Interesting that the focus groups are scoring it for Obama. I thought it was a slight victory for McCain. Putting aside that I didn't agree with what McCain was saying, I thought he had the better 1 or 2 sentence explanations on most issues. That and a few good barbs are really what win debates.

The upside for Obama is that this was a foreign policy debate and right now nobody gives a rats ass about foreign policy. Look at the front pages and editorial pages of every major newspaper in the country and its all about the economy. If McCain had scored major points in the economic portion of the debate, which I don't think he did, then that might change the landscape. As it is I think he probably scored some minor points in the eyes of the electorate in an arena that is completely secondary right now.

So basically, I think it was a slight win for McCain, but one that doesn't change anything in the broader landscape of the election. Assuming the economy is still the most important thing in the public consciousness by the third debate then that will be the debate in which one candidate can really shift the ground.

Matt, I think one of the issues Democrats have is that we think it's impossible to underestimate the intelligence of the American public. We think, well, obviously McCain's just being an angry old man who spreads patent falsehoods, but American's won't realize! And if we ignore the substance of what was said and who analytically is better and instead focus on who offers more sound and fury, McCain won. So we assume Americans will all agree McCain won.

Obama is premising his candidacy explicitly against that kind of thought. From the gas tax to foreign policy, he believes in just laying out intelligent policy and thinking that it, defended well, will stand on its own.

And, judging by the focus groups and snapshot polls coming in, it did.

Word.

My wife is my example of an undecided--she liked Gore in 2000, didn't care for Kerry in 2004, and so on. She would have scored it as a win for Obama. The big things? McCain looked very old to her, and wouldn't look at Obama, which was a major negative for her. McCain also blinked a lot. And she thought his presentation was poor. Of the two, it was clear who would win as the speaker at a Toastmasters meeting. McCain seemed more rambling to her--and, again, seemed too old, and not particularly vigorous.


I thought Obama took it by a nose, keeping in mind I don't particularly care for either candidate. I think Obama is the better speaker, and, frankly, came off as more of the grownup in this debate.

Debates can impact elections, but don't always. One's that seem to split fairly evenly tend not to be of major impact--and there were no major surprises in this debate. A bad economy should favor the challenger, but that's not always the case. One thing that has always been the case since presidential approval numbers have been recorded is that the incumbent party does not win when their serving president has extremely low approval numbers. So, generally, history doesn't favor McCain here. And the debates are unlikely to make the difference.

excellent post:-)

obama's ability to be civil and respectful, thoughtful, careful and to show charitability in agreement, shows the best qualities of leadership and consensus building....and havent seemed to hurt him any.
he was the same in the saddleback forum, when chris cilizza said, "he is too thoughtful in his answers. he better not do that again."
for some people, obama may speak too softly...but he speaks clearly.
free of drama. very reasonable and deliberate.
all of the qualities you would want in a president.
aside from which, he may be the last gentleman left in american politics.

barack obama may not boast about his heroism in war, or about being a personal, best friend of famous people, and having visited every foreign outpost, but one cant help but see him as a very courageous, fine, wise and humble person.
i will take those qualities in a leader, any day.
it is not who you know, but what you know.

Give McCain this: He did an extremely good stylistic job in an extremely hard situation. I doubt he could have offered a better performance. But the polls suggest that undecideds broke hard for Obama anyway.

Again, we must have been watching different debates. McCain relied heavily on pre-scripted gimmicks, and he often rambled off-topic. And whenever he was attacking Obama, his delivery -- lurching forward, half-whispering in shock and and wonder -- was like he was reading a scary ghost story to children.

It's likely his "stylistic job" is what turned off undecided viewers.

Or put another way: The Presidency is not a lifetime achievement award.

The US is not the same country as it was 4 or 8 years ago. The country has moved on. And McCain is not the same man he was back then either. I think it must have been painful for even his supporters to watch.

He did an extremely good stylistic job in an extremely hard situation.

Angry and repetitive is stylish?

If McCain had run as an independent in 2004 he would be running for re-election today. Oh well.

If independents say Obama won, Obama won. That's what this is about, right?

If independents say Obama won, Obama won. That's what this is about, right?

I'd think so. A quick review of some conservative blogs suggests conservatives think McCain won. I'm apparently in a very small minority of conservatives giving it to Obama. NRO seems to also be suggesting a minor win for McCain. A few think it was a big win for McCain. Interesting.

On CNN, Campbell Brown had an interesting point (no, really!): unless events intervene, that's the last time that foreign policy will be the main topic for the rest of the campaign.

What is it with people and totally undeserved praise for an angry and cantankerous old curmudgeon? Every discussion about McCain these days ends with, "what a great leader he might have been if only..." Come on. He was never a great leader and never will be one and this debate is Exhibit A about why he should never be president. Is he going to huff and puff his way through complex negotiations? Is he going to sneer at NATO allies, like Spain? This guy's a mess. Face it. Accept it. It's OK.

Ezra I have to agree with you that it's the message McCain is delivering that isn't connecting with the undecided voters. I sat with some during the debate and many said he wasn't answering the questions posed to him. They also didn't like the disrespectful and condescending way he interacted with Obama. They were pulled towards Obama because he was acting Presidential and McCain was apparently angry based on his constant sneer. It was enlightening being around undecided voters and hope to do so at the next debate.

His emotion, his passion, came from a nearly uncontrollable contempt for his opponent.
...
McCain's hot anger that this young man even gets to share a stage with him -- much less lead him in the polls -- was continually evident.

Right on. McCain has a combination of entitlement and desire to be the worthy successor to his dad and grandfather - surpassing them both by becoming President (see his book: Faith of My Fathers).

This is his last chance (actually 2000 was the last real one). He sees it slipping away. He's angry that his life's work won't get the recognition that his self-image requires. And he has the stale persona that a really old guy that can't accept what he's actually earned because it isn't what he thinks he deserves.

You can almost imagine McCain thinking to himself:

How dare he?

"McCain's hot anger that this young man even gets to share a stage with him -- much less lead him in the polls -- was continually evident."

Carol McCain probably handled her replacement by Cindy Hensley with more grace.

Well, it also might have a little something to do with him selling his soul to the henchmen who ripped him apart in 2000 on Bush's behalf. Can't you hear the constant refrain: You wanna win, don't you. Then you have to do this and forget the immorality of it.