On the first McCain-Obama debate...
This BBC article sums up well my own impressions of how the debate went in terms of calculating a winner of the thing from a completely rhetorical standpoint. However, I disagree with some of the points the article makes about what will "play well in American living rooms".
I think in an environment where voters crave change, McCain railed too much on how many American projects he's already been a part of. Yes, this did make him look very experienced, and if the debate was a job interview he'd emerge looking like the prime candidate. But I think a significant number of Americans today are looking for someone who can examine the world with a fresh set of eyes, not someone who's "been there, done that".
Now, that said, I think people want the "fresh blood" to listen with a thoughtful ear to people like McCain, which leads to another important point about the debate. Apparently, McCain supporters are getting hugely excited about how many times Obama stated that McCain was right about something, as if this played off as a kind of weakness on Obama's part. But while McCain went on and on about how often he's "reached across the aisle", it was only Obama's graceful willingness to acknowledge the good points his opponent made that cast either of them as one who could work well with his opposition. In the end, it was Obama who came off as the reasonable progressive while McCain came off as a man with too much confidence in his own dated experiences.
And the truth is that in the debate (as in elsewhere when comparing these two) Obama was the only candidate who suggested policies that are different compared to where American has been for nearly three decades. When McCain speaks on the economy and foreign policy... the two biggest issues for voters right now... he consistently invokes the policies of Ronald Reagan. But I think most Americans agree that supply-side economic policies haven't worked (not for the average voter, anyway) and, in regard to foreign policy, the world is a very different place now than when the Cold War was on. Military and diplomatic manuals have literally been re-written in the past decade to keep up with the radical changes that have taken place around the globe since the turn of the millennium. These new challenges require innovative approaches, and a man who brags about having first-hand experience with the KGB doesn't come off as being "cutting edge".
Still, it's very difficult to know how these things will be taken by the American public. I do think McCain "won on points" and maybe that will be all anyone cares about. But if the mood in America truly is about change, then I think McCain actually shot himself in the foot with his constant references to his record while Obama made himself an example of what "the new American politician" could look like... and I think to most Americans the new politician looks infinitely more promising.
delicious
diggRe: Re: The First Debate
Well, what I mean (and what I think the article meant) by "winning on points" has to do with looking at the debate generally in terms of who was on the offensive vs. who was on the defensive, who demonstrated mastery of the subject matter, etc. I think McCain rhetorically dominated most of the event, and there are some people who only look at such things on this very basic level. Who was accurate or inaccurate or likable or grouchy or specific or vague doesn't have a whole lot to do with it for such people. For them, the main question is, "Who dominated the conversation?" And I think McCain clearly did.
But what I'm trying to say above is that for the average voter the winner of the debate isn't just the one who got the most rhetorical jabs in. The average voter does notice who was accurate, likable, and specific. And I agree that Obama was the accurate, likable, and specific candidate between the two of them.
And I, too, would have preferred it if Lehrer had been more assertive as a moderator. But, at the same time, it was kind of nice to hear what the candidates had to say "free-style" and I think it only helped Obama.
I don't recall any talk about the Israel-Palestine conflict at all. The only time Israel was mentioned was when both candidates acknowledged Israel as our ally ("stalwart ally") and the only time I recall Palestine being mentioned was when it was noted that Iran funds Hamas.
Rhetorical Points
I disagree that McCain rhetorically dominated, though I do think he clearly showed that he had had more foreign policy experience.
I think when it came to addressing princples, Obama sometimes came out ahead--as in the question regarding what lessons had been learned from the Iraq War. I think McCain's main point was that what had been learned is that we have to have a good military strategy in a war. Obama's was that we have to think very carefully as to whether to enter into a war in the first place and whether doing so would actually make us more, rather than less vulnerable. I think of those two points, Obama's is the rhetorically stronger one because it looks at the more fundamental question.
Maybe we are using "rhetorically" differently though, because to me questions like use of principle, strength of evidence, and reasonableness are all rhetorical elements and while McCain did come across as on the offensive, or on the attack, much more than Obama did--that would not necessarily mean that he dominated. I often thought McCain's attacks wound up back-firing actually because he would claim that Obama was ignorant or naive and then Obama's replies seemed at the very least to represent those attacks as more politically motivated than supported by a real ignorance or naivete on Obama's part.
Right...
... I apologize... I've really not been terribly clear...
I'm looking at this from a position (and, again, I think the BBC article does also) that presupposes that certain rhetorical elements are more valued in a debate situation (perhaps especially THIS debate situation) than others. Yes, Obama was strong (and perhaps stronger) in those rhetorical elements you mention. In fact, it often seemed as though McCain would say Obama was wrong about something and then when he stated his own position it was essentially just what Obama had said. But in terms of the more combative rhetorical elements that are often highlighted in debates, it seems to me McCain had a better showing. In fact, it seemed to me that McCain's strategy was to work only on those combative elements of the debate precisely because he thought that those elements would be the ones most important to viewers... the ones that are most pertinent to the question of "who won".
Perhaps debate has changed since I was in high school and college, but during that time the point of any debate was to win... and winning really only meant appearing as though you were in control of the discussion rather than your opponent. Now, if you were actually right about the position you were taking in the debate, then that was a helpful thing. But you didn't have to be right, of course. In fact, it was commonly taught that if you knew you had an un-defendable position you should skillfully employ fallacious arguments to throw your opponent on the defensive. Not a good thing to do from a broader rhetorical perspective where accuracy and logic matter, that's true. But it can be a winning strategy in a debate.Re: Debating Technique
Yes, I agree in regard to MCCain's dominance in terma of those more combative rhetorical elements. I'm still not sure if that led to a win for him in the debate because just in terms of debating style I think the combative approach is best coupled with a kind of "cool" and objective appearance otherwise the combativeness can look like a character flaw. I remember in one of the debates between George W. Bush and Al Gore that Gore had the advantage both in terms of content and in terms of being on the offensive--but his eye-rolling and exasperated sighs in response to Bush turned those points against him
Given McCain's reputation for being hot-headed, I think cultivating an objective appearance was especially important, but he generally came across to me as exasperated--not just with Obama but with the whole debating process--not listening to what Obama said or paying attention to Lehrer's attempt to turn it into a dialogue.
That's a pretty subjective measure though so it's hard to determine if my impression was the one that other people took away.
And no need for apologies; any lack of clarity was mutual. 
Re: The First Debate
Winning "on points"---does that mean content, or the way it plays? If it means the way it plays, I can see how one could see McCain as having won as far as coming across as the "tough guy"--which does seem to be the way foreign policy is usually framed. But some of the poll breakdowns I saw this morning interestingly pointed to a big gender difference in the reception of the two candidates with McCain winning with men by a slight percentage, and Obama with women by a larger margin. Again, just speaking to style, I thought Obama came across as more genial, making eye contact and speaking directly to MCain, while McCain came across to me as cranky and condescending.
On content, I thought McCain sounded more as if he were repeating his campaign sound bites, though Obama did this as well in the "tying McCain to Bush" ploy--I found this the least effective part of the debate on both sides. But overall I thought Obama did a better job of stating specifics of what he would do as President while McCain's specifics were more about what he had done.
A quick run-through on fact.check showed that McCain distorted Obama's positions much more than Obama did McCain's--and Obama did try to come in on that point several times. I've read some analysts looking at that and seeing it as a weakness of Obama's--that he was interrupting and sounding somewhat peevish. I don't know what the right approach there would have been. I wish Jim Lehrer had been able to direct them to answer each other when it came to distortions more. And in general I found the questions by Lehrer to be very limited in scope. Was there anything about the situation in Israel-Palestine?