It appeared to me that, at the beginning of the debate, McCain was trying to portray himself as a consensus builder, someone who can work with both sides of the aisle, as opposed to Obama who consistently attacks Republicans. I don’t think that McCain wanted to come across as laying all of the blame on the Democrats for the financial mess, since he is still trying to work with all parties to craft a solution to the nation’s financial problem. It seemed to me that this was an attempt by McCain to appeal to the undecided moderates and independents, since he didn’t need to appease the Conservatives who are going to vote for him. I am not sure McCain succeeded.
I thought McCain did much better in the second half of the debate when he focused more on policy and his experience.
I thought Obama came across as someone who can be rattled. His facial expressions and head shaking when McCain jabbed him reminded me of Al Gore’s antics in the first debate with Bush - amateurish in a diplomatic setting.
I don’t know if anyone else noticed but, while McCain mentioned the need to protect Israel and Jews several times, Obama did not mention either even once unless I missed it. The debate was supposed to be about foreign policy and Obama doesn’t even mention the only true friend that America has in the Middle East? Will that go unnoticed by American Jews?
Although Obama was more eloquent, I thought that McCain got the better of the “quips” – “hard to reach across the aisle when you are that far left” – “so Iran says they are going to wipe Israel off the face of the earth and we say no you’re not?”
As I anticipated, Obama won on style and McCain won on substance. The loser was the moderator.
I guess we will find out whether style or substance is more important to the majority of the American electorate on November 4th.
I think that McCain won on style because he seemed more presidential and more safe. Obama looked like a gamble.
That being said his substance was lacking. Much of the first round sounded more like campaign rhetoric than answering the question posed. McCain came closer to giving real answers especially to the very real question of how we're going to be able to afford the bailout. (not by raising taxes, but by cutting the taxes on business, keeping jobs here at home, and creating 700,000 new jobs in the energy sectors). 0bama didn't seem to have an overall strategy, just campaign rhetoric and blame gaming.
On the ME it seemed to me that 0bama might be more willing to jump to using force with Pakistan than McCain. I thought that was actually more telling, although most may have missed that little slip in position.
What will the American people think? Initially I think they will appear close in this debate due to 0bama rhetoric. By Monday though I think Americans will have evaluated and reevaluated especially since most have/are learning to look closer at rhetoric.
Regarding Fannie / Freddie —
Here’s the dirty secret why McCain isn’t putting the finger on the right names: some republicans nibbled on the table scraps. That’s one reason why Fannie/Freddie donated to republicans, a few scraps put a muzzle on the GOP leadership. That’s why even the crystal clean republican legislators are muzzled.
Post debate Grets was talking to some reporter in Miami who had watched the debate with a group of Jews in the synagogue. She maintained that the members were about evenly split between the two and nobody changed their mind. FWIW.