Laura Martin | Guest Room

Some people like John McCain. I have gotten your attention with a disruptive exclamation … rather like shouting “sex!” in a quiet room. Let’s be honest, the 2004 election wasn’t nearly this interesting. The prospect of another four years of Bush seemed ominous and slightly annoying, but there was nothing to be feared but more-of-the-same. Besides, the only real opposition to the inept incumbent was an unpalatable beneficiary of the ketchup dynasty.

While investors on Wall Street and Joe Six-Packs on Main Street continue to fret about the current state of the international economy, my focus has turned to the Cornell Athletic Department and its lack of both sound financial judgment in determining hockey ticket prices and of mathematical fairness in choosing line numbers.

If this crisis on Cornell’s campus somehow became a core issue with voters in swing states, and I moderated a debate between Barack Obama and John McCain, I think it would play out like this:

Alva: Good evening from Bailey Hall on the campus of Cornell University in Ithaca, New York; I'm Mitchell Alva. Welcome to this fourth presidential debate, sponsored by the Commission on Presidential Debates.

After an exhausting and masturbatory twenty month long election cycle, thank god the end is finally in sight. Obama and McCain are approaching the last mile of this marathon, and despite a flurry of new attacks and policy proposals, Obama has cleared the hurdles placed before him.

Last week, presidential candidate John McCain choked on a big fat Viagra pill. From the comfort of my own home, I watched in horror as the dear old geezer coughed and stuttered, his cheeks flushed and his doe eyes brimming with confusion and panic.

They say the greatest sign of insanity is when you repeat an action over and over, expecting different outcomes. Once again, (this time during the second presidential debate), McCain was asked to account for his tacit approval of health insurance companies who cover Viagra for men but not birth control for women.

He’s made the mistake before. But maybe he figured that blabbering like an idiot … again … when asked the question would make the big bad journalists go away for good.

MAVERICK. MAVERICK.

“Don’t try to understand ’em, just rope, pull and brand ’em.”

So goes the theme song to the classic early television show Rawhide, about a seemingly endless cattle drive through the Old West, which included a young Clint Eastwood as drover Rowdy Yates.

A maverick, of course, is a term originally applied to an unbranded cattle, or a person unbought, unbossed and unbeholden to anyone but his or herself. The term dates to Sam Maverick, a 19th century Texas rancher, and his decision to buck tradition and leave his cattle unbranded.

We are less than three weeks away from Elec­tion Day. In the longest presidential campaign in Amer­ican history, 15 primary candidates became two presidential hopefuls: Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. John McCain. At this point in time, a typical campaign analyst would presume both platforms would have been well articulated, challenged, and disseminated in the presidential debates. But this is not a typical campaign, and that does not seem to be the case. In the midst of bemused moderators and citizens it is important to ask, what have we learned from Obama and McCain in the debates?

The polls show that Barack Obama will likely be the 44th President of the United States. John McCain has fallen prey to a struggling campaign with a continuously changing message, a running mate who leaves much to be desired and ultimately an opponent who has run a superior campaign. Yet, for all of the debates, media coverage and hoopla surrounding the presidential election, many Americans are unclear if not down right uneducated about the candidates' actual policies. At the very least, voters owe it to themselves to read through the candidates' policy proposals. Are we voting for merely a competent person, or are we voting for a proponent of policies that will effect positive change?

“Treason!”

“Kill Him!”

“Terrorist!”

Sounds like someone must have betrayed the United States in a horrible way, doesn’t it? Maybe sold secrets to an enemy, put American soldiers in danger on purpose, something like that. Whoever it is must surely deserve those words, right? Otherwise, why say them?

Disgustingly, the words refer not to some despicable example of a human being that cares little for people or his country, but to Barack Obama. What’s more, they were said at a GOP rallies in Florida and New Mexico, during speeches by Sarah Palin and John McCain:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Barack Obama has surged to a seven-point lead over John McCain one month before the presidential election, lifted by voters who think the Democrat is better suited to lead the nation through its sudden financial crisis, according to an Associated Press-GfK poll that underscores the mounting concerns of some McCain backers.

Likely voters now back Obama 48-41 percent over McCain, a dramatic shift from an AP-GfK survey that gave the Republican a slight edge nearly three weeks ago, before Wall Street collapsed and sent ripples across worldwide markets. On top of that, unrelated surveys show Obama beating McCain in several battlegrounds, including Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Iowa — four states critical in the state-by-state fight for the presidency.

Friday was the first presidential debate and by now there’s sure to be enough spin for both sides to present two completely different interpretations of the same, rather disappointing event. Though the theme of the night was to be foreign policy, the debate rightly gave more urgency to the current economic crisis, although it made this post somewhat more difficult to write. As with most debates, no new policy proposals came up, but we did get to see the two men side by side and were able to contrast their different outlooks and styles. Though neither candidate took the upper hand, we saw two different visions for America’s place in the world.