If this was meant to be an October surprise, it didn't work.  No matter how sensitive the situation regarding those islands, it is safe to say that this matter is not high on the average Virginian's list of topics she or he wishes to hear the Senatorial candidates discuss. As a payback for the earlier debate in which Webb fumbled Allen's question about the man-made island near Portsmouth, Virginia that has been proposed as a shipping terminal, it also didn't work.  Unlike Allen, who was able to deliver the cheap punch line, "It's in Virginia," Webb had to spend his time explaining where these islands were, what the potential crisis was, and why it mattered.  It's a bit like a situation we've all been in - if you have to explain the joke, it isn't very funny.  And if you have to explain why it matters that someone doesn't know anything about some islands, it means that the question is obscure.  For some viewers, unfamiliar with the earlier Craney Island episode in the Hot Springs debate in July, I'll bet they're really wondering why Webb bothered to ask Allen about those islands near Taiwan.

The unfortunate point, for Webb, is that this moment undercut a debate performance that otherwise had some credible moments.  He was, at least, attempting to answer the questions, unlike Allen who was trying to see how many times he could say "Hilary Clinton, John Kerry, and Ted Kennedy" in the same sentence.  Webb also showed he wasn't afraid to directly answer questions.  Whether of not you agreed with how he got to his position that affirmative action amounted to state-sponsored racism, he was forceful and clear in stating why he took that position and he ended by saying his goal was to return affirmative action to its original intent.  By contrast, Allen responded to a question about the deficit and how it threatened our security by retreating to tired repetitions of the taxpayer bill of rights, a line item veto, and a balanced budget amendment.

Some of Webb's answers, though, suffered from trying to be too intricate in a format that didn't give the candidates enough time to breath during an answer let alone provide an explanation.  When Webb is reduced to saying that he opposes a constitutional amendment on Virginia's ballot because of a problem in the wording in its second paragraph, it's hard to see how that explanation will do much gain supporters unless they were already of that belief anyway.  But this is a far more responsible attempt at argumentation than what we often saw from Allen, who answered a question about the use of federal dollars to build a shelter for day laborers (many of whom were illegal) with an answer that talked about not giving amnesty to illegal aliens, building detention centers, and the need to protect borders with real and virtual fences.  What these points had to do with the question that was asked is hard to determine.

Monday's debate format had the element missing in so many televised debates - a chance for the candidates to direct questions to one another.  Some analysts have held out the hope that this sort of format dimension is what debates need to make them better focused and more useful.  Direct questioning by the candidates is such a rare event in televised debates that it is appropriate to focus on that section of the debate when determining who fared better.

Despite his maddening repetition of empty clichés and tired campaign phrases, Allen did stick to the general plan he announced for himself in his two-minute commercial airing in major Virginia media markets last Monday.  He mentioned his record of accomplishments as an elected official, and focused on the twin issues of taxes and terrorism.  Those topics were, in fact, the subject matter of the two questions he asked Webb.  Of course, Allen loses rating points if you're scoring at home because he never finished his first question within the allowed thirty seconds (and he kept trying to talk over the moderator to finish it).  And his "terrorism" question was several questions - about wiretaps, detainees' rights, and habeas corpus.  But there is no denying that these two general topics are of concern to voters, and they are certainly themes that Republican strategists have been touting as the messages their candidates should express.

Webb's two questions focused on increasing the minimum wage, or more specifically why Allen hadn't voted to increase it, and on those islands.  The minimum wage question deteriorated into an unproductive exchange of charges about whether or not Allen had or hadn't voted for an increase rather than a focus on why this particular issue, and Webb's stand on it, mattered to Virginians and mattered in this campaign.  And then we learned about those islands . . .

Given that this debate gave Webb his best opportunity to introduce himself and his ideas to many people who doubtless knew little about him, were these the best questions for helping Virginians learn what he has to offer?  

Webb was also caught on the defensive when Allen asked him, repeatedly, "how many Virginians have benefited from the tax cuts you oppose?"  Webb claimed, probably rightly so, that Allen's campaigns and commercials were distorting his positions on taxation.  But at this moment in the debate, he failed to seize the opportunity to offer a distortion-free, direct answer.  Just before Allen asked that direct question - as his rebuttal to Webb - Webb had focused on corporate taxes as being the problem.  So, why wouldn't he answer this question by saying something to the effect that Allen's question isn't relevant because the issue is corporate tax loopholes, not individual taxes.  Instead, Allen implies (strongly) that the 3 million Virginians (he says) who have benefited from tax cuts will be affected negatively by whatever plans Webb has for taxation.  Webb needed to return here to his earlier point and stress how the ballooning deficit and the deteriorating situation in Iraq will eventually affect all Virginians, including those who benefited from the tax cuts.

When the closing statements rolled around, Allen summed the debate up by listing a series of points that he said "mattered" whereas Webb called the upcoming election a referendum on the administration.  Allen was clearer with his list of what mattered than Webb was in focusing on what voters should be holding the administration to account for in the referendum.  If Iraq and the deficit are the referendum points, Allen got off relatively easy as Webb's criticisms really did little to hold Allen accountable for either problem.  Webb said that Republicans had lost their way on national security without ever being clear on the way that he would be promoting should be he elected.  In his conclusion, Webb talked about how old political labels are no longer relevant and that representatives should be personally accountable.  It was clear that he believed in these ideas and that they mattered to him; whether these points will matter enough to voters is another story.  Allen's listing of tax cuts, education reform, jobs for Virginians, developing bio-diesel fuel, and so on and so on will likely find a more immediate connection with listeners.

Years ago, another television show made another island famous - "Fantasy Island."  In the world of televised debates, the upset victory by the underdog is the "Fantasy Island" script that has occasionally come true.  But if an island metaphor can summarize a debate, Monday night's debate for Webb was closer to "Lost" than "Fantasy Island."  He had some strong moments in the face of adversity, and a triumph here and there, but when it was over, he's still sort of stuck on that island.

John T. Morello is the Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs and Professor of Speech at the University of Mary Washington. He has published extensively on televised presidential debates in a variety of academic journals, and has been an invited lecturer on debate at a variety of institutions. Morello has won the Outstanding Young Faculty Member award at the University of Mary Washington (1993) where he was also been named as a Jepson Fellow. He has an A.B. in Government from The College of William and Mary, an M.A. in Speech from Northern Illinois University, and a Ph.D. in Speech Communication from Wayne State University.