Most of the pundits and bloggers are concentrating on style/tactical stuff: Was Obama too professorial? Did he give pithy responses or use too many big words? Was he aggressive enough? Etc.
Not the point. Look at the poll numbers: In the CNN post-debate poll, Obama's biggest numbers were on "more in touch with needs and problems of people like you" (Obama 62%, McCain 32%)  and "stronger on the economy" (Obama 58%, McCain 37%).  
Same thing with CBS's poll: On "Would make the right decisions about the economy," Obama trounced McCain66% to 42%.
And the Fox post-debate focus group with "absolutely uncommitted" voters showed exactly the same responses:
--A middle-aged woman: "[Obama] seemed to know what he was doing, he cared about the average person, and he got to me." 
--Another woman: "Yes, Obama moved me. He seemed to care about everyone in America, he was very articulate..."

These numbers and responses show that Obama won the debate on substance, not style. I think Obama won by emphasizing his middle-class tax cuts and hitting McCain for his big corporate give-aways. Especially effective may have been Obama's chiding McCain for over-emphasizing earmark reform, when McCain's own $300b corporate tax cuts would dwarf any savings on earmarks. Obama: We're not going to build a future for the middle-class on earmark reform. Obama emphasized job creation, health care reform, getting us off expensive foreign oil.
As a boxing match, the contest may have been a draw, as many well-paid on-air pundits and comfortable bloggers have said. But it seems most average viewers wanted to know who was on their side, especially on pocketbook issues. There, on the core national concerns, Obama won in a walk. 
So, a very big night for Obama.  
But to average workin