Contrasting arguments can be made about McCain's call to delay tomorrow's first Presidential Debate centered on foreign policy. 

McCain's supporters could argue that after being briefed on the severity of the fiscal crisis by his economic team yesterday, McCain was very concerned about the fate of the bill and the scope of the potential damage if it was not passed.  Because of vocal Republican opposition, McCain might have felt he needed to take action.  As Chris Todd noted on NBC this morning, if Republicans do block this bill and financial chaos ensues, McCain will be hit hard as the current leader of his party.  Furthermore, McCain had no way of knowing how long the bill would take to get passed.  Media reports are now saying Congress and the President are very close to a deal (some believe the Democrats are pushing this as fast as they can to prevent McCain from taking any credit). 

If McCain believed the bill had a chance of not being passed until Friday or after (which may be the case) then it would seem almost harmless (except to the University of Mississippi) to delay the debate until a very important bill trying to prevent the collapse of our financial institutions is passed.  Plus, we do know that Presidential candidates take days before the debates to practice and rehearse (Obama had planned on spending the three days before this debate doing so).  It would thus seem plausible that McCain would like the amount of time generally afforded Presidential candidates to prepare for this debate after the bill is passed.

The second argument made publicly by McCain's critics and Obama himself is that the debate can take place no matter the circumstances.  Obama's response yesterday was that the President should be able to handle two things at once and thus McCain and him can both assist in the bill's negotiations and continue with the debate Friday night anyway.

However, there is a third argument to be made, and one not being made public by the Obama campaign. It says that McCain's campaign had no serious belief that they would be able to significantly alter the fate of the bill.  Instead their decision was purely political. They wanted to halt Obama's recent rise in the polls both nationally and in battleground states during this financial crisis.  McCain would be able to portray himself as the 'Country First' candidate, putting politics aside to pass bipartisan legislation for the good of the nation.

The reason it is hard to believe in the skepticism being aired against McCain's actions is that delaying the debate hardly seems like the most politically advantageous move for McCain.  If McCain's motives were purely political, why would he postpone a debate that itself presents a perfect opportunity to halt Obama's momentum?  Rather than make the controversial decision of halting his campaign and stimulating skepticism among many, McCain could have just used Friday's debate as a way to halt Obama's recent rise.  Friday's debate subject is McCain's bread and butter.  The type of tone and directness required by a Presidential candidate discussing foreign policy favors McCain's certitude over Obama's more vague and irresolute demeanor, something he showed throughout the Democratic Primary debates. 

Obama's debating skills have been far overestimated due to his tremendous ability to give speeches.  Many forget that Hillary Clinton gained significantly from almost every debate she had against Obama, whether it was in front of an all African American audience or just days before she was crashing downward and expected to lose New Hampshire. If McCain's reason for delaying the debate was purely political, the Republican nominee might have been better served to ask for tomorrow's debate to be held sooner than later. 

Greg Bobrinskoy is an Associate Editor at RealClearPolitics