Kommentarer om debatten

Wall Street Journal skriver så här om debatten:

As planned by the commission on debates, most of the night was devoted to foreign policy and there we give the clear edge to Mr. McCain. This is the ground where the 72-year-old is most comfortable, and you could see it in his self-confidence, as well as his command of history and facts. He showed it too in the specificity of his answers, notably on Russia: Watch Ukraine, he said, and "the Crimea," because Vladimir Putin's Georgian expedition is a prelude to Russian adventurism there.

By contrast, Mr. Obama was well briefed, but almost in the way a Ph.D. candidate gives his dissertation defense. He knew the subject but without the conviction or detail that comes from wide experience.

Artikeln förklarar också att Obama vann debatten om ekonomin, medan McCain vann debatten om utrikespolitiken.

New York Times ger också dem Obama övertaget med ekonomin men McCain övertaget i utrikespolitiken, även om man överlag verkar anse att Obama var den bättre kandidaten:

There were also differences in the candidate’s themselves. Mr. McCain fumbled his way through the economic portion of the debate, while Mr. Obama seemed clear and confident. Mr. McCain was more fluent on foreign affairs, and scored points by repeatedly calling Mr. Obama naïve and inexperienced.

New York Times gav dock ett pluspoäng till Obama, när Obama som svar på att McCain anklagade honom för att öppet tala om att attackera Al-Qaida inne i Pakistan - svarade med att säga att McCain var mannen som sjöng sånger om att bomba Iran (med anspelning på McCains Beach Boys version "Bomb bomb Iran".

New York Times ansåg sig också vara störda på att McCain - helt oavsett om truppökning i Irak hjälp situationen - inte förstod att invasionen var ett misstag från dess början.

Politico har titeln "Mac is back" på sin hemsida, och skriver:

John McCain was very lucky that he decided to show up for the first presidential debate in Oxford, Miss., Friday night. Because he gave one of his strongest debate performances ever.

While Barack Obama repeatedly tried to link McCain to the very unpopular George W. Bush, Bush’s name will not be on the ballot in November and McCain’s will...

...Sure, McCain is a pretty old guy for a presidential candidate, but he showed the old guy did not mind mixing it up. He stood behind a lectern for 90 minutes without a break — you try that when you are 72 — and he not only gave as good as he got, he seemed to relish it more.

McCain seemed to be enjoying himself. He smiled a lot, mostly when Obama was talking, though his smile was really more like a smirk.

Debate audiences are the largest audiences the candidates get — far larger than their announcement or convention speeches — and millions of Americans were seeing the two candidates up close and at length for the first time.

Both avoided their negative stereotypes: Obama did not seem aloof or condescending. McCain did not seem erratic or wild. You could imagine either one of them in the Oval Office, but only one is going to get there.

“I don’t need any on-the-job training,” McCain said. “I am ready to go at it right now.”

He certainly seemed like it Friday night.

På Desmoinesregister skriver man:

It was one of the most substantive debates in recent presidential campaign history and John McCain won it...
He repeatedly put Barack Obama on the defensive throughout the 90 minutes session. Obama did little to ease voter concerns that he’s experienced enough to handle foreign and defense policy. That was his number one task Friday night and he failed.

...It has rattled Americans and between the two, McCain came off as the most reassuring. The crabby, grumbling, hotheaded McCain was nowhere to be seen. Instead we saw a calm, seasoned commander in chief . If you looked at your television and squinted slightly, you could better picture him addressing the country during a time of national crisis than Obama.

Washington Post är mer neutral i sin bedömning, och skriver att båda gjorde bra ifrån sig och avslutar artikeln ganska neutralt genom att skriva:

Both accomplished much of what they hoped to do, without any serious mistakes. Voters likely saw attractive qualities in each of them.

So round one will give way to round two and perhaps a clearer outcome. But as with much of the rest of this presidential race, these are two well-matched candidates, and each has something to say.

Den artikel som tydligast kröner Obama som debattsegrare är Joe Klein som skriver följande för TIME:

Toward the very end of tonight's debate—which was quite a good one, I believe—John McCain laid out his rationale in this election in just a few words: Senator Obama, he said, lacks the "knowledge and experience to be President." The presidency will turn on whether the American people agree with McCain on that—but on this night, Obama emerged as a candidate who was at least as knowledgeable, judicious and unflappable as McCain on foreign policy ... and more knowledgeable, and better suited to deal with the economic crisis and domestic problems the country faces...

...Obama did everything he had to do, with few if any mistakes. I thought McCain did less so.

Hon erkänner dock att någon dödsstöt inte utdelades från någondera sida mot den andre - och att valet ännu inte var avgjort.

Slutsatsen måste dock bli att analytiker överlag visserligen absolut tillskriver Obama mycket gott för sitt debattanförande - men att McCain likväl förmodligen "vann debatten" i den mån man nu kan bedöma den saken.

Noteras i sammanhanget bör kanske att Bo-Inge på SVT, som visserligen erkände att det var svårt att bedöma vem vinnaren var, likväl lutade åt Obama (dock gav han en ödmjuk analys). Andra analytiker (däribland jag själv i mitt inlägg nedan) drog dock motsatt slutsats: båda parterna var bra, men McCain var snäppet starkare.