... 11.40pm update: The breakdown of my blogging software enables me cunningly to postpone my final judgment until after the results of the CNN and CBS snap polls of debate viewers, both of which say Obama won: CNN by 54% to 30% (with Obama's favourables up and his unfavourables down, both unchanged for McCain); CBS 39% to 27%. Matthew Yglesias: "It's extremely surprising to me, tactically, that McCain didn't try to do something new. Instead, McCain took the same talking points (earmarks bad, tax cuts good, earmarks very bad) that have seen him fall behind and decided to repeat them with less energy."
James Fallows: "From a horse-race perspective, John McCain came in behind and losing ground, in the middle of a financial/economic panic that works against him, and therefore needing a big win. This meant either damaging and flummoxing Obama, or so outshining him in audience rapport, mastery of policy, and empathetic connection through the camera, that the debate could be presented as a turning point. None of that happened. (McCain's best performance was at the end, rejecting a "Yes/No" question on whether Russia is an "evil empire.") At this stage in the race, a tie goes to leader, and this was not a tie."
The conservatives at The Corner are mainly quite depressed, too. Oh, and: that was quick.
Now vote in our poll! You know it makes sense.
Midnight: There's a detectible sense among the punditocracy, on television and on the web, that the election might prove to have been decided here tonight. Only a fool would say that outright, of course, so few do, but this wasn't the debate McCain needed: on the one hand, he didn't go for "presidential"; on the other hand, he didn't go for "Bill Ayers" character attacks like we've heard in Palin's recent stump speeches. A month is an exceptionally long time in politics, etcetera, etcetera. But I don't see how it could have gone much better for Obama, who made no errors, and remained authoratitive and empathetic -- "presidential" -- throughout. McCain seemed to try-but-fail to deliver a new and newly detailed economic argument that only ended up raising more questions; he had at least one incredibly odd moment, calling Obama "that one", and more generally his dripping contempt for Obama was as evident as ever. He tried to coax the audience into laughing with him at Obama, which fell flat. To the extent that these things are about the broad-brush impressions that the candidates manage to convey, the impression was that it was Obama who was in command, all the way through.
So does this mean McCain gets even more dirty and relentlessly negative from here on in? Would it make any difference if he did? I don't know. My job is to pose rhetorical questions, and then go to bed. Thanks for reading, and please keep commenting...
/...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/oliverburkemanblog/2008/oct/07/uselections2008.barackobama1
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
