McCain-Obama: Debate Number 1

Much of the discussion on Friday’s debate focuses on “who won the debate?” as if there are clear, well known criteria for scoring points and determining a winner. For what it’s worth, I thought the debate was very even, with no clear winner on “points.” McCain did relatively well on the economic issues, and Obama demonstrated a command of foreign policy issues. Initially, based on a strictly audio experience, I gave McCain a slight edge for three reasons:

1. McCain was more aggressive. While Obama capably countered all of McCain’s attacks and demonstrated both breadth and depth of knowledge, it was McCain who usually controlled the topics. Where Obama addressed McCain attacks, McCain avoided responses to Obama’s assertions, usually changing the subject
   
2. As an Obama supporter, I was disappointed that he failed to pounce upon McCain when McCain’s (mis-?) statements left a clear opening, three examples include:
   
• McCain clearly mixed up, an perhaps does not understand the difference between, the financial crisis and fiscal issues.
• McCain's fabrication that Obama’s plans to hand “the health care system over to the federal government.”
• McCain misstating the difference between strategy and tactics.
• McCain describing Pakistan as a “failed State.”
3. While Obama’s answers included more substance and made more factual sense, McCain had better sound bites. I thought McCain’s answers and non-answers revealed a lack of knowledge on many issues, I doubt that most people 
   

After then watching video of the debate, however, I give Obama a (slight) edge, not because I am a partisan (I am) but because I think: 1) Obama better achieved his objectives, and 2) McCain’s demeanor was overly negative and off-putting.

But overall, both candidates did (relatively, neither are great debaters) well in the first debate. Neither made any big mistakes. So partisans’ previous opinions were likely reinforced. The question then becomes how ell did each candidate do in achieving their own objectives.

What Did Obama Need To Do?

Obama’s principal need was to demonstrate a command of foreign policy and give let voters get comfortable with the idea Obama as Commander in Chief. A secondary objective was to reinforce the public’s opinion that the Democratic Party in general, and Obama specifically had a better understanding of economic issues and offered superior solutions to the problems faced by the country.

During the foreign policy portions of the debate, Obama displayed a thorough knowledge of the issues and held his own with McCain on supposedly McCain’s strength. I gave McCain slight edges for Iraq and Iran. I think Obama’s position on Iran is stronger, but McCain did a better job of framing his points. in contrast, Obama did better (again, slightly) on Pakistan. Both Afghanistan (where I felt the discussion dissolved before much had been said) and Georgia seemed even to me. Overall, his performance probably helped with undecided voters who were looking for a reason to support Obama.

On the economy, Obama did not hurt himself, but he also did not deliver a knockout blow to McCain.

What Did McCain Need To Do?

Contrary to many opinions, McCain’s principal need was not to counter Obama and show Obama to be unfit for COF duty (although that would have been very good for McCain). No, McCain needed to demonstrate that he was still relevant after his clown show on Thursday; McCain needed to stop the cratering of his poll numbers if he wanted the chance to rebuild his support.

McCain did well at expressing an ability to express some knowledge of the economic issues. Many of his answers struck me as rather empty (such as asserting that eliminating earmarks would solve all his fiscal issues), but he was very good at dancing away from Obama’s counter-attacks. His suggestion of a spending freeze was a great tactical move for the debate, but will probably cause problems for him in the coming weeks.

On the foreign policy issues, McCain did well, but he was suppose to; other than a few minor gaffes, which probably went unnoticed, there was nothing surprising in his performance. 

While I think most undecided voters will make their decision based upon how they feel about Obama, McCain may have hurt his chances with the grumpy, lecturing style he employed. No one wants to vote for an angry elf!

Update: A new LA Times/Bloomberg poll give Obama the win (OK, they "preferred" Obama over McCain 49% to 44%). But more importantly, and reflecting my thoughts above, Obama did very well with those who were undecided or not firmly committed to a candidate. When asked who appeared "more presidential," Obama was chosen by 44% compared with only 16% who chose McCain.