World Briefing: Bypassing Bipartisanship

In a week when the wheels nearly came off the US economy, the gloves came off in the presidential race. Barack Obama and John McCain continue to say they favor a bipartisan approach to solving the nation's problems. But vicious congressional infighting over the bailout, last Friday's terse, testy televised debate and the ensuing raucous slanging match have again exposed and dramatized the deep political and cultural divisions lurking just below the surface of American life.

All earlier talk of a "new politics" is now dead and buried. The subliminal message from both campaigns to voters as the race enters its final month is clear: It's time to decide whose side you're on - and step up to the plate. Nationally, the polls show the battle finely poised at 47-43 in favor of Obama. Each party is searching for advantage. A stumble, a gaffe or a smear could yet change everything.

Obama is using the economy as an anvil on which to beat McCain. "The truth is, through 90 minutes of debating, John McCain had a lot to say about me, but he had nothing to say about you. He didn't say the words 'middle class' or 'working people'," Obama said at a North Carolina rally following last week's TV head-to-head. To the noisy accompaniment of crashing banks and collapsing markets, the Democrat is now unapologetically positioning himself as the champion of "ordinary folks". The enemy? Greedy Wall Street fat cats and their governmental and Republican cronies.

Having kept his powder dry on stage in Oxford, Mississippi, McCain is loading for bear. He was widely criticized for rushing back to Washington to help negotiate a bail-out deal. Democrats called his move "stunt". Now a deal has been initialed, Republicans say he did the responsible thing while Obama sat idly by, polishing his debating points. According to McCain yesterday, Obama's aim is to exploit the crisis for political gain first, and solve it second.

Steve Schmidt, McCain's senior adviser, says the plan now is to portray Obama as lacking in understanding of international affairs and unready to lead, his assumed naivety in foreign policy representing a danger to US national security and the world. Second, Obama will be dubbed a tax-raising high-spending, pro-big-government liberal who will only make economic problems worse.

Post-debate commentary has seized on fundamental differences between the candidates, reflecting broader right-left divisions. If Obama wins, he will owe much to newly energized and registered young voters, African Americans and Hispanics. If McCain triumphs, it will not be without Florida's blue-rinse brigade and Sarah Palin's suburban mothers.

Socially divisive issues such as healthcare, reproductive rights, and oil dependency are the meat of the next two presidential debates. But columnist Ross Balano, writing in the Kansas City Star, could not wait to conjure up another divisive spectre: race.

Voters were being railroaded into backing Obama for fear of being accused of prejudice, Balano claimed. "Let me get this straight. If you don't want higher taxes, you might be a racist. If you think we should drill for more domestic oil, you could be a racist. If you believe we should secure the borders, you might be a racist. If you believe in the right to keep and bear arms, the sanctity of life or winning the war on terror, you just might be racist. Heck, if you don't vote for Obama, you must be a racist.

"I, for one, am tired of this old routine. Let me be very clear: the problems with Obama have nothing to do with the color of his skin. Rather, it has to do with positions, beliefs and associations and the lack of any substantial experience that would qualify him to be president."

The ultimately divisive "race card" has been dealt out. Such snide sentiments spell the death of consensus and a potentially paralyzing problem for whoever next occupies the White House. But expect more of the same across America's heartlands as this fight intensifies.