Trent Steele wrote:Why is it that I enjoy Pat Buchanan more than any of the other idiots talking heads?

McCain Overall: McCain was McCain — evocative, intense, and at times emotional, but also vague, elliptical, and atonal. Failed to deliver his "country first versus Obama first" message cleanly, even when offered several opportunities. Surprisingly, did not talk much about "change," virtually ceding the dominant issue of the race.

Overall grade: B-

Obama Overall: Went for a solid, consistent performance to introduce himself to the country. He did not seem nervous, tentative, or intimidated by the event, and avoided mistakes from his weak debate performances during nomination season (a professorial tone and long winded answers). Standing comfortably on the stage with his rival, he showed he belonged — evocative of Reagan, circa 1980. He was so confident by the end that he reminded his biggest audience yet that his father was from Kenya. Two more performances like that and he will be very tough to beat on Election Day.

Overall grade: A-

Although it’s difficult to cut through all the triumphant chatter, it’s probably fair to say that neither side has to admit defeat. John McCain effectively pushed his experience and his appeal as a low-risk factor, but then Obama held his own against the 26-year Washington veteran who’s known for his depth of knowledge in foreign policy.

To mix sports metaphors - Obama did not fumble, a low bar to be sure, but McCain failed to hit it out of the park.

McCain just badly misstated the history of Pakistan. For someone claiming extensive foreign policy knowledge, this is simply not acceptable. McCain said Pakistan was a failed state before President Musharraf came to power. That is not true.

Musharraf took power in a military coup in 1999 when he diposed Nawaz Sharif - who recently participated in the latest election. The coup followed the 1999 war in Kashmir with India and was due to a power struggle with Sharif, not due to Pakistan being a "failed state." The United States did not welcome the Musharraf coup. Instead the government of the United States imposed sanctions against this action.

It was one of the most substantive debates in recent presidential campaign history and John McCain won it.


The Arizona senator was cool, informed and forceful in Friday’s first presidential debate of the general election campaign.


He repeatedly put Barack Obama on the defensive throughout the 90 minutes session. Obama did little to ease voter concerns that he’s experienced enough to handle foreign and defense policy. That was his number one task Friday night and he failed.


Instead he was often his old meandering self, unable to state a quick, forceful position. Polls taken in the coming days should show McCain holding on to his trump card in the race - the view that he’s better equipped to be commander in chief.


He condescendingly called Obama “naive” at a couple points in the debate, like an old master lecturing a young understudy. Obama never seemed able to attack back.


McCain’s victory came at a good time for him in the race. He has fumbled around for a week on questions involving the economy and the federal bailout of Wall Street. His vice presidential candidate has become a running joke of late night comedy shows. As a result, his poll numbers sagged.


The debate came against the backdrop of a close presidential election at a time when the country faces its greatest economic crisis since the 1930s and some of its greatest military threats since World War II. The nation’s adversaries - Russia, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela and Taliban terrorists - seem to be on the ascendancy.


It has rattled Americans and between the two, McCain came off as the most reassuring. The crabby, grumbling, hotheaded McCain was nowhere to be seen. Instead we saw a calm, seasoned commander in chief . If you looked at your television and squinted slightly, you could better picture him addressing the country during a time of national crisis than Obama. Obama was often left flashing his smile and shaking his head at McCain.


McCain was expected to win on questions of foreign policy and national defense. That’s been his background. Where he routed Obama was on economic and spending questions as he repeatedly accusing Obama of using earmarks and wanting to spend too much.

By contrast, Mr. Obama was well briefed, but almost in the way a Ph.D. candidate gives his dissertation defense. He knew the subject but without the conviction or detail that comes from wide experience. One surprise: Mr. Obama declared that both Georgia and Ukraine should get an immediate action plan to enter NATO. This is welcome as a policy matter, though we have our doubts how much this conviction would hold up in an Obama Administration as Mr. Putin growled and made trouble for the U.S. in Iran and Eastern Europe.

Every Presidential race is a decision on Commander in Chief, and this election more than most. Americans will have to decide if they can trust Mr. Obama's assertions that he'd combine a desire for diplomacy with toughness when it counts. Our own sense is that Mr. Obama sometimes seemed flustered by Mr. McCain's attacks on his foreign policy "naivete," in particular on Iraq and his failure to support the "surge."

The Democrat tried to turn the Iraq debate back to the original decision to go to war in 2002, and that will play well with those who are decidedly antiwar. We doubt it will play with voters who want to make sure we don't squander the gains of the last year.

Where Mr. Obama did score better was on the domestic front, where he tried repeatedly to link Mr. McCain to President Bush and to what he called a failed "economic philosophy." We don't agree with most of his ideas, but amid the current economic unease Mr. McCain is going to have to do much better than falling back repeatedly on spending cuts. Voters want fiscal discipline, but they also have a certain deserved skepticism that anyone can restrain Leviathan.

What they really want to know is who has a plan for renewed prosperity. Mr. McCain needs a better response to Mr. Obama's attack on his tax and health care policies, as well as a riposte to the Democrat's claim that he'll cut taxes for 95% of Americans. We look forward to Round Two.

VoxOrion wrote:I think that anyone claiming a clear win or loss for either candidate tonight is out of their mind. Both were pretty professional and neither disrespected, condecended, or acted like a jerk...

dajafi wrote:....
What I did notice, from my admittedly biased perspective, was a difference in how they approached the questions, which seems like a decent proxy for "how they think."

Obama takes an analytical, systemic approach....

McCain goes much more for the gut....

I want a rational decision-maker as president above all else. Obama I think came across as more rational. Maybe that's only to me, because I agree with him on more of the specifics.....

Only other reaction of note was that even after all the ugly and silly stuff in this campaign, it just feels good to see in McCain a national Republican leader who doesn't inspire in me the total disbelief and disgust that Bush did, and still does. He doesn't make me think, "how the hell did this $#@! simpleton even make it up there, and what does it say about the country that he did?"

Camp Holdout wrote:some interesting things that factcheck dug up...

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008 ... _no_1.html

really nothing major as far as tripups or flat out lies.

i thought both candidates expressed their views well. i tended to like obama bringing the discussion to "philosophies that brought us here." i think that point has been made by other posters already. it makes sense for him to do this and makes sense for mccain to try to ignore how we got to these points... for obvious reasons.

Philly the Kid wrote:Why can't Obama simply say, "John, do you feel as a senior Senator of the Republican party, that the Republican policies, and agendas the last 8 years have any responsibility for the circumstances we are in today??"

Where are questions like that? He kept trying to say "Bush" "you and Bush", rather than "you - -as a staunch LONG time EXPERIENCED member of Republican party" the people that have lead us here today... tie him to the party and the overall philosophical views of that party. Maverick or not, he's still a Republican, he's not an independent.

What a wasted. Obama could have pwned him.