This day, 2008

Now that the first debate between the two presidential hopefuls has come and gone, its our turn to debate: Who won?

The NY Times waisted no time publishing this story on Saturday:

The Next Day, A New Debate on Who Won
by Jim Rutenberg
Published September 27, 2008

"OXFORD, Miss. — The presidential campaigns roared out of here Saturday morning facing a task arguably as difficult, and as important, as the debate between Senators Barack Obama and John McCain itself: influencing the public perception of who won an encounter that produced no clear winner or loser."

Okay, so no clear winner/loser. But, Rutenberg's article does make it a point to mention this:

"The activity was part of an intensive battle to shape public perceptions in the vital closing weeks of a razor-thin race. And it reflected a common belief in presidential politics: That many viewers base their judgment not necessarily on debate performance but on what they read and see in the days afterward."

Ah, yes. We base our opinions not on what the candidates say at the debate, but rather what journalists say after the debate. Right. So let's look at what the journalists are saying...

NY Times Op-Ed columnist Maureen Dowd said this in her September 27th story Sound, but No Fury:

" McCain kept painting Obama as naïve, and dangerous, insisting that he “doesn’t quite understand or doesn’t get it.”

Obama should have responded “Senator, I understand perfectly, I’m just saying you’re wrong.”

On the surge, he could have said that McCain was the arsonist who wanted to be praised for the great job he’s doing putting out the fire he started.

When Obama took quiet umbrage at McCain’s attack about troop-funding, he could have pounded the lectern and said with real anger: “John, I am sick and tired of you suggesting that I would take funds away from our brave soldiers. I no more voted for that than you did when you voted against our funding proposals that would have imposed a timetable. And unlike you, I did not vote against funding increases for the troops that have come home with devastating physical and mental injuries.”

Obama did a poor job of getting under McCain’s skin. Or maybe McCain did an exceptional job of not letting Obama get under his skin. McCain nattered about earmarks and Obama ran out of gas.

We’re left waiting for a knockout debate. On to Palin-Biden."

Yes. We're definitely excited about Palin-Biden. Boy, are we ever. But let's not digress. Dowd clearly doesn't like McCain, but she seems pretty fed up with Obama's lack of anger. Does that mean McCain won? Does that mean Obama won, but only kinda? We need answers! Don't forget, we're depending on these journalist people to help us make up our minds.

Susan Estrich wrote a cute little article for a September 28th Fox News' Op-Ed, entitled No Solid Winner or Loser in First Presidential Debate:

"No one won, which also means no one lost.

Whichever side you’re on, you can find a way, without much trouble even, to claim victory in Friday night’s Presidential debate...

...This much is almost certain: if you were for Obama going in, you still are; if you were for McCain going in, you still are. This was one of those debates that gave everyone who is already decided plenty of reasons to feel that they decided right.

And if you were undecided Friday afternoon, you probably still are today."

Huh? I though you, Fox News lady, were going to tell us who won! You're supposed to be the very definition of biased media! Damn. Maybe the Huffington Post will tell us something.

Who Won the Debate? Reviews go to Obama, Nico Pitney September 26, 2008 11:41 PM:

Oh, thank goodness. Now we're getting somewhere. Pitney's article links to several other articles from reputable news sources, with blow-by-blow accounts of who won according to who. Finally, answers! Here's the Huffington Post round-up:

"- The New York Times editorial board writes that Obama won the discussion of the economy and that McCain seemed out of step with the current moment.

-Dan Balz, providing analysis for the Washington Post, says there was no knockout punch

-Meanwhile his colleague Tom Shales sums up the night as 'McCain too nasty, Obama too nice'

-The Wall Street Journal editorial board felt that McCain won on foreign policy while Obama won on the economy

-For the Los Angeles Times the debate was too close to call in terms of a winner

-Time's Joe Klein calls it a narrow victory for Obama"

Uh, okay. That was only marginally helpful. Most of those publications pretty much call it a draw...

I guess if you want a real opinion on who won, you should probably turn to the bloggers and read one of these:

Liberal Values: Obama Wins First Debate

Democrats.com: Obama Wins Debate #1

Talk Left: Why Obama Won the Debate

or if you feel differently:

Americans Against Obama: McCain Wins Debate

The Next Right: Why McCain Wins the Style Points

The New Conservatives: McCain Wins Debate Hands Down

Ah, America. Where no one ever has to be wrong.