore on television. McCain was a slighly odd mix of avuncular and aggressive. He paced around a lot. I thought he looked a little old. But then again, he is a little old. I’m told that actuarial tables tell us that there is a one in six chance that he will die in the next four years. Anyone for President Palin?

The World

with Gideon Rachman

About this blog About Gideon Blog guide
Gideon Rachman and his FT colleagues debate international affairs. Read more on the authors.

Gideon became chief foreign affairs columnist for the Financial Times in July 2006. He joined the FT after a 15-year career at The Economist, which included spells as a foreign correspondent in Brussels, Washington and Bangkok. He also edited The Economist’s business and Asia sections.

His particular interests include American foreign policy, the European Union and globalisation
To comment, please register for free with FT.com and read our policy on submitting comments.

All posts are published in UK time.

Contact gideon.rachman@ft.com about The World blog.

See the full list of FT blogs.

FT World News page

Read FT world news coverage from our network of international correspondents.

The FT’s Brussels blog

For views and opinions on the European Union from Peter Spiegel, Joshua Chaffin, Alex Barker and Stanley Pignal, follow the FT's Brussels blog here.

Tags

The blog day by day

« Sep Nov »October 2008
M T W T F S S
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031