Or, rather, one of the candidates didn't come?
This latest business with the debates doesn't just smell to heaven. It is plain frightening.
Debate, discussion, argument -- these are critical ingredients in any political process. They give citizens their best opportunity to evaluate, compare, and contrast the candidates. They also give us the opportunity (which does matter in elections where it is less obvious that one ticket is just plain better than the other) to see how both candidates manage the same stressful situation.
I have patiently practiced my deep breathing through the rough spots when Obama's poll numbers weren't what I thought they should be, telling myself "It'll be okay, Obama's going to wipe the floor with McCain (particularly since poor McCain shows various signs of early dementia) -- he's going to be more intelligent, more articulate, more engaged and engaging, devastatingly better prepared on all fronts, and somehow he'll manage to convey all that while also communicating a high degree of respect to the elderly and possibly somewhat confused war hero with whom he shares the stage".
I've thought for months that actually the only way McCain could actually win would be to cheat, which is why I've been very focused on vote suppression and related GOP monkey business. I have continued donating to the Obama campaign, rather than to nfp's focused on fair elections, because I have the impression the campaign is itself taking the situation seriously and allocating some resources to that. I've put myself on a list of lawyers ready to volunteer on and around election day for that purpose.
But I don't know how to assimilate this latest nonsense. The election isn't a one-day event that can be gamed only on that day -- it's a protracted process and every part of it is terribly important. Campaigns are not some luxury that should only exist when things are going great. Presidential campaigns are important -- at least, if the candidates stand for anything important they are (which is why McCain's "suspension" of his campaign due to the financial crisis should be seen in large part as a confession that he stands for nothing important). There is nothing, even a bailout of our financial system, that is more critical to this country than saving its soul -- its basic democratic principles that the Bush Junta has spent the past 8 years trampling on. That, fundamentally, is what the Obama campaign stands for. Likewise the debates are important -- not constitutionally mandated, but far from frivolous -- clearly an integral part of the process that voters need and deserve leading up to election day.
What happens if Obama shows up on Friday and literally finds himself in Missippi without an opponent? Does he, as someone proposed yesterday, debate against himself -- try to put McCain's positions in a favorable light and then knock 'em down? Does he just give a press conference? How do you "win" a debate where the other guy has just given you the middle finger and stood you up?
This is a great time for a classic Obama trope -- "This isn't about me, it's about you. McCain not showing up is an insult to you and to your right to be taken seriously. It's an insult to your right for a trustworthy, sound election process." But can he say that, or something like it, and win? Or does he inevitably come off as just the sucker who fell for some stupid trick by the class bully that he should have seen coming but was in denial about? Or at least, do McCain and potentially Palin win simply by avoiding the occasions on which they were bound to get beaten to a pulp in public view by their far more worthy respective opponents?
How can McCain and Palin be made to suffer worse for dropping out of the process than they would have suffered if they had appeared on stage in alongside their opponents?