At about twelve minutes into last night’s debate, I stared in wonderment at the television. Is this finally him? Is this the real McCain?

I had the sensation of watching a real debate–face to face, back and forth. And that sensation persisted through much of the hour and a half of this third and last presidential debate. The format was close-contact, with the candidates sitting at a table with moderator Bob Schieffer. The questions were honest and sometimes tough, the moderator, persistent. 

As the debate went on, the real McCain seemed to come and go; nevertheless it was a more authentic performance out of the Republican nominee than we saw in previous debates. Barack Obama seemed at times to be playing it a little safe, but was consistent in presenting himself as the measured, cool-headed candidate that we’ve seen in each debate thus far. By the end, a clear victor had emerged, though: Bob Schieffer.

Early Zingers

We saw some good lines early in the debate. As McCain threw out the old line about Obama voting twice to tax people making $42,000 a year (for the record, untrue), Obama strived again to set the record straight, reminding McCain that this false claim has been widely disputed. “Even Fox News has disputed it,” Obama finished. Sure, this gave more fodder to Fox fans. But that doesn’t mean it wasn’t funny. 

But McCain gets the award for best zing of the night. In response to Obama’s regular comparison between the Republican nominee and George W. Bush, McCain looked his opponent in the eye and laid it all out: “I am not President Bush. If you wanted to run against President Bush, you should have run four years ago.” To be fair, this opened up an opportunity for Senator Obama to put out his own zinger, pointing out all the reasons he equates John McCain and George Bush (McCain’s “vigorous support” of Bush’s “tax policy…energy policy…spending priorities”). But McCain’s line held its ground as the most memorable of the night.

Red Meat

Without much delay, Bob Scheiffer went there, bringing up the fact that the campaigning has of late taken a distinctly negative turn. Most notably, the McCain-Palin campaign has adopted a line of personal attack against Barack Obama that many, including myself, argue has incited hatred about brought out the worst in some of McCain’s supporters.

McCain’s response was to focus Representative John Lewis, a man who is not associated in any way with the Obama campaign. Lewis recently came out against the McCain campaign tactics, drawing a comparison between its recklessness and incitement, and the violence incited by George Wallace’s campaign in 1968. McCain said his feelings were hurt by this, and that Obama should repudiate Lewis. McCain went on to say that he did not condone personal, hateful attacks, yet, in the next moment, asserted that he was proud of the people at his rallies. McCain then brought up Bill Ayers, ACORN, and (almost) the kitchen sink, interrupting Obama the whole way through. In this part of the debate, Senator McCain became, before our very eyes, an accusatory, angry man who had lost focus on the issues that are vitally important to the American people.

Though I’m not sure how he managed this, even in response to this, Barack Obama took the high road. He clearly and honestly explained any associations that McCain brought up. He refrained from mentioning McCain’s “associations,” such as his good friend Godon Liddy, a convicted felon and documented encourager of violence against the government. He refrained from mentioning that, just a year and a half ago, McCain gave a favorable, supportive speech in front of that very organization–ACORN–that he now derides and blames Obama for associating with. Obama then went on to list his real associations: Warren Buffett, Paul Volcker, Joe Biden, Dick Lugar, General Jim Jones.

A Turn

By most accounts and polls, McCain’s personal attacks against Obama fell flat when the Democratic nominee chose to answered politely and honestly and address the real issues that matter to American people. As the debate turned to issues of trade, McCain shifted to an approach we’ve seen before, with a slightly patronizing tone designed to make Obama seem naive. “I admire Senator Obama’s eloquence, but words matter,” stated the Republican nominee in reference to Obama’s understand of the issue of free trade. It was a virtual pat on the head and pitying stare. 

Frankly, I’m surprised by this approach ever time I see it out of John McCain. Quite simply, attacking Senator Obama’s “eloquence” doesn’t work very well, because it is exactly that trait–Obama’s skill with words–that allows him to come right back and undermine the implication that he lacks understanding. Beyond that, his eloquence often allows him to add a deeper dimension to a discussion that exhibits knowledge and a true understanding of the issue. In this case, McCain implied that Obama didn’t understand free trade issues with South American countries. Obama responded by addressing political and national security issues in Columbia and Peru in a way that someone who lacked understanding simply would not have been able to pull off. His eloquence did not indicate that Obama lacked understanding, it demonstrated that he possessed it.

Red Meat, again

Late in the debate, Bob Scheiffer, continuing to demonstrate himself as the most skilled debate moderator of this election season, turned this discussion to Supreme Court appointments and Roe v. Wade. The question to the candidates was, “Will you consider appointing a Supreme Court justice with whom you disagree on Roe v. Wade?” 

McCain’s response was that he would “not impose a litmus test” on any candidate for the Supreme Court. He went on to say that he would judge a potential appointee based on their qualifications. To follow up, the moderator asked for clarification, asking Senator McCain if that meant that he would seriously consider appointing a pro-choice judge to the Supreme Court. McCain’s response was that he would base his decision on a person’s qualifications, but that being pro-choice would effectively make a judge unqualified. Anyone who carefully followed McCain’s logic saw that his real answer was that, no, he would not consider appointing a pro-choice judge to the Supreme Court, because he would consider that person unqualified.

Toward the end, the debate took an ever-so-slightly softer turn. There was a hint of reconciliation, as Obama agreed with a few of McCain’s points on education, and vice versa. 

The closing remarks saw each candidate remind voters of the reasons they feel they are best-qualified to lead us. McCain referenced a “long line of McCains” who have served this country. Obama focused on making an outright promise to the American people to work “tirelessly” every day of his presidency to make the world better for them, and for their children.

All in all, the most authentic debate we’ve seen yet.