First Debate Winner: U.S.

The presidential debate was the best I've seen. Both candidates articulated their positions clearly and with confidence. Partisans of each candidate will feel that the positions they advocate were presented well. Notwithstanding all the punditry about "winning" and "losing" debates, what each candidate "has to do" to advance his campaign, the two candidates together did something that rarely happens: they laid out their positions and differences for the people to see what they are, and let them decide.

McCain had the steeper task, because he advocates accepting the challenges of leadership, and many citizens see the actual losses more easily than the potential risks and advantages. McCain gave the American people and the world a lecture about Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan that deprived us of the comfort of thinking that we can maintain our safety without work and risk. He did not make false promises, but outlined the seriousness of the problems and his determination to confront them and his ability to do so.

Americans heard this point of view, and they could see that the man explaining it did not just find it in a book, but developed it through extensive experience in government. They saw a real statesman explain what statesmanship is for. I don't think the American voters have ever seen this in a presidential debate, so they might not know what to make of it. They'll have to choose whether it's what they want, but at least McCain has given them a chance to check it out. In that regard, McCain did great. He's a very impressive man.

Obama performed theatrically better than I expected him to. Now that he's been running for president for almost two years, Obama's begun to believe that the phrases he repeats are actually "positions" he thought up himself. To anyone who didn't know better, he sounded and looked like a leader. Those who already supported Obama and his positions probably felt entirely encouraged (except maybe when he mentioned missile defense), and many of those who supported his positions but weren't sure about the man probably feel more secure with him now.

The ultimate effect of the debate will not be in the instantaneous evaluations, but in the material it provides for continuing discussion in the campaign. Of the two candidates I think that McCain was the only one who could change minds--which I hasten to add is not the same thing as winning votes. McCain has changed even Obama's mind on a number of points, to go from what Obama himself said. Any conscientious citizens watching the debate could not fail to see that McCain was more thoughtful and knowledgeable about American statesmanship than they are themselves, and more thoughtful and knowledgeable than Obama; and that even someone who disagreed with McCain's positions could and did learn something from him. McCain won more attention. Now as the campaign continues he will have to work to persuade the voters whose attention he has gotten. (Ads attacking Obama's sex-ed bill in the Illinois legislature will squander the attention that McCain has focused upon his own leadership.)

Obama won some respect, but he didn't win attention, and he didn't demand it. Obama said things about taxation, spending, and diplomacy that you like if you agree with them, and if you don't believe too much intellectual work is necessary to reach the right conclusion. No minds can be changed by this.

Ultimately it is the voters' wisdom that will be tested in the election. The Democratic ticket has many advantages over the Republican; but virtually none of these advantages has to do with the candidates. Dissatisfaction with the economy and the Bush administration have put the Republicans at a huge handicap. But the Democrats have been unable to exploit it decisively, because they nominated a man who as a presidential candidate does not stand comparison to the Republican nominee. If Obama could not rely upon the voters' assumption, or their wish to believe, that they are suffering from Republican problems that Obama can fix just because he's a Democrat, his presence on a debate platform with John McCain would make even Democrats cringe. Barack Obama is no John McCain.

In his conclusion Obama talked about the diminished image of America in the world. I think that viewers of the debate abroad saw a country choosing its new president from between two men both of whom would be considered very highly qualified to lead the viewer's own nation. Indeed, many viewers will have had to admit--however reluctantly--that both candidates are far superior to the leaders they now have (and that would include many viewers in the U.S.).

Viewers abroad will also have seen--I know this sounds like elementary school civics--a open exchange of competing perspectives conducted with civility and intellectual respect. The debate displayed America very well. Obama contributed to that display, but he didn't have to get elected to do it, so in that important sense the debate as a whole undermined his final point about how an Obama presidency would improve America's image. Both candidates have improved America's image, but McCain's performance in the debate improved it more, not by offering a promise of what an American president might be, but by showing what a distinguished American senator already actually is.

The U.S. would have to be rich in talent indeed to decide that we could find a better president than John McCain.