As the election date rears its ugly head, the age long battle between young and old, change and consistency, and Republican versus Democrat, erupts with a volcanic force. The question of who remains the victor, however, is not as clear as defining the battles. In spite of this consistency with past debates, when Barack Obama took a stance against John McCain in the first of the three presidential debates, the answer to the aforementioned question actually becomes less nebulous and more definitive.

“It was a night of contrasts as Barack Obama and John McCain shared a stage in their first of three presidential debates. The only similarities: a lack of specifics, a reliance on campaign-trail sound bites, and an inability to answer a question directly”(Sidoti).

The similarity and tied race ended there. John McCain soon left the hare to catch his breath as he slowly pushed ahead eventually winning the dispute. Who said you needed to be fast and young to win a race? The tortoise was able to lead with his consistent pace, despite the expectations of many.

As the debate opened up, the issue of foreign policy was high on the agenda. It seemed as though this was going to be a challenge for Obama, and an easy victory for McCain. This assumption, unlike many others, was correct. McCain utilized his experience to present his ideas in a coherent comportment. His voice seemed to rise with passion, thus engaging the theory of pathos, appealing to the audience and their views on foreign affairs.

McCain took Obama’s rebuttals with dignity and even poked fun at his own age. His humor towards his age not only appealed to the emotions of the audience but also gave credibility to what he was stating. Needless to say, he had the experience to back up his arguments; something that Obama lacked. This is not to say that Obama presented less-than-par arguments, but rather that the viewers appeared to find more comfort in McCain’s words due to his familiarity with the topic presented.

In continuation with this theme, the Republican Party also employed the strategy of ethos, as they frequently mentioned other great leaders that represented the same or the opposite of McCain. Such leaders were Dwight D. Eisenhower, Reagan and Nixon. Through providing credible sources to back up his arguments, he gained the upper hand especially in relation to voter’s comfort and belief in the candidate’s proposals.

It is unquestionable that there was nothing special that erupted from this debate. Furthermore, since the candidates indulged in a lack of specifics, a reliance on campaign-trail sound bites and an inability to answer a question directly,” (Sidoti) hardly anything can be said about the performance of each candidate.

However, relating each candidate and his appeal to the audience is a different story. Since this is crucial in presidential debates, the ability to choose between the two became easy. McCain pulled ahead through utilizing his experience and humor. He was able to grasp the sympathy and understanding of many voters because of this. He was capable of making the audience realize how experience was the key to success- not change, consistency, or youth, which is something that Barack Obama unquestionably represents. Concisely, without the implications of personal feeling, McCain was the victor of this first battle for America’s vote.

However, we must keep in mind that the hare can pull ahead of the tortoise any moment he pleases, with his eloquent oratory skills and youthful perception.