Debates

Friday's presidential debate is now old news. The conventional wisdom was that no "knock out" blows were struck. I think it was actually one of the better political debates I've heard in recent years - both candidates were reasonably articulate in explaining their positions. I am not quite sure why a number of news reports claimed that McCain had won "on points" - I guess it was because he was the more aggressive of the two, forcing Obama to spend more of his time responding to McCain's charges than in making charges of his own. In my judgment, Obama had the advantage during the first part of the debate when the questions were on economics and that neither candidate had a clear advantage when the questions turned to foreign policy. McCain repeatedly emphasized his long years of experience, but in so doing may also have reminded viwers of his age. His continued emphasis on "dealing with these sorts of problems" for nearly 30 years also undercuts his argument that he is the candidate of real change.

NPR's Cokie Roberts compared Obama and Ronald Reagan in one of her commentarties after the debate. In 1980, Reagan was running against Jimmy Carter. Voters wanted a change but many were afraid of Reagan, believing him too dangerous or not experienced enough to be president. In has first debate with Carter, Reagan came across as calm and reasonable and reassured many voters that he could be trusted with the presidency. Roberts argued that Obama had done the same thing Friday night, and I agree.