Last Wednesday, presidential candidate John McCain made the decision to suspend his campaign so that he could return to Washington and help deal with the current economic crisis. Let us be frank: Was the elderly senator sincere, or is this risky move all just a huge gimmick? All other considerations are derivative until one has considered that point thoroughly. To drive home that point, take Sen. Obama’s statements that McCain shouldn’t avoid the debate as a good example of a foolish tangent. Think about that for a second: John McCain avoiding a debate.

Just the mere thought makes me laugh – after all, not too many politicians are more eager to debate than the senator from Arizona. Couple that with the fact that John McCain has been begging Obama to engage in town hall discussions for months, and the staggering insincerity of Obama’s attacks becomes apparent.

However, one could easily argue that Obama was merely fighting fire with fire. If McCain’s suspension was really a gimmick, then did he not deal the first blow of dishonesty?

I, for one, was rather cynical when I first heard of the suspension. Even if McCain had to do something, he didn’t necessarily need to declare the campaign “suspended.” Such a move smacks of dramatization. And yet, such flamboyance does not necessarily condemn the underlying act of returning to Congress as purely dishonest. Thus, it might be appropriate to sort out some commonly held emotions on the issue to clarify the situation.

I know that I’m not alone in getting frustrated when a politician dramatizes national crises for political gain. Thus, if McCain’s suspension was an act that held these sorts of intentions, it is natural to be frustrated with him. And yet, I know I’m not alone in finding self-absorbed presidential campaigning rather superfluous when the rest of the country actually has to go through real problems.

So now, during a national crisis, a politician actually stops campaigning to perform senatorial duties. It truly would be hypocritical to get overly irritated with the man. And if he just kept campaigning, he just might have appeared as a shallow, out-of-touch politician caring more about a campaign than the country. In other words, he would have appeared just as insincere in continuing the campaign as he did to some when he suspended it.

So, regardless of McCain’s sincerity, a better question is whether he’s right. And likewise with Obama’s attacks.

In truth, both politicians have good points. Debates about the future are important but so are attempts to solve the present crisis. In an ideal world, each candidate should be able to do both things at the same time. However, neither candidate would be smart to try such a risky endeavor.

Whether McCain or Obama can actually do any good in Washington is definitely up for dispute. However, if they cut their time there short to make room for the debate, then they stand less of a chance at helping to finalize the emerging congressional compromise. Likewise, both candidates would miss out on their last-minute debate preparations. Forcing Americans to watch such a stilted debate would be wrong – might as well do one thing at a time and delay the debate.

What are we, as voters, to make of all this? Well, there is one certainty here. If McCain really can make a quick and gutsy decision while in the midst of a campaign, and then proceed to help the country in the process of achieving his goals, then I have one question: Wouldn’t that speak well of his ability to serve as our nation’s president?

Stay tuned Friday night to see how (and if) this thing unfolds.

Dan is a junior in political science who thinks Letterman should forgive the man who started his campaign on “The Late Show.”