I suppose the same assumption could be said of Obama. Democrats, through no fault of their own, are seen as economically smart in tough economic times. Obama is smart, but his true expertise would come from constitutional law, seeing as that's his home knowledge-base, as it were. Thus, the theory would go, in the final debate which is geared towards economics and domestic policy, if McCain is able to keep up with him, and with talking points is fully expected to, he might "Win" the night. Again, I'm not saying Obama is a lightweight when it comes to the economy, but with the preceived, though unsubstantiated claim that the bailout proposal is not liked by the American public, and depending on whatever economic policy McCain chooses for the day, McCain could come out ahead by being more "populist". Thoughts?

it's not that many in the media (still) admire McCain. It's that he was being held to the "truth" of his "narrative." karmic, no? petard, meet hoist.

I think part of it must be that people who are uninformed about a particular topic (which is all of us, at one point or another) will turn to those they perceive as experts. I, for example, deferred to the particle physicists when they said that CERN wouldn't destroy the world.

However, there is a problem that, being inexpert, we have a great deal of difficulty determining who the other experts are.

I think that Obama's victory indicates that he was able to engage verbal, non-verbal, and content oriented clues that put him in the "experts" club.

Since the McCain campaign is predicated on Obama not being in that club, the realization of low-info voters that McCain is wrong has to have an effect.

The debate wasn't about convincing you, Ezra. You've read all BHO's policy papers and listened to his speeches. Ditto with McCain. The debate was about low information and independent voters. There are a lot of people out there who are drawn to Obama but worry about whether he is "too young" or "too inexperienced". Even a lot of Democrats have expressed this, especially the Hillary diehards. But these people saw Barack speak articulately about all the questions posed, and maintain a dignified demeanor, while getting in quite a few hits at McCain. They needed to see him on the stage with someone acknowledged as experienced and hold his own. By doing this he crossed a threshold with them. That is why he won the debate.

I analyzed the words and sentences which Obama, McCain and—why not?—Lehrer used in the debate. Have a look at the bubble graph (no. of words and length of sentences and words). I also made "word clouds." Interesting! Go to my Word Face-Off blog to view.

"If you walked into the event already disillusioned with McCain's grasp of international affairs -- as I did -- his performance seemed a slick cover for substantively deficient ideas"

Slick? Really? The big problem for McCain was that he expected Obama to cave under a steady barrage of "what Obama doesn't understand. . ." and that just isn't nearly enough to counter what was CLEARLY a reasoned, different philosophy of foreign relations.

By which I mean, the man's a dope.

Usually, Ezra, I find your even-handedness agreeable, but you and I must have watched totally different debates, because I thought McCain was awful on the substance and even more awful on style.

On economic issues, he was almost as incoherent as his running mate. Can you tell me, after that debate, what he believes in, other than cutting earmarks? Did he offer any vision, ideas, or solutions to our current problems?

On Iraq, he completely ignored the only issues that matters -- why he supported the invasion -- and talked about the surge, as if anyone cares. That's like arguing over what flavor sauce to put on a shit sandwich.

But he scored his lowest marks of the evening -- with me and with independent voters who wield those mood meters -- with his refusal to meet with foreign leaders stuff.

Maybe he doesn't want to meet Chavez and Co because he's afraid to look them in the eye. He certainly wouldn't meet Obama's eyes all night. Was it because he's intimidated or because he's contemptuous? Who knows? But it was really peculiar body language and it made Obama the alpha guy in the room, so that even when McCain was yapping it was like a little dog barking at a big dog.

And finally, all that "he doesn't understand" stuff sounded canned -- had someone in his campaign told him he wasn't going to get his metamucil unless he worked the line in 25 times? Since it was clear that Obama had a much more nuanced and sophisticated understanding of the issues than McCain, it became absurd and partonizing.

Most of the overnight polls seem to give it to Obama by only about 3:2 though, so maybe you're right, and it was a lot closer than it looked to me.

I wasn't surprised that the pundits generally gave Obama the victory. The Conventional Wisdom before the debate was that McCain was expected to do much better than Obama because, y'know, McCain has all that experience and foreign policy is his forte. The corollary Conventional Wisdom is that the underdog wins if the "overdog" doesn't mop up the floor with him. Also, I remembered from past debates that the pundits were obsessed with how the debaters looked, and as soon as one of the pundits said McCain looked crotchety and wouldn't look Obama in the eye, I knew he'd blown it -- even though on substance, I thought McCain had put Obama at a disadvantage on economic issues and Obama missed some opportunities on foreign policy.

Check your wonkitude at the door when looking at debates. Absent memorable gaffes and zingers, these things are primarily impressionistic. Who comes across as more "presidential" (i.e., authoritative)? Who has the more appealing body language and demeanor? Who gets rattled or personally belligerent? Who connects with the viewer?

Obama won on every impressionistic point. The only good McCain did for himself was locking up the kick-ass-and-take-names security policy crowd, which he already had.

Future debates, presumably taking place as the economy worsens, will hinge substantively on who connects with a growing economic kick-ass-and-take-names crowd. Obama needs to get more constructively angry on this front -- lots of "you're wrong, John" to lay out here.

How could McCain put Obama at a disadvantage on economic issues when his *entire* economic policy was that if you cut government spending and taxes all problems will magically solve themselves?

Anyone who's figured out the horrible truth about Santa Claus isn't going to buy that one either. Anyone who actually has any awareness of the history of economic problems knows that this viewpoint *created the current crisis*, and if they don't know, I'm sure some pundit can remind them.

I've been working as a screenwriter for about twelve years, and I've come to feel pretty strongly that the deciding factor of whether I sell an idea or not is the perception that producers/buyers have of me before I walk into a room. The substance of what I say, and the quality of my performance is secondary.

The media wanted McCain to lose last night. After jerking them around and saying he wasn't going to debate and then capitulating, he came off as a capricious bastard who didn't give a damn about the amount of work that had gone into organizing and preparing for the press coverage of the debates.

So, that anger on behalf of the press was going to trump everything.

Personally, I think that McCain held his own very well considering the number of gaffes he's made in the past week. I kind of expected Obama to zing him at least once.

McCain did zing Obama -- "If he's so hot on Afghanistan, why has he never been there?"

And Obama's awkward, pitiful, "Well, I have a bracelet from a dead soldier too" moment was cringe-inducing.

Don't get me wrong -- I think Obama won the debate on substance and I'm voting for him.

But I think John McCain outperformed last night. Last night could have been his death knell. But I think he's hanging in, and that's worrisome.

The polling on the debate has Obama winning the "likeability" question by a huge margin. He made people confident he could be president.

Well the msm might have wanted McCain to lose but all the msm punits I've seen today called it for McCain by a hair - it was the focus groups of genyooine undecided voters that called it for Obama - by a lot! Hard to argue with that.

Well the msm might have wanted McCain to lose but all the msm pundits I've seen today called it for McCain by a hair - it was the focus groups of genyooine undecided voters that called it for Obama - by a lot! Hard to argue with that.

Obama wisely targeted the entire debate at the only viewers that matter at this point, the undecided voters, and the spot polls showed him winning big time with them.

Put this in the laughable WTF column: McCain stated Saturday afternoon: “I was a little disappointed the media called it a tie, but I think that means when they call it a tie that means we win,’’
Really? Really! Let's see, he's down in the national polls and dropping, he's down in the electoral college polls and dropping, and now, at best, McCain gets a tie in his supposed strong suit, foreign policy, and that somehow helps him. Seems to me like this was one of his last opportunities to turn things around and he punted, after failing to connect on several Hail Mary attempts.

McCain did zing Obama -- "If he's so hot on Afghanistan, why has he never been there?"

And in so doing, he managed to lie again about his opponent, who was in Afghanistan two months ago. Combine lying with a pissy attitude, and that's pretty much John McCain in a nutshell.

That is stupid 'zinger'.. had roosevelt been to Japan very often? He seemed to feel fairly 'hot' about winning WWII anyway.

This whole things about 'going to Iraq' and 'going to Afghanistan' is a theatre of the absurd. They go to protected plots of land and are led around in armored caravans or flown to destinations in helicopters. Once they arrive they talk to a few carefully chosen officers about subjects that have been chosen by the regional superiors.

It doesnt gain them experience, it doesnt gain them a 'feel for the troops on the ground'. I suppose McCain actually believes it does, and for that he is a forgetful dolt. How much of his experience in the Hanoi Hilton was 'felt' by the generals that flew into vietnam to review the troops?

Hes such an old hack, I cant wait till this race is over.

Sure McCain's foreign policy thinking is puerile and pugnacious. Obama should attack his strength by highlighting what a trigger-happy Churchillian poseur he's been in response to various conflicts (North Korea, Iraq, Iran, China/Taiwan, Georgia). But I wouldn't blame the media for assuming that foreign policy is McCain's ground. Polls give McCain a 10-point advantage on foreign policy, and something like 17 points on national security. Perhaps that's inevitable when you have a war hero who's been heavily engaged in foreign affairs for decades vs. a man young enough to be his son who's spent most of his public career in a state senate and who did say he'd meet with 5 rogue leaders in the first year of his presidency. So Obama did have to "hold his own" and establish basic c-in-c credibility.

But I think John McCain outperformed last night. Last night could have been his death knell. But I think he's hanging in, and that's worrisome.

But here's the thing-- McCain already blew his credibility with voters before the debate even happened, so his performance seems to have been colored by that perception. Based on polls, it's pretty clear that this is what happened.

most presidents were in their 50s when they started. McCain is in his 70s. HEs old enough to be the father of almost every president other then Reagan.

What's funny is all my hardcore liberal friends thought Obama wasn't tough enough -- in fact, he was just right. He looked like a president. McCain looked like a pissed CEO.

Three cheers for David B's comment. I've never understood why anyone thinks political tourism gives a political leader any extra credibility. Whether Obama or McCain has visited Iraq or Afghanistan briefly, engaged in a few staged and scripted events, and headed out offers neither candidate much in the way of useful insight or experience. Supposing that this matters, that someone who's been a political tourist will be a better decision maker, is as sensible as thinking that, if George Bush tours a disaster area by helicopter, perhaps stopping to let folks know he feels their pain, he's going to be able to oversee responses to the disaster more effectively than if he'd stayed in Washington. We need evidence of good judgment, not evidence of tourism masquerading as experience, from our next president.