With less than a month to go before Mexico's presidential election, viewers got an entire look at their spectrum of choices. The so-called "main event" finally pitted all five candidates in a face-to-face debate that was supposed to define each nominee's adequacy.
And all five took part, Felipe Calderon (PAN), Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador (PRD/PT/Convergence), Roberto Madrazo (PRI/PVEM), Patricia Mercado (PASC), and Roberto Campa (New Alliance Party).
As in the Roman Circus, observers morbidly expected to witness the vanquishing of one of the top two contenders, either Calderon or Lopez Obrador. It was billed as a classic clash between the right and the left.
Morning poll surveys confirmed a virtual first-place tie between the PAN and PRD candidates, although one gave Calderon an eight-point lead. And all confirmed a third-place position for PRI contender Roberto Madrazo, despite a late surge energized by recent well designed advertising image makeovers.
Surveys also reflected that part of the public had already reached their decision before the debate, but the uncommitted many outnumbered the decided few. Those voters were the prizes to be won. Thus the debate was of huge importance for the election's outcome.
Even the debate's date, June 6, 2006 - or "6-6-6" - foretold bad tidings.
Menacing signs began to appear the day before the event as convicted businessman Carlos Ahumada asked for airtime to broadcast new videos that would allegedly expose additional PRD corruption. Ahumada is imprisoned for bribery, plus he earlier helped to expose two of Lopez Obrador's top executives as they pocketed thousands of dollars when Lopez Obrador was mayor of Mexico City. Ahumada announced his wife, Cecilia Gurza de Ahumada, would make the new scandal videos public the next day.
That debate day morning, as Mrs. Ahumada was taking her daughters to school they were targeted in a supposed assassination attempt. No one was hurt, but in an interview next to a bullet-marked armored SUV a visibly shaken wife canceled the news conference.
After months of negative advertising, fueled by indictments, insults, scandals and now violence, at the debate onlookers got the opportunity to view each candidate's demeanor, and most important to see how they would perform under pressure.
At first the audience was stunned as all contenders had an apparent meeting of the minds, avoiding the expected donnybrook and expressing noticeably coinciding opinions.
Madrazo, having little to loose, became the most belligerent debater. Centering his attacks on Calderon, Madrazo criticized Vicente Fox's record during most of the debate's predetermined topic periods (on subjects like public safety and anti-crime strategies, economic development and foreign policy, etc.). He insisted that Fox is inexperienced and incompetent. Madrazo also pretended to blame Fox for not passing vital legislation.
And in what may have been a covenant, Madrazo totally ignored Lopez Obrador. Plus his strategy was to detach himself from his own party's errors, blaming others for past mistakes, but this backfired since he came off as aggressive and untruthful.
Calderon's plan was basic. He was to confirm his leadership status by thoroughly harassing Lopez Obrador and ignoring Madrazo. He repetitively criticized Lopez Obrador's plans and denounced them as populist ploys that would lead Mexico to economic crisis and unemployment. He determinedly offered well-structured campaign proposals for governing Mexico. Calderon's delivery was straightforward and well prepared, but his image may have been hurt as he repeatedly accused Lopez Obrador of being a liar and thus looked like an aggressive schoolteacher.
Surprisingly Lopez Obrador presented a previously unseen facade during the debate. His calm and appeasing performance took all debaters by surprise. Lopez Obrador, while defending his Mexico City governmental record, remained aloof to Calderon's harassment and directed his remarks to conciliatory proposals. He hinted of his populist proposals in generalities, and finally countered Calderon by accusing him of favoring a brother-in-law with government contracts and tax write-offs. Lopez Obrador's closing comments were aimed at his followers, and he was simple and direct - vowing not to lie, not to steal, and not to fail Mexico.
In my opinion the debate totally neutralized Madrazo as a contender. It strengthened Lopez Obrador's position, although he is now compelled to clarify his proposals. And it has forced Calderon into a position of having to battle Lopez Obrador's charisma with specifics.
Certainly heavy burdens considering how little time is left before the July 2 elections.
Carlos Luken is a columnist for MexiData.info. Readers may send him e-mail at ilcmex@yahoo.com.
