CBS News: Obama won 39%, McCain won 25%, Draw 36%

Insider Advantage: Obama won 42%, McCain won 41%, Undecided: 17%

CNN: Obama “did better” 51%, McCain “did better” 38%

In the “hive mind” that watched the debate at my house last night, there were two fairly strong votes for McCain win, one tie, one Obama win and my voice was that it was pretty close to a tie, arguably either way, and that a tie goes to Obama when the topic is foreign policy because it shows he’s equal to the task of being C-in-C, the so called 3 a.m. phone call test. Even if you think McCain had the better of Obama on foreign policy, I thought the Democrat showed he was prepared to take the call.

Watching ABC’s “Nightline” after the debate, it seemed clear the commentariat for that network saw it as an Obama edge.

While I thought the Arizona senator looked like grumpy Grandpa telling the black kid to “get off my lawn” doing it, the repetition of “he doesn’t seem to understand” by McCain about Obama was likely effective to those just now tuning into the elections, I think. (This was a major part of the basis for the McCain won votes in my tv room.) When Obama’s “I agree” stuff is thrown in (McCain’s already up with a TV ad with this), this could well shape the “conventional wisdom” by the time we get through the Sunday talk shows and into Monday.

Chris Matthews and several others picked up on McCain’s refusal to look at Obama and saw that as a sign of contempt. I noticed it, too, and thought it odd, but I’m not sure how it played in TVland. If white middle age to older women are the “swing vote” in this election, I think they would be put off by a show of naked contempt, if that’s how they saw it. However, I think these women are more fine tuned into the “emotional language” than I am and less focused on some of the policy arcanae than I am (this isn’t a slap at women AT ALL — I’m just deeper into the “inside baseball” stuff than almost anyone else) so I’m no judge of how or if it affects their vote. If that becomes the talk around the soccer fields on Saturday, McCain’s dead meat.

Here’s some blogosphere pundit reactions:

Mark Halperin, on PBS:

I thought Obama clearly did better. I thought he had a chance to show that he was calm and prepared and capable of standing toe to toe with the more experienced McCain. I thought McCain spoke too much Washington jargon, told too many jokes in shorthand, made too many comments he knew what he meant but I don’t think he conveyed it necessarily to the audience overall. I thought Obama was the better communicator an did what he needed to do to reassure people.

Richard Wolffe, MSNBC:

That was the greatest contrast…the demeanor and the tone of voice that these candidates adopted where McCain was being much more pointed much more aggressive and curiously couldn’t look Obama in the eye. Obama’s tone much more straight and even keeled but ready to look his opponent in the eye repeatedly. A big contrast.

Eugene Robinson, Washington Post:

Here’s the politically incorrect way of phrasing one of the central questions about tonight’s presidential debate: Did John McCain come across as too much of a grumpy old man?

That might not be a nice question, but it’s an important one. Americans like to vote for the nice guy, not the grumbling prophet of doom. Throughout the 90-minute debate, McCain seemed contemptuous of Obama. He wouldn’t look at him. He tried to belittle him whenever possible — how many times did he work “Senator Obama just doesn’t understand” into his answers? His body language was closed, defensive, tense. McCain certainly succeeded in proving that he can be aggressive, but the aggression came with a smirk and a sneer.

James Fallows:

Unless it happened when I glanced away, up until this moment, 77 minutes into the 90-minute debates, John McCain has not once looked at Obama — while listening to him, while addressing him, while disagreeing with him, while finding moments of accord.

This is distinctly strange — if anyone else notices. Obama is acting as if this is a conversation; McCain, as if he cannot acknowledge the other party in the discussion.

Rod Dreher:

I think Obama has to be judged the winner. Nobody’s mind will be changed by this debate, but Obama seemed loose and confident and not intimidate by McCain. McCain seemed growly and tense, though more focused than usual. Because McCain didn’t beat Obama, and because Obama is ahead right now, Obama wins a narrow victory.

Mark Ambinder:

No memorable moments. Fascinating body language. No major gaffes by either candidates. No major surprises…A good debate for both men…Thresholds are artificial, but both candidates seemed to meet them – although Obama’s threshold was arguably higher. The press will probably conclude that McCain did not fundamentally change impressions tonight. And that Obama held his own.

Alex Massie:

McCain can’t pronounce Ahmadinejad. Calls him “Armada Dinner Jacket”. Since the bearded wonder doesn’t control Iranian nuclear or foreign policy this doesn’t matter so much. Woo! Obama points this out. Then suggests McCain is no Henry Kissinger. That may not be a bad thing of course. (Admittedly, Obama is talking about Iran.) Admits his Iranian policy “may not work”. A welcome breath of realism…

Michael Crowley:

A key element to political speech is colorful detail and anecdote. McCain is better at that. The story about defying Reagan on the Lebanon deployment, the bracelet belonging to the mother of a dead soldier, the firing of Chris Cox, the bear DNA. These things breathe life into policy positions and prevent the eyes from glazing. It’s something Obama could learn to do better.

Ross Douthat:

A win for McCain. That’s my insta-verdict, at least…the spectre of fiscal calamity blunted Obama’s edge on domestic policy, and on foreign affairs McCain set the tempo and kept his rival on the defensive almost throughout, I thought: The Democratic nominee found himself alternating between me-tooism and defensiveness, albeit without making any serious missteps.
Michael Graham:

Obama win because he didn’t lose. Sen. McCain was better, but not by enough.

Ezra Klein:

This is a pretty traditional debate performance for Obama. Strong on substance. Few mistakes. Little in the way of killer instinct or decapitating lines. McCain, by contrast, is offering an uncommonly strong performance powered, as far as I can tell, by his raging contempt for Obama. He won’t look at him. He’s using “what Senator Obama doesn’t understand” the way Joe Biden uses “ladies and gentlemen.” His constant refrain is the places he’s visited, leaders he’s befriended, aging advisers and presidents he’s known. Obama is conveying the fact that he thinks McCain wrong. But McCain is conveying the fact that he thinks Obama an unprepared lightweight. One of these is a stronger claim than the other.

Jay Reding:

Here’s my take: in the economic section, Obama very narrowly won. On the foreign policy section, McCain won. In the end, the dynamics of this race won’t change. McCain didn’t do what he needed to do to take Obama out, but Obama didn’t do anything to take down McCain either. McCain had the best lines of the night, especially on talking to Iran. However, the foreign policy part of the debate was overshadowed by the economic parts, which gives the narrowest advantage to Obama.

Drum:

Am I off base, or was this one of the most soporific presidential debates in a while? Frankly, I didn’t think either one of them did very well. There was way too much rambling, and way too few sharp points. Overall, McCain was more lively than Obama, but if the point of the debate was for Obama to show that he could hold his own on national security, then count it a win for Obama. I wouldn’t call him a big winner, but he certainly did at least as well as McCain, and that might have been all he needed.

Althouse:

In the end, I’d say, McCain made more good points and got in more punches, but Obama stood his ground and maintained his stature on stage next to McCain, even as McCain repeatedly tried to portray him as a lightweight. I should add that McCain never seemed too old, short, or lacking in vigor, even on HDTV. Obama looked fine too, and I never saw that upturned face, with the eyes gazing downward, that made him seem supercilious in those old debates with Hillary Clinton.

John Hinderaker:

As the evening went on, McCain did better. He started landing some shots against Obama. But I suspect it was too little, too late. It’s always hard to guess what the typical “swing voter”–which is to say, for the most part, people who are ill-informed–will make of a Presidential debate. I hope that some, at least, got a sense that Obama is a BSer who often has little idea what he is talking about and constantly runs away from his record. That’s just a hope, though. I think Obama probably improved his chances tonight.

Yglesias:

All things considered, it’s about a draw. McCain got a couple of good punches in and so did Obama. Insofar as the idea is supposed to be that McCain has a domineering advantage on national security he certainly didn’t prove that point. And for the candidate who’s losing, a tie amounts to a loss. He needs to find opportunities to gain ground on Obama and he doesn’t seem to me to have gotten much done.