My instant reaction was that Obama came across stronger through most of the debate, except for the very final statements, where I think McCain really hit a home run as he signed off.  My wife, who leans more Republican, thought Obama came across as somewhat elitist while McCain seemed more approachable.  Generally I thought Obama seemed more composed and more willing to give detailed (although still annoyingly vague) and nuanced answers.  McCain seemed more forceful and arrogant, and often downright condescending.  By rights, I guess I feel Obama should be considered the "winner" (whatever that may mean), but considering my increasingly low opinion of the American public, I'm guessing that within a few days we'll come to learn that McCain "won" because Obama is a "wussy faggot Muslim", while McCain "came across as a real man, a War Hero(TM)".  Action figures, a cartoon, and a Super Value Kids Meal Toy soon to follow.

I think McCain held his own. He did very well during the second half. With all that has gone horrifically wrong with the US foreign policy over the past years, Obama should have easily been able to land a knockout at least once in this debate. He did not not.

As much as I hate to say it, McCain won.

Watched the whole thing and found it mostly a draw.
Could've been, should've been much better.
From the Kos link:

One other point -- Lehrer was the best moderator, BY FAR, of any debate this season. And the audience was perfectly behaved. A triumphal debate. Perfect. Kudos to everyone involved in making it happen.

Sorry but Lehrer missed opportunity after opportunity. He was all too willing to let the candidates recycle talking points endlessly w/out really challenging them on it. Excepting the part where he repeatedly pressed both on what they'd cut from their presidential wish/programs list as a response to the financial crisis, he never really challenged them on their stances or their mischaracterizations of each other. Would've liked to see Lehrer put some pressure on each candidate's truthiness aspect. The WaPo did a live fact check on last night's statements as the debate was going down, and there's no reason someone couldn't have updated Lehrer in a similar fashion so's he could press 'em to explain.

Somewhere in my soul, there's always Rock -n- Roll... Joe Strummer

Low on histrionics and no knock out punches.  For whatever it's worth, this was supposed to be the debate where McCain had all the strength and depth.  Yet, Obama managed to keep his head above water.  One noticeable absence in this debate -- McCain barely used the words change at all.  It will be interesting to see how the other debates go.

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Jim Lehrer:  Which of your spending programs will you scale back, given the new $700 billion bailout?

Obama:  We need to lay broadband lines that reach into rural communities.

McCain:  I will consider a spending freeze on everything but defense, veteran affairs and entitlement programs.

Jim Lehrer:  What's this about talking to terrorist dictators, now?

Obama:  Henry Kissinger told me to do it.

 MCCAIN: So let me get this right. We sit down with Ahmadinejad, and he says, "We're going to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth," and we say, "No, you're not"? Oh, please.

OBAMA: No, let me tell...

MCCAIN: By the way, my friend, Dr. Kissinger, who's been my friend for 35 years, would be interested to hear this conversation and Senator Obama's depiction of his -- of his positions on the issue. I've known him for 35 years.

OBAMA: We will take a look.

Kissinger:  Barack, you ignorant slut.

I thought Obama came out looking slightly better.

I'm always impressed by how much of our politics takes place in the realm of fantasy.

I'm extremely disappointed both want to add Georgia to NATO.

Also it was Iraq that had a Republican Guard. Iran has a Revolutionary Guard.

We should be talking about wrapping up Afghanistan, too.

Hmm I voted "tie" in the poll to the right, but I think McCain won, thinking about it now. Obama kept saying he wanted US forces to leave Iraq in order to focus on Afghanistan. When McCain countered by saying that both Al-Qaeda and the US military see Iraq as the central battleground, Obama did not, if I recall, counter. Afghanistan's situation may be deteriorating, but Americans simply won't care if the bigger threat is truly in Iraq. I also didn't see Obama say anything about the Iraq war being illegitimate. Instead he seemed to say it was simply unnecessary, and a poor focus of military resources. There was no moral difference between McCain and Obama, it seemed, only a strategical one. I didn't watch the whole thing though.

I also thought it was horrible that McCain brought up the Vietnam war, and honestly believes that Americans should have won that war, and that Obama did nothing to counter. I'm guessing this has to do with the sacred cow status of the US military, and the confused American viewpoint towards that war. That is, 99% of Americans think the Vietnam war was not worth fighting, but they still, bizarrely, wish America had won the war due to shame and "honor." It's an utterly idiotic viewpoint but most Americans hold it.

 This was all disgusting and ridiculous to me, since no one is advocating a second Vietnam war, and no one will, despite major reasons for the first Vietnam war still existing. The US invaded Vietnam in order to defend it from Communist take over. Guess what, it is taken over by Communists now. Let's go liberate them, shall we? It also invaded because of the Domino Theory, which claimed that a Communist takeover of Vietnam would lead to a Communist takeover of much of the rest of the world. That didn't happen. Since it didn't happen, this reason is totally invalid. The Domino Theory of the Vietnam War was the "WMDs" issue of that war. And like Iraq's WMDs, it failed to materialize.

 McCain also said that US troops weren't "allowed to win the Vietnam war."OK, so let's allow them to win it now. Looking at current US military performance in counter-insurgency warfare, it appears the US is far more capable of fighting against guerilla tactics than it was in the past. So why not invade Vietnam in the future and let them win the war this time? McCain brought up the Vietnam war as being just without following these views to the logical conclusion. He said it was a good war but did not say why it should not be waged in the future.

Obama stood mute about all this. Perhaps it was strategically right to do so, but right now it seemed like Obama and McCain were practically identical on issues of foreign policy. Maybe they have different reasons for their policy views, but this is a moot point if the end result is the same.

I also thought Obama should've struck McCain for bringing up Reagan. McCain mentioned Reagan a few times, implying he would be like Reagan. McCain also mentioned some kind of "League of Democracies" that the US should help form. Something where the US basically ignored the desires of any undemocratic country (or roughly 70% of the human race). The problem is... Reagan-era policies did not prop up only democratic governments, as we saw in the Iran-Contra scandals. And didn't the Reagan administration supply Iraq AND Iran with weapons during their war? To bring up Reagan as a source of inspiration while also saying that only democracies should be our allies is a contradiction, one that Obama should've pointed out. McCain wanted to eat his cake and have it too, or however that saying goes.

Wow, opinion polls are giving Obama the debate win, and by a pretty big margin too.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7640053.stm

    You can disregard this comment right now if you want, as I didn't watch the debate, and almost never do view these things; the last time I watched was on vacation, and the only way to kill time was watch Kerry v Bush, and post at Plastic. These reactions are, as always, the result of trying to read between the lines of the coverage, and thinking about the larger framework.
    First, that framework. Why did McCain propose the whole "drop the campaigns" stunt earlier this week? Was it to drum up support for these debates, which might otherwise lose out to movies or parties? If that's so, a tie really would be a stunning loss, since the intent would seem to be to attract attention to some kind of smackdown-- which doesn't seem to have happened, by all the comments so far.
    So what if the delay wasn't for this reason? Well, let's take this two directions:

   A) McCain is ahead, and trying to keep Obama's campaign off balance. Possible, except the complaints this week have been, by reading titles, that Obama wasn't really doing anything. Now, preventing an action before it starts is good strategy, but you'd have to have some evidence that the Obama camp had something in the works, which doesn't seem to be the case. I could be wrong.
    B) McCain is behind, and trying to dent a small but unmoving lead. Remember, Obama only has to hit "Kerry +1 state" to win*, which isn't much of a margin for error for McCain. If the two campaign staffs are reaching similar conclusions via their polling (which they'd trust a hell of a lot more than anything I could link to, eh?), that might explain this last week pretty well. Obama is trying not to lose a small lead, and McCain is trying to force him in to some gaffe that would do just that. Either of these could be correct-- I guess we'll find out soon enough.

    Is Obama a bit stiff and formal? Well, you know who else is in public appearances? Clarence Thomas. Why is this a virtue for one and not the other? Because one is a Supreme Court justice, while the other wants to be president? A meaningless point. The far easier conclusion is that a certain formality is the least worst option for a black man in the public eye. Just a suggestion; at the very least, this is not an election where "have a beer with him" likability is going to get much traction with voters.

    Last thought on debates: can a candidate really win an election with a good performance? Or is it far more likely that one of the participants loses? If that's so, then it should come as no surprise that this was so "dull". Both men are senators, and understand quite well how to be smooth in ways governors would find detrimental, and this would show up in public appearance like a debate. Heck, compare the difference in tone between the House and Senate (on C-SPAN), if you want a second argument. I'd be stunned if anything tripped up either candidate in the next two debates, for this reason.

     *Depending on the state, obviously. Arizona (to be farcical) wouldn't do, but Ohio would.

Ex ignorantia ad sapientiam; e luce ad tenebras

I will confess that I didn't watch the debate last night.  As best I can tell I didn't miss anything.  The "debates" are terribly misnamed...they're nothing but unusually long campaign commercials.

I think I may watch the VP debate, although for the wrong reason.

Q: What do you think of western civilization? Gandhi: I think it would be a good idea.

Everyone seems to be trying to determine a winner as if this was a college forensics tournament, and in this sense the conventional wisdom that it was a pretty even split seems correct. However, Obama comes out the winner in a political sense because of two things. First, he looked better. Where McCain was fidgety and uncomfortable, Obama seemed far more poised. Body language is very important, and McCain's wasn't good. Second, I think Obama had the evening's soundbite won with his "you were wrong," quote regarding Iraq. It was a very strong piece of rhetoric that's going to stick in people's heads much longer than anything else in the debate. They may have tied on the substance, but Obama won on the style.

In fact, I was so sure of it that I was shocked to find out from the pundits and polls right afterward that I was wrong.

As for McCain's consistent condescension, Obama had no choice but to ignore it directly. But why in the hell didn't he at least hammer the guy with indirect references to a need for reform, for change, for youthful (without using the word) energy?

Obama didn't win.

McCain didn't lose.

Winner: McCain.

And like Tom says, a tie is a win for McCain.

Wow. That debate sucked ass. I wanted Obama to crush McCain into talcum powder, but no, he played it demo-centro safe.

They were both horrible, by my lights. I guess I've been watching too many Frank Capra movies, lately, and I wanted Obama to channel Jimmy Stewart (beyond the stuttering and 'errrs').

----- The earth may burn, but we will quiver