自考专本|专升本|高升专|高升本|在职研究生-学历教育网

本科

IT WAS inevitable that the economy would dominate the second debate between John McCain and Barack Obama. And so it did. Fully an hour of the 90-minute contest was devoted to economic issues, foremost in voters’ minds as financial markets panic over the credit crisis. The remaining time was focused on foreign policy, leaving no opportunity for questions on social policy, “values” issues and the like. The result was a draw in a predictable and mostly dawdling debate, but that undoubtedly suits Mr Obama much better.

Mr McCain began feistily at the “town hall” debate, where voters asked the questions. He normally shines in such formats—he enjoys talking directly to voters, at least when he is alone on the trail. He brought up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, trying to suggest that the leaders of the two mortgage giants (and now crisis culprits) were “cronies” of Mr Obama. But Mr Obama coolly reminded the audience that Mr McCain’s campaign manager had long been a lobbyist for Freddie Mac.

And so it went for much of the economic sections, as the two candidates stuck to familiar talking points. Mr Obama was the more disciplined in doing so—but, ahead in the polls, he knew that it was best not to make big news. He stressed the need to help ordinary people, not just Wall Street, and effectively explained why his vote for the $700 billion Paulson plan would do that.

Related topics

Mr McCain stressed the Teddy Roosevelt side of his Republicanism by criticising a pork-laden, George Bush-supported energy bill that Mr Obama had supported. He also proposed a $300 billion plan to buy parts of bad mortgages in order to keep people in their homes.

During talk about foreign-policy Mr McCain was energetic and returned to an old line of attack by suggesting that Mr Obama does not understand the subject. But Mr Obama responded sharply, saying that he indeed did not understand some things, such as the failure of Mr Bush’s government to pursue Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan and its decision to invade Iraq. Mr McCain, for his part, was admirably clear on the need to support Georgia and Ukraine against any future menaces from Russia.

Overall, the night did not provide good news for the Republican. He trails in national polls and, worse, is clearly behind in crucial states such as Florida, Virginia, New Hampshire and Ohio. He needed to change the race and failed to do so. His early personal digs in the debate played poorly in the town-hall format, and he may have realised it. Once he settled down, the exchange of well-worn positions—especially as Mr Obama is more trusted on the economy—could do nothing for him. CNN’s poll showed Mr Obama winning the debate by 54% to 30%, and comfortably ahead when respondents were asked how much they liked each candidate and how they rated each man’s leadership qualities. A poll by CBS also had Mr Obama winning, by 39% to 27%.

The debate was preceded by an ugly back-and-forth about the past. Sarah Palin, Mr McCain’s running mate, repeatedly brought up Mr Obama’s fleeting association with a man who planted several small bombs in big American cities in the 1970s. Mr Obama retorted by talking about Mr McCain’s role in the Keating Five scandal, part of a savings-and-loan fiasco in the 1980s. Many wondered if these things would make their way into the debate. They did not.

And so Mr McCain’s team faces an unenviable choice. Will he and Mrs Palin return to attacks based on character and values? They have grabbed media attention by doing so, but have not dented Mr Obama’s lead in the polls. Voters are worried about their homes and pensions, not about the 1970s or 1980s. Mr McCain, who has shown a willingness to take risks, may yet seek out some new theme. But he is running out of options.

1505847972	1256358232	1363884583	1902839745	800072298	754854002
中专升大专	中专升本科	高升专	高升本	专升本	自考