He continues to amaze. He just plain knows what he's doing. I want the GOP criminals to pay dearly, and I want them all to do their shameful perp walks as soon as possible, but you're right, that's not primarily what's going to win this election.

GO GET 'IM BARACK!

It was said of FDR that he had a "second-rate intellect, but a first-rate temperament". I don't know about the "second-rate" part, in either FDR's case or in Obama's, but I get the point: Temperament can be just about the most important quality one can possess in a crisis. It's that mysterious quality we tend to look for in a great leader, without entirely knowing how to define it ahead of time. We tend also to know it when we see it, and I think Sen. Obama showed in this debate that he has it.

Think about the contrasting strategies of the two men: McCain spent the majority of his time 'going negative' on Obama, and saying very little in terms of detail. Obama, by way of contrast, spent the majority of his rhetoric communicating to the audience by word and attitude that he is ready to lead and is knowledgeable on the issues of the day. Sure he attacked McCain too, notably on his being wrong about Iraq. But he didn't sink to McCain's level, and I think disproved McCain's repeated statements that "Sen. Obama doesn't understand", not by refutation or attack, but by simply DEMONSTRATING that he is well-versed and intelligent.

Obama looked and acted presidential. McCain looked old and grumpy, and spoke in platitudes. Hopefully America is tired of that crap.

I had a similar experience. In fact, just as the debate ended, the body language I saw in Obama said to me that he was already internally chastising himself for opportunities missed. I don't think he did badly at all. And I think he will go to school and get better going forward. How many of us who have done interviews with press or debated in a public forum finish up thinking there is not a thing we could have said or done better?

I also was fairly quickly able to remind myself that my reaction doesn't matter, that what matters is what truly undecideds going in, plus any who previously considered themselves decided who are now up on the fence, thought. The early poll results on how watchers thought they fared I find extremely encouraging.

It's conceivable to me that Obama might have gotten advice to act as if his audience last night consisted entirely of white women. It's conceivable to me that he might have consciously sought to adopt such a mindset.

He bent over backwards to show himself a gentleman. But he also provided reassurance, I thought, to any questioning his commitment to defend our country by speaking convincingly, with authority and resolve, about how we need to keep our eye on the ball and deal with the real enemy that brought us 9-11, bin laden and al qaeda.

I found myself really wishing he'd come back at McCain with a ready zinger in hand to fire back at McCain every time McCain said "What Senator Obama doesn't understand..."

Maybe next time, if McCain tries to pull that, he says something like, "Well I really don't feel I need to be lectured about what Senator McCain says I don't understand when it was Senator McCain who was consistently wrong on Iraq, when it was Senator McCain who was complicit in allowing the Bush Administration to take its eye off of dealing with our real enemies bin laden and al qaeda, when it was Senator McCain who..."

At one point in a 1960 presidential debate, Nixon started to lecture Kennedy, saying "Senator Kennedy has a moral responsibility to..." At the time Kennedy's youth and CIC fitness were a concern for some. Cool as a cucumber, Kennedy responded, roughly, "Well I really don't need to be lectured on my moral responsibilities by Vice President Nixon..." and went on to make his point. On the clip I saw I thought it showcased one of Nixon's ugly sides. Kennedy came off looking, well, presidential.

A couple of questions I hope the media will pose to McCain:

1. Senator McCain, do you respect Senator Obama?
2. Senator McCain, when you say we need to make sure we win in Iraq, what exactly do you mean by victory? In your view, how will we know we have won?

Some thoughts on Obama along the lines of Avishai's "first look" -- but I would avoid OVERthinking the difference in how Obama comes off to someone else (suburban moms) than you or I.
My immediate thought of the debate afterwards was 'advantage Obama, but he failed to score any of the MANY possible knockouts'; by the latter I mean something like when Kerry in the 1st 04 debate pointed out how it was AL QAEDA and not Iraq that attacked -- and Bush had justified the Iraq War by saying "the enemy" attacked us.

Here is a list at least from the first half or 2/3 of the debate, when MOST of those opportunities, some more brazen and more absolutely guaranteed success w/a modicum of finesse (I am assuming Obama would maintain his usual modulated tactfulness), others less so. This a list of requested "McCain FuckUps":

*A few doozies, starting w/trying to palm off current financial crisis in terms of earmarks (!?!?)...

* the way he tried to place the financial crisis also at the feet of the SEC Chairman, likening him to Eisenhower on D-Day.

*Frankly, his total failure to explain his bizarre efforts to cancel the debates and suspend the campaign was a glaring ABSENCE which Obama could have much more effectively exploited. (I feel the debate was advantage Obama, but he had many opportunities to score real knockout punches that would have literally blown McCain out of the water and left the press with a near-impossible job of trying to sell McCain to the public. (My view is that the indicators are that press policy on key points suggests the fix is in, although it might very well have also been in against Clinton in 92 -- remember the NEWSWEEK cover, DURING THE ELECTION, of "WHY AMERICA DOESN'T TRUST CLINTON"?)

*McCain was totally behind on the Ted Kennedy issue, and opened with it. Obama was probably right not to have seized on that one (unless he could relate, eg, having spoken w/Kennedy or his family shortly before the debate or something)

*Trying to defend the role of the House Repukes, in KILLING THE DEAL (???????!) -- Obama should DEFINITELY have KO'd him on that one and didn't

* his point (another where Obama should have struck HARD, but politely) about having 'warned' of the FMs and 'greed' and excess. The name Rick Davis should have been raised here by Obama very sharply, among other points.

I understand that Obama is not a boxer by nature, but a consensus builder. But the debates ARE IN FACT boxing matches (I know polls show, as I felt myself,advantage Obama)

*blathering on about the fundamental "goodness and strength" of the American worker in response to the finance crisis, which is an almost senile non-sequitur

*McCain's ridiculous crack about "handing health care over to the federal government" which Obama should have used to clobber him, and to add focus on health care coverage and McCainian
privatization. McCain left another opening here which was not fully exploited.

*McCain's repeated references to "MISS ???" Congeniality?

*McCain in drawing lessons of Iraq War, where the indicating lines on CNN showed Obama consistently doing better than McCain (something the punditocracy seemed to miss), focused only on war STRATEGY and nothing about why we went in and weapons of mass destruction. He also implied that only STRATEGY was the lesson of the Vietnam War, later on suggesting "let us win" (something that if I were a Repuke supporter of imperialism, I would cringe at, seeing it as something at least better left unsaid)

TO GIVE McCAIN CREDIT, AT ONE POINT HE MADE A FAIRLY EFFECTIVE STATEMENT OF HIS CASE ON IRAQ, A CASE WHICH IS NOT STRONG FOR THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF AMERICANS:

MCCAIN: The next president of the United States is not going to have to address the issue as to whether we went into Iraq or not. The next president of the United States is going to have to decide how we leave, when we leave, and what we leave behind. That's the decision of the next president of the United States.

* Again, when McCain talked about "victory", Obama needed to get critical about that (eg you don't "win" an occupation). It was another potential vulnerability for McCain

*repeatedly bringing up the issue of Obama's subcommittee (on EUROPE) and Afghanistan, a gaffe Obama did exploit but not fully (actually, there is I believe another SUBcommittee more focused on Afghanistan). But the point was plain bogus (the supposed link being NATO)

* Another (political AND substantive) WINNER from McCain:

... Graham and me to attend a ceremony where 688 brave young Americans, whose enlistment had expired, were reenlisting to stay and fight for Iraqi freedom and American freedom.

The issue of forced redeployments should have been raised powerfully here

There were others further on in the debate, though MOST of the worst blunders by McCain were in the first half.

(I could list more if people think that's really essential)

I also had the same initial reaction, thinking Obama did not come at McCain hard enough, and expecing the pundits to say McCain came out ahead. But I also think this is analogous to the Reagan-Carter debate, where people wanted a reason to vote against Carter but had been afraid of Reagan. Reagan came off as not scary and thus democrats (even died-in-the-wool ones like my parents) felt able to vote for him. (I remained terrified of Reagan and shell-shocked by his landslide, and still regard him as a terrible president). Obama maintained a calm demeanor and impressive command of the facts, and it appears that this was noticed by the undecided voters as demonstrated by the initial polling. He certainly passed the threshold of appearing presidential, and was gracious and mature, as opposed to McCain seeming extremely condescending, even insultingly so.

And someone posted this (which has nothing to do with last night's debate but gets to the heart of McCain's 'judgment problem');

Turtle Soup?

While suturing a cut on the hand of a 75 year old rancher who's
hand was caught in the gate while working cattle, the doctor struck up a
conversation with the old man. Eventually the topic got around to Palin and her bid.

The old rancher said, "Well, ya know, Palin is a 'Post Turtle'".

Not being familiar with the term, the doctor asked him what a 'post turtle' was.

The old rancher said, "When you're driving down a country
road you come across a fence post with a turtle balanced on top - that's a
'post turtle".

The old rancher saw the puzzled look on the doctor's face so he
continued to explain. "You know she didn't get up there by herself, she
doesn't belong up there, and she doesn't know what to do while she's
up there, and you just wonder what kind of dummy put her up there to begin with".

It was McCain who spoke of building an "alliance of democracies," for God sake, not Obama

But remember

The "alliance of democracies" wasn't about creating new allies, it was about creating ways for us to ostracize and exclude former allies that we decide are not democracies. Like Spain.

McCain might have hit a good rhetoric point there, but only if you don't know what the substance of the thing he's referring to is.

But then, I wanted McCain to look ridiculous. He did not--and is not.

And what do you base that on?

I personally think his is a sorry joke of a candidate, a quitter, a chickenshit who is afraid of debate and would rather cancel than go through with it.