No knockouts, no memorable zingers. McCain on points.
McCain was able to pull it into his turf. Obama did not pounce enough when given the chance.
Obama showed he was tough, informed, etc. Remember that a lot of people (not bloggers and commenters) are just tuning in, and Obama still has to introduce himself to a lot of voters. A red zone for Obama is “angry black man.” He can’t go there; fairly or not, he can’t go there. So, he may have to risk being too cool, or not combative enough. Because if he can, in any way, remotely be painted as Al Sharpton, then it’s all over.
On these debates, the post-debate spin, the SNL skits (for example) can count for more than the debate itself. So, if, for example, SNL runs a skit portraying McCain as a mean, grumpy, contemptuous old guy, “Obama does not understand,” then that could change things.
Otherwise, McCain on points.
Update: I keep pondering this, and while I may be wholly biased by my desire to make it come out well for my guy, I’m thinking more and more about how the two candidates looked to the 100 million voters who are just starting to pay attention. If Obama’s mission was to present himself as responsible, dignified-but-tough, presidential, intelligent, informed, etc., then he did just that. A rope-a-dope strategy? Let McCain throw all his punches, while outlasting him, looking him in the eye, and being presidential? We’ll see what the polls says.
Update 2: CBS News instant poll of undecided voters says Obama won.
Forty percent of uncommitted voters who watched the debate tonight thought Barack Obama was the winner. Twenty-two percent thought John McCain won. Thirty-eight percent saw it as a draw.
Frankly, those numbers surprise me. But, maybe they reflect something like the strategy (or is it a “tactic?”) I noted above.
Update 3: Frank Luntz panel on Fox News(!) gives edge to Obama:
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wup4nsIWe8A&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&fs=1]
Well, I can’t be so prolix this late at night, but I don’t think it was McCain on points, rather a draw.McCain performed much better than I expected, but the simplistic nature of his “I have the experience” claims, his stupid Iraq=Surge=Victory mantra, and his obnoxiously patronizing dismissals of Obama did not play well. The old fart was trying way too hard to be dismissive towards a very dangerous opponent.The offhand reference to his “feisty maverick” running mate was cringe-inducing, but also a wonderful segway to what I hope will be a complete Palin trainwreck next week. So much for your “judgment,” John.Still, this one was a draw. Obama scored more points during the first “economics” round, and while he can’t play “angry black man,” I do want to see a Cassius Clay knockout punch in the next bout: float like a butterfly, sting like a bee.
I think it was a close debate. I’d give a slight edge to McCain, but I think it depends on who you support. They both did fairly well.I doubt anyones mind was changed by this debate.
I thought the most interesting part of the debate was the various word choices. McCain told people to look up information on a website; Obama overused the word “fundamental” early on.Aside from that, it just wasn’t interesting. Obama attacked McCain exactly once, and let McCain railroad him on Petraeus. McCain never got beyond a “Trust me, my friends” style. The sections on energy, Russia, and whatever was at the end were complete snorefests.What could’ve been a serious debate on diplomacy degenerated into parsing what Kissinger said about meeting foreign leaders. Note to Obama: don’t try to parse what people who support McCain have said. Even if you’re right, they’ll explain themselves on McCain’s side the next day. If you don’t have heavyweights who are on your side or at least neutral, you have a bigger problem than who said what about talking.