McCain throws baseball signals, Obama stays the course, voters remain hypocritical

What was significant about the last presidential debate between Senators Barack ObamaBarack Obama and John McCainJohn McCain? Finally, a debate that got to the heart of many issues people needed and said they wanted to hear about, but the results from Independent voters watching the debate and responding live was that voters are as hypocritical as ever.

So first, what the candidates each did right, and what they did wrong.

What the candidates did right.

Senator McCain had the best debate I've seen from him in a very long time. He finally took some of the advice that pundits and gurus have been spouting, he addressed significant issues important to the American people, he came out strong and provided much more detail about specific policy positions than I've seen from him yet. To his credit, I think Senator McCain may have won this debate in a lot of ways.

Now for Senator Obama, he stayed the course, which is what he needed to do. He had bulleted responses to key policy issues, including three very significant items, namely 1) education, 2) energy, and 3) the economy. He expressed their inter-relationship and how they all were priorities and each deserved attention, time and money.

What the candidates did wrong.

First, Senator McCain, however more positively aggressive he became during this debate, was not able to control his facial expressions, postures, eye rolls, and other tell-tale signs of distance and disrespect. On a couple of occasions he noticeably sighed right in the middle of a response from Senator Obama. At another point it appeared he was trying to stifle a yawn! I'm also not sure what was up with his unnatural posture, but he looked like he was sitting on a tack most of the debate.

For Senator Obama, he did better with the "and..." (or at least avoiding them, which has annoyed me to tears in the past) during this debate, but he might have been a bit too cool. Although I have admired his ability to stay calm, take the high roads, and to remain steady and sure, tonight I didn't feel nearly as connected to him as I did in the previous debates.

There wasn't anything particularly unnerving about anything either candidate said or didn't say, but perhaps that was the problem. It appeared to me like there was not much difference between the two candidates. Yes, they had very different approaches to the same problems, and yes, there were obvious party differences that came out between them (such as the abortion issue, for instance) but overall, they melded together more for me, which I think is something we've seen much of the past two election cycles.

In years past, the problem with most of the elections was how much they pandered to the "middle ground" and tried not to show partisan colors. Obama has clearly stepped away from this by making divisions between him and Senator McCain that are quite partisan.

John McCain, by the way, has done this very well in the past, by trying to instill a distinction between him and Bush, but given the fact that he, reluctantly, pushed hard for President BushPresident Bush's re-election in 2004, it is very difficult today to see the "Maverick" McCain over the "Bush" McCain. Therein lies his problems.

Not only has the economy been a drag for the Republican party, it has mired McCain in the midst of a Bush administration that has tanked, literally. McCain made a very big deal about his attempts to reconcile with the Republican party in order to make another run for the presidency, but that effort now is backfiring on him, in a very big way.

Debate Results.

So who won the debate tonight - I think McCain won - not hands down, not "out of the park", but in the sense that he rose to the occasion in a way that I wish I would have seen from him months and months ago (and many others I'm sure).

But, who will win the election - Senator Obama. I don't think this debate changes anything. As the saying goes, McCain probably won the battle, but he won't likely win the war. Too much of the economic unrest is laid at the feet of Republicans, which he made obvious efforts to realign himself with the last election cycle. That won't disappear over night just because McCain had a good final debate.

Instead I think he may see some further support from a fringe Republican base, which might boost his numbers somewhat, but he won't be feeling much love from those Independents poised to make the determining votes.

Some of the iteresting moments of the debate.

There were a few interesting moments that I thought were significant. First, although McCain had many high points during the debate in which Independents watching were inclined to find his arguments compelling, there was one question in which the results were wildly different.

Bob SchiefferBob Schieffer asked both candidates, "Why would the country be better off if your running mate became president rather than his running mate?" Senator Obama replied with an expected and well rehearsed response, however it was the response from Independents watching the debate to McCain's answer that was revealing.

Simply put, Independent women don't like Palin at all, but Independent men seem to love her! Maybe it is all the Joe Six-Pack references, it is hard to tell, but here's what happened. (On a comparative note, John McCain rarely saw the positive ratings from Independent men that were given when McCain was discussing Palin).

As soon as McCain began discussing all the positive "qualities" of his Vice Presidential pick, the Independents responses that were being recorded began to wildly verge - the men's responses went very high (positive) while the female responses went just as far in the opposite direction (negative). It is interesting to note that Palin was brought on the ticket to try to clinch female votes, but what has actually happened is women have come to not like her candidacy at all, while it seems Independent men have grown to like her far more than they did in the beginning.

Just why this is, is obviously too complex to know for certain, but if I had to go out on a limb, I'd say plain and simply, she's nice looking. I can't think of another reason why this would be the case, when in all other circumstances the Independent men ALWAYS rated comments from either candidate far more harshly than the female observers. It would be an interesting exercise to ask some of these Independent male supporters what it is they find appealing in her candidacy.

Next was some interesting body language from John McCain. Early in the debate, I don't recall exactly what the discuss was now, but McCain mentions the "tragedy" of JFKJFK, by referencing "the tragedy at Dallas" and just as he said it, he rubbed his nose and kind of looked off to the side. It was like he was signaling some baseball call to players in left field. Maybe he wasn't sure if he was going to use the line, so he had something designed to look natural so write-ups could be quickly fired off to news organizations before the end of the debate? Or maybe he just had an itch, at a very odd time, or possibly his guilt was getting the better of him for even making such a nasty reference, of all times and in all places? I'd bet the latter.

But regardless of why he did it, it is interesting that the media noted a phone call Senator McCain made to Senator Hillary ClintonHillary Clinton before the debate. Without elaboration, CNN reports indicated that Ms. Clinton was likely not "thrilled" with the phone call. However, maybe others remember that this reference, to the death of a young John F. Kennedy after his election, is a very similar reference that was made by Senator Clinton at a stop in South Dakota during the primaries. Media pundits at the time had nearly written Clinton off as the primary candidate of choice, so not much attention was paid to it, but she was blasted by some for making the reference. Coincidental? Probably. After all, this is politics right?

Lastly, I was trying to watch carefully the responses of these Independent voters who were watching the debate. As their responses fluctuated I began to wonder about that "truth" factor. Basically, the media presses over and over again how the public really wants to hear "about the issues'. And in this year's election, people want to know "what will have to be sacrificed" as a result of the economic quagmire we find ourselves in.

What I found was that whenever Obama would speak directly to these issues, trying to express the "realities", or mentioning anything having to do with how we all will have to sacrifice to get through it (McCain didn't do anything similarly), the response rating always took a nosedive.

In other words, although the American people insist they want to hear the "truth", and they want to know the "realities" of our situation, and how things will have to change in order to handle a new reality, they still don't want to really hear about how it will "cost them money". Or, how it will result in having to make sacrifices.

I guess this makes perfect sense after all. So given that premise, here is how we can look at American politics from this point forward - we'll elect the candidate who makes the best promises to 1) send more money to our local governments, 2) reduce our taxes, 3) provides us with the best education and health care, but 4) doesn't require us to spend any more money than we already are.

In other words, as American voters, we want our cake, and we want to eat it too. Uhmmm... isn't that how we got into the financial crisis we are in now? Maybe we're giving our candidates too much credit by accusing them of being hypocritical. I think it is the American voter who is the ultimate hypocrite when it comes to Presidential politics.