Well that's good news.

The whole "he needs to connect more" is the media's narrative - they'll never give it up.  That and "he needs more specifics".

Some of the pundits remarked that McCain did well early on during the domestic issues part of the debate by hammering and hammering about cutting expenses, especially earmarks.

And I couldn't help thinking, how fucking penny wise, pound foolish, when all we have heard for the past week is about bailing out Wall Street to the tune of 700 billion dollars.  And I'm supposed to believe that some stupid earmark having to do with bear DNA is that important right now?  

The Republicans only have a couple of tools in their arsenals, and they use them ad nauseum: cutting taxes and (they say) cutting expenses.  And McCain didn't offer them up in a new and more appetizing way at all.  It DID sound disconnected from the issue of the Wall Street meltdown, as if he was still in the past.

One other thing: McCain spent an awful lot of time talking about himself, and how he's such a maverick, and how he disagreed with Bush on this or that.  And although it is important to make that distinction, when that was combined with his boasting about all his experience, it felt as if he was talking and boasting about himself too much, especially with regards to issues of the past.

One of the Undecideds in Luntz's focus group on Fox described it by saying that McCain was being sentimental.  When asked to elaborate, she said that McCain spoke too much about himself and the past and she wanted to hear about things that related to her and her life.  I felt the same way.

And, yeah, McCain did seem defensive and prickly.  He didn't come across nearly as well as he did during a recent interview with Katic Couric (or 60 minutes) that left me very impressed.  He is capable of connecting and being extremely sincere, moreso even than Obama.  But during the debate, he couldn't do that.

that Obama has connected with voters because he is expecting Obama to be like Bill Clinton but Obama will never be like Bill Clinton.  That isn't who he is.

Obama connects on a different level.

It would be interesting to know the demographics of the remaining undecided/uncommitted voters.

Obama is unlikely to be able to connect with voters at the visceral, "I feel you pain" level that Bill Clinton was able to do so masterfully (the best I've ever seen) for many reasons.  But he can do it better than McCain for the reasons you've noted - and not just at this debate.  

The Obama campaign has been somewhat successful in the out of touch/"he doesn't get it" framing of McCain.  But maybe Obama needs a "I feel your pain"-like catch phrase that would stick in people's minds to close the deal.  Empathy is a defining characteristic of Obama as a politician.  

All you Buddhist's out there, can you give us a hand?    

says that Obama won barely among indies in California but that McCain won barely among indies in my home state of Washington.

Hopefully, they polled Virginians, Ohioans, and others from swing states as well.  I suppose an inference can be drawn from these two polls that if McCain held his own among indies in California and Washington, then he probably won them in more purple states.  We'll see because these numbers seemingly contradict the focus groups by Luntz in Nevada and Ohio.

I think the best moment was when he was explaining that his vote "to cut off funding for the troops" was nothing of the sort.  

How many times has that issue tripped up Democratic candidates in the past?  It's the genesis of "I voted for the 87 billion before I voted against it", which begat flip-flopper, which made Kerry unelectable.  Instead, Obama was able to explain what that vote was, and how he could have argued that McCain had voted to cut off funding for the troops simply because he had voted against a similar bill that would have included a timetable.  It defused the argument, and by inference made McCain seem to be dishonest.

I just got off the phone with my parents. They sadi McCain was "sharper than expecred because he usally acts retarded most of the time". On the other side of the flip, she said that Obama was much better on foreign policy than she expected and felt much better now about the idea of him handling a foreign policy problem. That is what I think he needed most last night and I think he accomplished it.

The debate convinced me that McCain would NOT be a third term for Bush. He would be a third term for Dick Cheney. McCain's refusal to look at Obama and attempts to belittle him shows me that his management style would be like a General, Emperor or Dick Cheney.  For McCain to win, he needed to use humor and show some personality, however all he did was show that he was a Dick.

I am Republican from Colorado. I am so Republican I was a caucus chair in Colorado. The McCain campaign is teh stupid by running the "I agree" ad. The events of this week and the debate have convinced me to not only vote for Obama but also against Marilyn Musgrave. (I only regret that I can vote against only one congressional Republican.) We are on the verge of a Great Depression and we need LEADERS who find common ground.

Here's my idea for a counter ad:

John McCain thinks saying that your political opponent is absolutely right is a sign that you are not ready to lead. Leadership is finding solutions and common ground. When facing the biggest financial crisis of our time, Barack Obama was working for a joint statement between the campaigns and also worked with an administration of which he is strongly critical. John McCain came in and according to negotiators "blew up" the deal. Who is the one not ready to lead?

Here's the thing, despite what the Obama-haters think, I truly believe that many people WANT to like Barack Obama, the fact is that Obama consistently is viewed as a nice guy, but some undecided were still wary of Obama.  Yes some of it is race, some of it class, some wonder is he "ready to lead" ya know the whole C-I-C thing.  McCain may have won the debate on points, but the voters aren't scoring them on points, it's all about perceptions to non-pol voters. And I would say that on the stylistic or "perception" front, Obama won hands down.  McCain just seemed too condescending and insulting towards Obama, not in a policy-oriented fasion, but on a personal level.  Seriously, McCain refused to even look at Obama.

People tend to like nice guys and with the majority of the country pissed about the economy, and pissed at the Bush Administration, it's not surprising to me that people want a change, and no matter how "maviericky" McCain may be, you just don't "see" change when you look at him.  He may not be perceived as the "typical" republican, but he is still the Republican, and while McCain's campaign tactics can guide the media narrative, it don't change the fact that a majority of the country want the Repubs out of power

I thought the the decisive fact of the debate was non verbal. The glaring, snarling McCain refusing eye contact, mumbling during Obamas turn has to be seen as threatening and lacking control.  I doubt that will play well with women voters. I want to see the breakdowns over the next few days to see if I'm right.

My girlfriend caught the McCain non eye contact thing, I missed it completely.

Her comment:

He doesn't believe his words, he won't look Obama in the face when he says them.

She does a lot of meetings, organization type of stuff.

She sees a lot of speakers at work.

This kind of stuff is really something she watches for.

Don't underestimate this.

McCain handlers are now drilling him to look people in the eye.

He will correct this for the next debate.

As a veteran of a political campaign, I can say that candidates are coached to look at the camera and not at the interviewer or opposing candidate.

Lehr made it clear that he wanted the candidates to look each other in the eye. Obama adjusted and did look at McCain, but also looked at the camera when he had something important to say. McCain was unwilling to make the adjustment, and is now getting punished for his inflexibility.

Republicans are going to scratch their heads asking themselves how stupid this sounds, but Democrats had to go through this when Gore lost the debate because he sighed too much.

When are we going to stop listening to those MSM so-called pundits? They have absolutely no "connection" with "Main street." So, their opinions about who won a debate are essentially meaningless! Why is it that after nearly 50 years of these debates, they still do not understand basic truths about the TV medium? Don't they get it that these are not the same as some high school debate, where points are scored just on "content"? WashStateBlue has it right...demeanor, confidence, body language is everything! All those pundits need to watch again the Kennedy/Nixon debates from 1960. Guess who the pundits thought the winner? Guess who the "people" thought had won?

There's a reason that McCain and his people were trying to subvert these debates! McCain is not "cool" enough for this medium. Too much like Nixon, methinks (but much less intelligent). In 2000, Gore was also not a "cool" enough candidate, compared to Bush. Same with Kerry in 2004. I'm feeling quite confident, after this first debate, about Obama's chances!

According to MSNBC McCain muttered, "horse shit" twice toward Barack Obama last night.  WTF???

Classless like the cunt comment.