Who won? Carla with her live blogging post.

Courtesy TMV

There are already some numbers coming in measuring perceptions about who “won” tonight’s presidential debate. To start, CBS News polled 500 uncommitted voters and found:

* 40% thought Obama won, 22% thought McCain won, and the rest thought it was a draw
* 46% said their opinion of Obama got better tonight
* 68% think Obama would make the right decisions about the economy, compared to 42% for John McCain
* 55% think McCain would make the right decisions about Iraq, compared to 49% for Obama

MediaCurves held a focus group, and while Democrats and Republicans broke along party lines, independents gave the edge to Obama on every segment:

* 61% of independents said Obama won, compared to 39% for McCain (”tie” wasn’t given as an option)
* Independents rated the segment on Russia as Obama’s best, giving him the edge 66.7% to 33.3%
* Independents rated the segment on government spending as Obama’s worst, giving him the edge over McCain 53.4% to 46.6%

I only caught the last 45 minutes since I had to work late, but my impression was that it was a tie. I guess I had low expectations for McCain and since he didn't go berserk, he exceeded them. In some ways, he came across as more knowledgeable in foreign affairs as his answers were more specific and he could mention that he had traveled to these countries and met some of the leaders.

McCain continuously breaking in and talking over Obama surely will be considered rude, but Obama allowing him to do so might be considered weak.

I was dismayed by the lack of depth in the debate. Obama missed chances to clarify issues. McCain constantly touted the success of the "surge," yet many Iraq observers say several other factors, including the bribes paid to Sunni militias to stop killing our soldiers, were more effective in winding down the violence. And he was as knee-jerk as McCain on the Russia/Georgia conflict, when Georgia itself is no innocent angel, having oppressed a region that identifies with Russia.

Yeah, I think Obama definitely needed to spend all his time on the "Russia" question talking about interethnic conflict in Georgia, the legacy of Soviet-era borders separating ethnic groups into what are now independent states, maybe even a bit about Georgian wine and the way that Stalin spoke Russian with a Georgian accent. That would have really grabbed the viewers in Oxford, Miss.

The talking heads liked McCain's pugnacious attitude. All the polling I saw suggest a win for Obama. This includes the very important undecided voter demographic.

Obama was calm, organized, informed. McCain kept repeating a limited number of talking points and had a few flubs.

...and Jim Lehrer did a first rate job as moderator.

Commentary on NPR on the way home in car: insistent bleat from callers that not enough time was spent on nearly anything. Reiterations that inordinate and appropriate amounts of time spent on the current economic circus of greatest concern to the nation. More bleating about pet topics not covered. Programming seemed designed not to reveal "win"/"loss" - even split between War on Terror buffs and McCain is Old School monologists.

Obama kept looking away from the camera towards McCain, who ignored him. Either jim did not explain the format to the two, or they ignored the idea that they should actually debate each other. They both looked kinda lost on the format. I thought Obama started nice and forceful, highlighting his differences and calling McCain on certain issues, then he went soft. McCain came on strong on Georgia, the Surge, the Fiscal Bailout, but those were natuarally Obama's weaknesses.

The best line of the evening was when McCain compared Obama's complete failure to even admit that he might have been wrong about the surge with George Bush's failure to even admit that he may have made a mistake. OUCH! Character flaw alert. Do we want another Chief Exec who can see no flaws in himself? The indies that I was watching the debate with felt Obama is the Black with Bush inside, kinda of OR-Bush-EO (OREO wrapped around Bush).

But obviously, nobody on this site was swayed by McCain. Just a bunch of Obama fans here.

My friend (undecided, leaning McCain) said he liked much of what McCain said, but thought McCain was rude to Obama.

The winners of elections are not the ones who win on debate points. Voters vote for who they like, who they trust to act on their values. That is why the insta-polls show Obama the clear winner. the blogsters wish that Obama were more of street fighter but that isn't going to get him elected. McCain was combative but thoroughly unlikeable and on the wrong side of history, and the mood of the American people. The narrative tomorrow will be that Obama held his own and showed he was presidential and connects more with the concerns of average people, more so than McCain.

Regarding comparing Obama to Bush, the quote was: "We need a President who is more flexible than that.." (ie be man enough to admit your mistakes, Bush clearly was/is NOT man enough).

Jeff... acquiese(sic) the point?, engaging the question organically??, talking points tourettes(sic)???, non sequitur fragments????, low ranking monkey behavior????? (racist!) WOW... I think I need to go get my dictionary, thesaurus, and a few other reference guides to help me parse your comment.

Bottom line:
Time says Obama A-, McCain B-. Drudge says McCain took it two to one (67% to 33%) I am sure that BlueOregon has it 90% for Obama, 10% for Nader.

Drudge?? That's the right wing nest!

The online polls are pretty much all Obama as are the telephone insta-polls by CBS and CNN.

The punditry and the blogsters tend to regard debates as a boxing match, scoring points etc. Kerry supposedly won all three debates on points but where did it get him.

Communication is what debates are about, connecting with the viewers. The composite body language and verbal communication is what sways people. Every focus group of undecided Fox, CNN, CBS, have all gone decisively for Obama. Perhaps this is part of the reason: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ty9BTcERiYY

More on why Obama won as a communicator:

CW-meister Mark Halperin, on PBS:

"I thought Obama clearly did better. I thought he had a chance to show that he was calm and prepared and capable of standing toe to toe with the more experienced McCain. I thought McCain spoke too much Washington jargon, told too many jokes in shorthand, made too many comments he knew what he meant but I don't think he conveyed it necessarily to the audience overall.  I thought Obama was the better communicator and did what he needed to do to reassure people."

Richard Wolffe, MSNBC:

"That was the greatest contrast…the demeanor and the tone of voice that these candidates adopted where McCain was being much more pointed much more aggressive and curiously couldn't look Obama in the eye. Obama's tone much more straight and even keeled but ready to look his opponent in the eye repeatedly. A big contrast."

Eugene Robinson, Washington Post:

"Here’s the politically incorrect way of phrasing one of the central questions about tonight’s presidential debate: Did John McCain come across as too much of a grumpy old man?

That might not be a nice question, but it’s an important one. Americans like to vote for the nice guy, not the grumbling prophet of doom. Throughout the 90-minute debate, McCain seemed contemptuous of Obama. He wouldn’t look at him. He tried to belittle him whenever possible -- how many times did he work “Senator Obama just doesn’t understand” into his answers? His body language was closed, defensive, tense. McCain certainly succeeded in proving that he can be aggressive, but the aggression came with a smirk and a sneer."

Marc Ambinder, The Atlantic:

"McCain did not filter himself, letting his frustration and contempt for Obama show; he wouldn't let himself look at the challenger."

Martha!

Drudge?

Oy.

My friends who lean to the left thought Obama won this debate. My friends that lean to the right thought McCain clearly won. Being undecided, I listened and watched carefully but it was hard for me to tell. For me, McCain clearly seemed more knowledgeable and more experienced. He seemed as though he had a much clearer understanding of the issues. He also sounded condescending at times, sometimes angry or lecturing, and his remarks about Ted Kennedy sounded disengeuous (I am surprised he would associate himself anyway with the likes of Kennedy). Obama seemed to be more open to discuss, rather than lecture, and seemed more comfortable during the debate. He sounds like the type of person wiling to listen to all sides before making a decision, and he sounds genuine. Tough call, but I still want to listen to them discuss the economy and other issues in more detail. Contrary to some comments I have seem elsewhere I thought the moderator did a great job, by staying out of the debate and the limelight. I also thought keeping the audience quiet was a great idea, as it gave me a better opportunity to really listen without influence.

Obama definitely won the debate if the point of the debate was to appeal to independent voters who are just chiming into presidential politics and have heard repeatedly that Obama doesn't know his stuff. It was McCain that made gaffes on not knowing the truth about Pakistan in 1999 and the coup led by Musharuff. If you want combative, then McCain's your guy, but I think a lot of people see this guy - old, grumpy - with a finger on the red button, and peering over his shoulder, a ditzy governor from Alaska saying, "Oh, so that's how it's done." And that scares the hell out of them.

Clearly Obama. McCain looked pissed off at some of Obama's answers. He looked even more angry when he asnwered with a annoyed tone of voice that was seemed to say 'why are you not listening to and buying into my ubiquitous propaganda?'

But my God, somebody get the man a frickken debate coach. Please.

No kidding!

I quit counting after the 12th time BHO said some version of “John’s absolutely right”, making himself sound like an eager freshman trying to gain favor with the cool upperclassman. Rudy picked up on this with his post-debate comments.

Not the best way to take the fight to your opponent in a close race. Better hope for improvement before the next round.

Jeff asked exactly the right question in this poll. He didn't ask who won the debate. He asked who was helped most.

People will naturally disagree about who won the debate. But it's clear the debate helped Obama more.

It was a draw and that's why McCain won. Obama should have clobbered McCain after the week he has had, but he didn't.

This is among the best analyses on the debate. Not surprisingly, it comes from an independent observer.

Obama missed opportunities to call McCain on some points he tried to make, but he was compromised by his own alliances.

Juan Cole does some some debate fact checking

My sense of the debate PROCESS is that there are no winners, particularly this year. This is a perceptual and completely personal exercise, and much of the value is in the discussions that ensue, if there is true intellectual curiousity shared amongst the participants. Each person will diagnose the outcome according to their hopes, their delusions, their pet concerns, and their psychodynamic. Also what they ate for dinner that night. This as much as their knowledge base, if we are honest.

I am seeingalso that much of the process is also informed by who folks are watching with -- discussion among my passionately pro-Obama/pro-Clinton network ranged from "he probably looked weak to people we need to win, but not to me", to "he was perfect". And so on.

I suspect that the Rovian dynamic is being saved for Biden to engage.

Alternet has another good analysis from six observers.

From another thread, some may find this interesting

McCain's High Horse Meets Obama's High-Mindedness http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/27/AR2008092700037.html?hpid=topnews

I'm one of my who is frustrated by Obama's lack of cut-throat political instincts, but let's face it, people: if the BROADER Democratic and non-affiliated electorate--the folks who voted in primaries--really wanted that, we would have been watching Hillary Clinton debate McCain last night, and Obama would have been sitting around a table with a bunch of talking heads do post-debate "analysis".

No, Obama did not go for McCain's jugular. And guess what? He's not going to in the next couple of debates, either. Obama will continue to be polite: he will disagree, and to make his own points, firmly but politely. And McCain will continue to smirk, grimace, and refuse to look at Obama.

Folks, if you want a candidate who will denounce John McCain as the illegitimate spawn of George Bush and Satan, then Barack Obama is not your man.

With regard to substance, I feel it was a draw with neither of them prevailing on their differences in views. For McCain, it was certainly a more stabilizing time than his wild week flopping all over the political map. For Obams, it showed he was alert, knowledgeable, and above all, presidential. In this last respect, while the debate was a draw on substance, the advantage goes to Obama for showing a lot of the undecided voters that he is qualified to be POTUS. The first polls seem to bear this out and he is now ahead by six point in the Rasmussen poll.

Ted,

Is that you Ted Piccolo or more well known as "I Am Coyote?"

If so, you need to check the polls bitty boy. You prefer the Rasmussen poll whose founder Scott Rasmussen is an Evangelical Christian. So we all know which way Rasmussen is slanted and that is why you use it as to an older more trusted polling firm such as Gallup.

Personally, I prefer the polls at Realclear politics as they are an average of Rasmussen/Fox News, Gallup, etc.

If we are going by the polls then you are dead wrong.

Obama has been higher in the polls than McCain in the last couple weeks, which means that a draw in a debate on McCain's strongest suit gives Obama the win.

You will be even more wrong come Monday. Keep going by your Rasmussen Reports and ignoring all others if it helps you sleep at night ;)

Obama quote from today:

“The truth is, through 90 minutes of the debate, John McCain had a lot to say about me. But he had nothing to say about you.”

Based on CNN and CBS polling of undecided and independents, Obama won HUGE

Here is some excellent analysis by James Fallows http://jamesfallows.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/09/on_strategy_and_tactics.php

and by Josh Marshall- http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/220315.php

on why Obama was most helped last night, and why he won over more of the undecided voter by his performance.

I endorse Bill R's links made easier here James Fallows and Josh Marshall.

YoungOregonMoonbat, "...I come from under the hill, and under the hills and over the hills my paths led. And through the air. I am he who walks unseen. I am the clue-finder, the web cutter, the stinging fly. I was chosen for the lucky number. I am he that buries his friends alive and drowns them and draws them alive again from the water. I came from the end of a bag, but no bag went over me. I am the friend of bears and the guest of eagles."

I am not referring to polls, only the poll of one, open to the minds of many, clothed in purple and all fabrics of allegory.

Do all men kill the kings they do not love?

...But Obama should have beat Mmmm-c(o)Cain, protector of the Golden Triangle, profiteer among the Keating 5 and S&L scandal, hands down. Obama, like Kerry, is willing to stay within the boundaries set for him. That's the saddest part.

Why dost thou whet they knife so earnestly?

Obama, like Kerry, is willing to stay within the boundaries set for him.

He has no choice. He, like McCain, has been purchased by different blocks and neither dares offend any one of them. McCain made some statements that weren't true - Iran-Israel and Georgia, for example - but Obama couldn't call him on them without risking offending voters he wants to get.

Obama probably realizes his best game is to play to not lose and let McCain do that with one or more blunders. Palin, grandstand on the bailout. Those are two strikes and Obama is hoping McCain will commit the third strike that takes McCain out of the ball game.

Joel, I agree with you that Obama is not the person to deliver cut-throat attacks. I think the ads the Republicans put out where Obama agrees with McCain will ultimately backfire because being agreeable is what much of America likes, and being able to see your opponent's point is often a sign of maturity. The "Is Obama ready to lead?" tagline is pretty laughable considering McCain is the one bragging that he can reach across the aisle and that Obama can't because he has to reach from too far from the left. Obama is showing in his demeanor that he is the kind of person to bring people together. This plays particularly well in the midwestern swing states...

McCain thought he won

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.

Undecided voters did not agree. Even Republican guru Frank Luntz, running a focus group of undecideds for FoxNews, declared Obama the winner.

So...

• Obama did better with undecided voters
• Obama held his own on McCain's strongest ground, foreign policy
• Obama already had the lead and the momentum.

Obama won the debate.

No doubt that Obama was helped more by the debate than McCain. And, given the consensus that Obama missed more opportunities to hammer McCain then vice-versa, I think that bodes well for Obama in the next two debates.

I would have liked to see Obama show greater command of the bailout issue by stopping McCain from rambling on about earmarks. Obama should have looked at McCain and simply said: "John, American taxpayers are not about to be on the hook for $700 billion because of earmarks. American taxpayers are about to be on the hook for $700 billion because your preferred approach of de-regulating markets has failed to protect the taxpayer."

<h2>I can't help but feeling that Obama is this close to ending the race. Here's hoping he brings his "A" game to the next debate.</h2>