The second of three presidential debates unfolded Tuesday night in Nashville, Tennessee, between the Republican candidate Sen. John McCain and his Democratic rival Sen. Barack Obama. Between now and the next debate, the American media are going to break down every word that was said by the two candidates, analyze every movement they made and dissect this “debate” for every nuance, smile, wink of the eye made, or phrase uttered.

But was the “debate” that Americans and the rest of the world watched with great interest Tuesday night truly a debate?

A debate is supposed to be where one or more issues are discussed at length. But this was far from being the case in what was described as a “town hall” debate. Here is how the Encarta World English Dictionary describes a debate:

1. To talk about something at length and in detail, especially as part of a formal exchange of opinion;

2. To ponder something carefully;

3. An organized or public discussion of something;

4. A prolonged consideration of something;

5. Argument or prolonged discussion;

To tell the truth, Tuesday night’s presidential “debate” was none of the above. This debate, much like the others, was more of a political maneuver, a science that has been fine-tuned and refined by political experts who guide the candidates through every step of the process. The candidates are coached from what to wear, how to sit, how to speak and what tone to use in speaking.

In American politics greater efforts are placed on how the message is delivered rather than on the actual contents of the message.

In essence, these tactics, much as the smear campaigns launched by a candidate who is trailing behind in the polls, constitute a brilliant strategy designed by the campaign organizers to focus on everything except what really matters to the American people.

Indeed, the entire country seems to have been hypnotized, or entered a political twilight zone, if you will, where reality is checked in at the door.

Tens of millions of dollars are wasted in campaign advertising in efforts to discredit the opposing candidate rather than to explain how the issues troubling this country are really going to be addressed. Time, efforts and loads of money are spent trying to convince the undecided voter. Because ultimately it is they who are going to swing the election in favor of one or the other candidate.

This explains why so much emphasis is placed on trying to discredit the other candidate rather than to try and explain in clear terms one’s position on issues. The reason being that smear — and fear — is easier to comprehend than anything else, especially by Joe Six-Pack. The tactic certainly worked for George W. Bush in the last two elections. It is, indeed, a frightening concept to think that the future of not only the United States, but of the entire free world, rests in the hands of “Joe Six-Pack,” and the final decision of how middle America will vote on Nov. 4.

The wonderful aspect, though somewhat of a paradox of democracy, more specifically of American democracy, is that here it is no exaggeration to say that everyone gets a fair chance at trying to achieve the impossible.

Consider the “miracle” of the American democratic system where someone so politically hollow as the Republican nominee Sarah Palin can aspire to become the vice president and quite possibly even the president of the most powerful nation on earth.

When asked by CBS anchorwoman Katie Couric in an interview to explain the bailout package the Bush administration was at the time still trying to get the Congress to approve, this is what she had to say:

“What the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the health-care reform that is needed, to help shore up our economy, helping... oh, it’s got to be all about job creation too, shoring up our economy and putting it back on the right track, so health-care reform and reducing taxes and reining-in spending has got to accompany tax reduction and tax relief for Americans and trade; we have to see trade as opportunity not as competitive, scary thing, but one in five jobs being created in the trade sector today, we’ve got to look at that as more opportunity, all those things under the umbrella of job creation, this bailout is a part of that.” Hmmm. Don’t get me wrong, I am all for democracy and have been advocating in favor of democratic changes all my adult life, but maybe there should be some rules ...

— Claude Salhani ([email protected]) is editor of the Middle East Times and a political analyst based in Washington.