On economy which took ~40 minutes, Senator Obama detailed his plan point by point. Senator McCain jabbered the non-sense like "I have plans". In addition, he used most of his time trumped up lies to attack Senator Obama, and talked to the base such as: strong in defense (?), promise tax cuts, and elimination of entitlements. He still does not understand one thing: his base is behind him, that is the 44% he got. What he needs is that 7% educated people which are quite annoyed by his non-sense tonight.

On foreign affair Senator McCain view is: "The surge works" Period. End of discussion. Senator Obama pointed out what went wrong in Iraq, what we should do next as well as what we should not have done. The importance of this is that you must know your error before you can correct it. Senator McCain's attitude is: "Stay the course". Senator Obama's is: "Look at the big picture before you start. After you start it, keep thinking and never take your eyes off the ball until you get the job done." Senator Obama's vision is a vision of the leader we need. Senator McCain's vision is pure arrogance and ignorance.

Half way through the debate, Senator McCain could not handle anymore of this mind game; he got lost into his hallucinating world, and started telling tales which are not verifiable. One instant, he stated that he would tell the audience why he said "bomb bomb bomb" Iran, but he lost in to his wild stories and left the audience still waiting of his explanation as of now. So mentally fatigue, Senator McCain used unwise attacks such as "Do not talk to rouge States". Of course, his attack was shattered by the saying: "The President is doing it, your advisor Mr. Kissinger is advising you to do it". But Senator McCain once again got lost into his wild imagination and told tales of how bad these States are and trumped lies to attack Senator Obama; he forgot to defend his point, and the fact was: His opponent just shattered his argument with a simple saying using a couple simple facts.

Perhaps this is why Senator McCain tried to avoid the debate by lying that he needed work to solve the financial crisis, which he did not have any actual plan.

I still respect Senator McCain, but the fact is he is not qualified to lead the USA.

Sent by Kim | 12:07 AM ET | 09-27-2008

I don't think it was as lopsided as Kim does, apparently, but I do have to say I think Obama handled nearly everything very smoothly. If this debate (international issues) was supposed to be McCain's home run opportunity, I think his campaign has reason to be disappointed.

Sent by Charles in Cincinnati | 12:15 AM ET | 09-27-2008

Obama's knowlege of the world and the issues was apparant and he has a good case on philosophy and judgment. McCain has a lot of baggage.

Sent by MikeFleissner | 12:33 AM ET | 09-27-2008

I wish people and the media would stop calling Senator McCain a maverick. He was a maverick years and years ago. Now he is a sell out to Big Oil and uses the same old cheezy political sound bites instead of giving us specific policy ideas. While he is a good senator for Arizona, his lack of vision and angry demeanor have no place in the White House with all that is going on with the US and the world right now.

Sent by Aimee | 12:45 AM ET | 09-27-2008

Actually Kim is mistaken in much of here analysis. So much so I don't have time to pick her apart point by point. Here is just one example of her numerous errors. "I have plans" was an Obama quote. As far as speaking, am I the only one that noticed that Obama stuttered stammered and hesitated with a string of eh e e e um a ehs on almost every answer he gave. Most

Sent by Brian | 12:46 AM ET | 09-27-2008

Willson writes At last the real Sen. Obama was there for all to see, outing himself by his astonishing display of ineptitude without his tele-prompter! He was less than impressive stumbling through his oft spoken rhetoric giving oblique answers to questions posed to him - reminding me of a slick salesman reciting a liturgy of lies and half truths.

On the other hand, Sen, McCain gave honest and truthful answers based on his vast political and international experience: winning this debate easily!

Sent by gomccain | 1:01 AM ET | 09-27-2008

Charles,

Senator McCain repeated what he said many times instead of providing supportive evidence. While some said that redundancy is a way to convey a message, educated people normally consider that repeating yourself could be related to mental challenge.

The worst part of Senator's performance was the second half when he started telling wild stories that nobody even care to verify. Any first year college student know that using a makeup fact such as telling a story to support your argument is a fallacy.

Perhaps he did better, but hearing him repeating himself countless times and telling tales over and over again are like hitting my funny bones but a few thousand times stronger.

Perhaps we did better, but it is evident that he would fail English 100 using a writing style based on his debate tonight.

But again, I do respect Senator McCain, and I don't believe that he is qualified to lead the USA.

Sent by Kim | 1:20 AM ET | 09-27-2008

Please Brian, save your attack dear, I am not running for President.

But after all you can only hear eh e e e um.

Sent by Kim | 1:26 AM ET | 09-27-2008

The past 48 hours has become one long drawn out parody. I would have loved to have seen Obama more aggressively slam McCain on his staff being lobbyist and their connections to the failed institutions requiring the bailout. And if he feels so strongly about the earmarks for the bears being possibly criminal then Palin must be held to criminal charges for her outrageous earmarks. Other than that I'm McLovin' it!!!

Sent by Carla | 2:23 AM ET | 09-27-2008

I totally support Barack Obama... That said, both men made statements that were not 100% truthful.

Overall, I believe that Obama gave more Information, pointing out at least a few times: First I would do this, then this... with specifics.
McCain on the other hand claimed that He had plans and what a reformer he (was).
If he has been such a reformer, why is our govt in such bad shape?
and...
So what if he 'didn't win Miss Congeniality,' -there is something to be said for bringing people together for consensus building- (what Barack is so good at doing).

Sent by Donna | 2:39 AM ET | 09-27-2008

I thought both men did well. Obama surprised me by looking presidential. One thing he did do which I don't see anyone talking about is that he addressed his audience - looking at the moderator, the audience and at John Mc Cain both when Obama was speaking and listening. True, he looked down a lot but compared to Mc Cain he looked like there was someone else in the room.

I find it hard to believe that in a debate you don't look at or address your opponent... Obama often looked at Mc Cain and addressed him directly. Mc Cain was more oblique, often referring to Obama in the third person with a posture of looking down or at the moderator.

I find it hard to trust Obama. Both men stuttered and failed to answer questions ( I think Mc Cain failed more often but only slightly more so). I found Mc Cain's logic when discussing foreign affairs troubling. In saying I was there in so many foreign countries so often and STILL making a big error in invading another country, abandoning another might speak to his lack of judgment.

Obama did dispaly - to me - great weakness in the foreign area at first. I think he started to say something like that's why he picked Joe Biden.

It could be that prior to the debate my perceptions of both candidates was distorted. I did not see Mc Cain as a engaged Maverick. Sadly, he looked disconnected and reminded me of my grandfather recounting the glory days of the past.

I am greatly fearful of Obama. I know so little about him - and I have read his book and tried to watch him through this campaign,reading editorials and trying to get a hold on someone who could be the next president of the United States. His rhetoric is exceptional and in my mind I'm casting him slowly as Clintonian (not a good thing - slick willy).

Sent by Kevin | 6:16 AM ET | 09-27-2008

Let's be fair. Some of the posters should re-watch the debate. McCain stuttered and stammered and grasped for words just as much as Obama. Guliani suggested afterward that Obama couldn't give one specific example of where he would cut as a result of the bailout. True, but neither did McCain. All I heard was, 50,000 foot statements like "cut spending" and "crack down on pork." OK, but where? I don't have the actual numbers, but I'd venture a guess that the growth in government spending that McCain proposes to reverse is largely in defense and DHS. So, Mr. McCain, where do you cut to bring us back to 2000, when our budget was balanced? The elimination of $3M in DNA testing on bears is nice, but that doesn't get us very far. He misses the big picture.

Sent by Craig | 7:43 AM ET | 09-27-2008

I think McCain would be a good president. I think Obama would be a great president.
I think McCain would be different and better than George Bush. I think Obama would be a lot different and much better than George Bush.
McCain would bring some change. Obama would bring a lot of change.
THIS COUNTRY NEEDS A LOT OF CHANGE.

Sent by Shawn Green | 8:21 AM ET | 09-27-2008

I was surprised last nigh that Sen. Obama didn't mention the fact that the government of Iraq - the government we put in place - the government that we now say was the reason we attacked Iraq in the first place - agrees that the US must agree to a troop withdrawl plan. I was also surprised that, when Sen. McCain talked about the success of the surge in Iraq, Sen. Obama didn't mention that 5 years later, the many of the Iraqi people don't have electricity 24-7. And I think it worth mentioning that the new Iragi election plan is really a postponement of the planned October election and doesn't inlcude one-third of the population - the Kurds. It's the same Bush/McCain metric of measuring progress by the number of dead enemies rather than peace and justice.

Sent by Rick Lathrop | 8:39 AM ET | 09-27-2008

As evident, it goes to show we all see things a little different. Myself, I swear I saw McCain trying to squeeze out a tear, one for Ted Kennedy and then for his love of surge. First lets cut the crap, Ted Kennedy can't stand the guy, period. Secondly why did these yahoos start fighting the war after the fact? Anyway, McCain may have been a maverick in his early years, but all I saw was a tired old man pitching the same old same old. Someone who actually believes it will work so long as it's wrapped up in the flag, fear, and yes, a choking tear or two.

I'll take the wide angle view of the world any day over narrow and displaced ideologies. Obama excels in the broader view and in that regard it's he who holds the keys to building a lasting security. No contest.

Sent by justgeorge | 8:39 AM ET | 09-27-2008

Now let's be honest. I watched this debate from beginning to end and I saw quite clearly several occasions where BOTH candidates had a bit of a stutter or stammer in trying to get out an answer. These men are both human, and I'd like to see any one of the commenters to this blog stand on a stage in front of an international audience of tens of millions in a high-stakes situation and not do the same thing. For crying out loud, can we please talk about something relevant? Like actual content? Like relevance to the big picture? It's this partisan bickering crap that has our country in the crappy situation it's in now. Please, wake up!

Sent by Rob | 8:41 AM ET | 09-27-2008

Nice job NPR for writing this blog/article from the Obama campaign perspective. Really fair journalitic standards.

Sent by Brian | 9:09 AM ET | 09-27-2008

Many of Senator McCain's answers were circular and repititious. If I had a dollar for every time he brought up the "surge," I could pay off my mortgage.

Senator Obama needs to put the "surge" issue to bed. In the next debate when this comes up (because you know it will) Obama should turn to McCain and say, "OK, I will agree that the surge was a possitive decision, if you, Sen. McCain will agree that the Iraq War was a bad idea from the start."

Then we would see who is really "stubborn, unbending, and out-of-touch."

Sent by Carey | 9:43 AM ET | 09-27-2008

Brian,

Thanks for your concerns.

This post came from our reporter who is traveling with the Obama campaign. We were hoping to have our McCain reporter weigh in as well, on that campaign's take on what they achieved. But unfortunately he was whisked away for the long trip back to DC (the Obama press corps spent the night in Memphis -- much closer to the Oxford debate site).

We apologize for not being able to provide both perspectives -- and if we'd realized we'd only get one side's thoughts, we might have held off on publishing this post. But we assure you that the single posting had everything to do with our reporters' availability and was agenda-free. Hopefully you can glean some of the McCain campaign's perspective from the other posts here.

Sent by Evie Stone, NPR | 9:55 AM ET | 09-27-2008

How can we move forward in a productive manner with any other coutry under the guidance of a President that constantly misquotes other leaders to spread fear ?
Did anyone hear the interview on fresh air with Hooman Majd ? If not I highly recommend it.

Sent by Ray | 11:04 AM ET | 09-27-2008

it is difficult to explain your complex position on a complex matter to people who cannot understand anything past a 5 second soundbite. those voters are lost to mccain.
if people think that mccain's repeated responses were annoying, just wait till we here from dear Mrs. Palin. it may be the first debate where one participant has two advisors standing with her or she is given a lifeline to call the rnc for answers.

Sent by Billy | 11:04 AM ET | 09-27-2008

The candidates body language was interesting. McCain rarely looked at his opponent, and that seemed awkward. Obama, clearly the more polished public speaker, engaged his counterpart directly, even while listening. Still, I don't judge candidates by how they look on TV. When my TV was turned off last night, the debate didn't change my mind at all. I'm still a conservative, with strong family values (not a fan of the Clintons), who wants strong national defense, and federal fiscal responsibility. We don't need a free for all society with ordinary Americans footing the bill with higher taxes.
Let's work on real problems we can resolve. The illegal immigration concern already is so out of proportion, no one wants to talk about it at the local, state or federal level.

Sent by Daniel | 11:37 AM ET | 09-27-2008

It is clear McCain is for "victory in Iraq", but what I find notably absent is a definition of what "victory in Iraq" might look like. How will we know when we've won? I have been waiting for somebody to call him on this throughout the campaign and was hoping to see him challenged on this during the debate.

McCain seems to be obsessed with "not losing", but without a vision of what "winning" is, I'm afraid he'll simply keep us there indefinitely hoping all the while that circumstances will arise to spin a victory declaration (it's not as if anybody is expecting a peace treaty).

I think Obama did a good job pointing out our ultimate goal should be to defeat "terrorism", but he did not adequately challenge McCain on how his "surge" is going to achieve the goal.

Sent by Ken Leedom | 11:43 AM ET | 09-27-2008

I believe Obama did a fantastic job of explaining what he would do in such little time. To debate McCain, who is obsessed with, and relates everything to, war, is like debating with a sportsfan. Although, this is not a game and holds dire consequences. McCain is stubborn, rude, lies, is out-of-touch, has no finesse, and says nothing. It is all generalities. His comments about saving the taxpayers, really means giving the corporations big tax breaks. He twists everything, plays the blame game with inaccuracies, and relies on the stupidity and laziness of the American people to win.

Sent by Judith A Welsh | 12:45 PM ET | 09-27-2008

Evie Stone, NPR -- Please
"We apologize for not being able to provide both perspectives -- and if we'd realized we'd only get one side's thoughts, we might have held off on publishing this post. But we assure you that the single posting had everything to do with our reporters' availability and was agenda-free."
If you only have one post, why publish?
As of 1247 hours edt, today, Comment scores are: 14 Obama, 5 McCain
Kim calls McCain a liar, and a "mental challenge" affliction, yet tells Brian to not attack. Post after Post rails against McCain -- with only 5 pro-McCain posts?
Typical liberal whine and distortion-
Typical NPR - "All comments will be read, but not all will be posted.

Sent by john | 12:48 PM ET | 09-27-2008

please don't take this the wrong way but I am a Christian with strong family values, and I am very fearful of a McCain presidency. Obama's plans seem to be more inclusive of my family and my spiritually-mandated obligations to the world. McCain seems like some Pharisee pretending he's not a part of the current status quo. I'm not some lefty wacko, just a family man trying to put politics into the perspective of Biblical stories.

Sent by jonathan | 1:12 PM ET | 09-27-2008

John,

We approve comments based on our discussion guidelines, not a partisan agenda. You can read the guidelines here:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/politics/2008/07/discussion_guidelines_for_vox.html

To sum up: stay on topic, don't ramble too much, don't be crass, don't lie, and stay away from personal attacks on the candidates or one another. (That includes -- among other things -- name-calling, rank insults, and comparisons to fascist dictators.)

We are eager to have a range of opinions here, and we welcome your comments -- and anyone else's -- as long as they fall within those parameters. But if this blog doesn't fit what you're looking for, you are welcome to read something else! There's a blog out there for every taste. Ain't the internet grand?

Thanks!

Sent by Evie Stone, NPR | 3:05 PM ET | 09-27-2008

Ken Leedom,
I completely agree with your take on the debate. I was also wondering what "winning" or "victory" in Iraq looks like. I believe that if we are going to put our young men and women in harm's way, we need to have a clear vision of what victory will look like.

Sent by Bernalv1 | 3:23 PM ET | 09-27-2008

Scoring Jim Leher as Moderator
He tried hard to get the candidates to talk to each other: Score = A for effort, C for results.
Selection of foreign policy questions: Score: A from McCain, C from Obama.
From the scope of the questions Mr. Lehrer put, US foreign policy is exclusively about two wars and the threat of additional ones with N Korea and Iran.
Other possible issues on which Obama may have a better chance to excel:
Latin America, an upswell of democracy and liberalization of the end of the 20'th century is waining. What can we do to keep it alive?
Relations with China -- our largest economic partner, holder of a trillion dollars of US government debt -- how do we maintain a stable and productive relationship with China, taking into account China's ambitions for influence in Asia.
The increasing bureaucratization of Europe -- what does this imply for the dependability of Europe as an ally, an economic power, importance relative to Asia?
Africa, ancestral home to many Americans, struggling democracies there, exporters are particularly hurt by the US cotton program, who could be squeezed out of the US market by Obama's protectionist tendencies -- lots of things to talk about.
There are lots important things other than wars, things on which a President may in fact have more degrees of freedom than on the wars.

Sent by Quietman | 4:30 PM ET | 09-27-2008

What is the famly dividend that McCain talks about? He said it at least two times. Could it be that he does not know middle class words.

"So the point is, I want people to have tax cuts. I want every family to have a $5,000 refundable tax credit so they can go out and purchase their own health care. I want to double the dividend from $3,500 to $7,000 for every dependent child in America."

Sent by Jim Davis | 5:43 PM ET | 09-27-2008

I agree with your post Jonathan. Thanks

Sent by Mike Fleissner | 7:19 PM ET | 09-27-2008

Dear John & Brian,

I love all my Republican fellow Americans, especially our beloved Senator McCain; I believe our beloved Senator McCain will do better the next debate. (Repeat 10 x) [Please repeat this 10 times, kind of like our beloved Senator McCain's style of the 1st debate. After 10 times you feel the effect]

I admire Senator McCain so much because he wasted most of his time in WDC instead of getting ready for the debate. Yet he almost passed his well prepared opponent, Senator Obama. (Repeat 7e11 x) [That 7e11 is 7 hundred billion; that is exactly equal to the amount of tax payers' money Secretary Paulson requested for the current bail-out for which my dearest Senator McCain has no plan and could not even tell the audience a rough idea of his besides of the irrelevant "off shore drilling"]

I believe that Senator Obama's camp may be too presumptuous; the next round they should expect punches which even Advisor Rove or Dr. Corsi may want to learn. (Repeat Xe12*Ye12 x) [That Xe12 is trillions, kind of like our surplus in 2000; Ye12 is another type of trillions, kind of like our debt right now]

Remember, my friends, this great USA creates great people. With the better leader, we make this country even greater, for our children, ourselves, and our elders who have spent their lives serving this greatest nation. (Repeat 1+1 x) [1 is like one time Senator Obama opposed to funding without time-table; another 1 is like one time our honorable Senator McCain opposed to funding with time table. Both conditionally opposed funding; yet our honorable Senator McCain trumped up a lie that Senator Obama opposed troop funding PERIOD]

I'll shake your hands if I meet you now, my friends, because Americans are the best. Indeed it is an honor and a duty. I'll party with you because you, my fellow Americans, are the luckiest so far. Catch me early, my friends, before I go sunbathing, weekend you know, by my pool of my house which loses a third of its value so far.

Sent by Kim | 8:40 PM ET | 09-27-2008

The two candidates remind me of two cars I once had. One had 72,000 miles on it and the other had 46,000 miles on it. McCain is more like the 72,000 mile car: the tires are old and bald and there is no traction left. Obama is more like the 46,000 mile car: the tires are black with white sidewalls and looks pretty good, there is tread on the tires and the traction is pretty good. To put things in perspective: McCain is an old man with old ideas and old ways of doing things,he is not responsive to change and he lacks an understanding of the big picture, even though he has a good grasp of a few things. he is neither creative nor proactive to situations. Obama on the other hand is very responsive to change and has an outstanding grasp of the big picture, he is proactive and offers a more well thoughtout perspective to world situations. I certainly don't want a person waking up at 3:00 a.m. in the morning and reacting to that phone call on gut instincts. You can push the button in one instance and then the next day say I shouldn't have done that I take it back, to late! I want someone who will answer that call with thought and deliberation before the decision is made. To use and old military analogy: McCain is the READY,FIRE, AIM guy and Obama is the READY,AIM, FIRE guy. I like the latter sequence better.

Sent by James Kammerzelt | 9:53 PM ET | 09-27-2008

There were clearly areas for both McCain and Obama that were questionable in terms of truthfulness-- to be expected in a debate where answers must be instantaneous and cannot be "polished" before speaking.
The real issue that WAS well demonstrated was what foreign policy strategies the presidency would focus on under each candidate. McCain seems to prefer an exclusive view of world policies: Only include democracies in world alliances, and don't talk to people you don't agree with. Obama prefer to have open dialog, irregardless if we are in agreement, and to be inclusive with the wider world in making policy decisions.
Very clear difference in world view. I personally do not understand how you can advance any issue without communications. Who was it that said "keep your friends close, but your enemies closer."???

Sent by JeffH | 10:02 PM ET | 09-27-2008

I wish people would stop using the term "family values." It has been politicized to the point where it is often used as an anti-liberal epithet - and that is just wrong. I would bet everyone all over the world has positive family values, which include loving and supporting their family and children, both in good times and bad. For most of us, that spills over to helping our neighbors in bad times. I believe that definition would resonate with every single person who has posted here - and on other, less liberal-oriented sites as well. As a country, isn't it time we concentrated on what we have in common - as opposed to where we are different? The US is a huge and immensely diverse country in every way - as citizens we will naturally have enormous differences. And sometimes the Internet, for all its wonderfulness, seems to give people the opportunity to focus on those differences. But for what? It is my hope that before I die I will see this country pull together based on the commonalities of equality, hard work, opportunity for all - and yes, family values, in the broadest sense of the phrase.

Sent by Carol Morris | 8:38 AM ET | 09-28-2008

I read McCain said he interpreted a Tie as a Win in the debate.

So a win in Iraq to him will look like a tie to most people.

After September 11, 2001 Osama Bin Laden said his goal was to draw the USA into a conflict in the middle east that would drain our country's military of blood and resources, and ruin our economy. So now, seven years later our military is streched to the limit and our economy is in tatters. Seems like President Bush helped Al Qaeda accomplish there expressly stated goals when he declared Pakistan a safe haven for terrorists, invaded Iraq and deregulated Wall Street.

Think Bin Laden has a Mission Accomplished banner hanging up some where in Pakistan?

Sent by Christopher M. Brown | 4:19 PM ET | 09-28-2008

as for the idea that old means worn out. age+experence =wisdom .we are human not cars .would you rather have the teacher or the student repair the car

Sent by ted woosley | 10:35 PM ET | 09-28-2008

Lost of people are commenting on the candidates' truthfullness, and while no one can get all the details correct in a debate, there were many times untruths were used to "score" a point at the other's expense. I suggest readers go to www.factcheck.org for some hardcorp analysis of the "facts" to back up their claims about the senators.

Sent by alison amoroso | 11:08 PM ET | 09-28-2008

If we all had smaller houses, no TV, ate veggies, rode bikes, valued community, and lived an entirely less greedy life--we probably wouldn't be in such a crisis where global economic turmoil converges with environmental instability. When asking yourself which candidate is the right one for the country, for the world, you should remember that both will ultimately reinforce the status-quo in some form or another. They are both liberal politicians with an agenda to when over a population tethered to consumerism and materialism. I wish we could all boycott technology until we agree as a society--as a world collective--to use it equitably. Until then I'll continue reading blogs and telling myself that this is some way of participating in Democracy...

Sent by Matt | 7:01 AM ET | 09-29-2008