A Wash

Watching the debate last night, it was hard to determine a clear winner. (How do we determine who wins a debate, anyway?)

From the beginning, Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Barack Obama (D-Ill.) had difficulty communicating with the voters — those in the hall and those watching at home. Much of the conversation about Freddie and Fannie was too inside baseball and could have been about second-degree amendments and quorum calls rather than issues affecting every American. It is hard for a candidate (or candidates) to communicate with voters if they are talking about something the voters know little or nothing about.

This was a missed opportunity — one both McCain and Obama have generally done well on in the past.

Two words not used in last night’s debate that were noticeably absent: Hillary Clinton. Several issues, notably Obama’s willingness to meet with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with no preconditions, provided an opportunity for McCain to exploit the division in the Democratic Party that still exists. For some reason, he never did.

Though much had been made about the “town hall” style of the last night’s debate, the format was rather conventional. Audience interaction was limited and the questions were standard. I have a hard time believing that in an audience of Tennessee voters, Pakistan was more on their minds than issues like immigration, gun control, abortion or gay marriage.

The debate itself shed little light on the candidates’ views on issues or the candidates themselves. With the exception of the final question — “What don’t you know and how will you learn it?” — there were no personal stories, no introspection. It came off as a “Saturday Night Live” parody of a committee markup covered by C-SPAN. Watching the debate, one was hard-pressed to learn anything new about either candidate.

So far, the only debate-type event where we’ve really learned anything about either John McCain or Barack Obama was the Rick Warren debate at the Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, Calif.