Spin Doctors Work Their Voodoo

Other thoughts on the debate . . . I watched it unfold in the hall, where McCain seemed as vigorous as Obama and seemed to finish with a slight edge. But as I saw the debate being replayed on television, the close-ups made McCain look his 72 years -- a point made by some focus-group participants. And as we've learned in every debate since Nixon/Kennedy, appearance matters.

Hey -- maybe Obama did win:

"A majority of debate watchers in a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll taken Saturday picked Obama over Republican John McCain when asked which candidate offered the best proposals to solve the country's problems, 52%-35%. They said Obama did better overall in the debate than McCain, 46%-34% . . .

"Obama was the only national leader or institution with a net positive rating on handling the Wall Street crisis in a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll taken Friday and Saturday -- 46% approved, 43% disapproved. For McCain, the numbers were 37% approve, 58% disapprove. Democratic and GOP congressional leaders, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and President Bush also did poorly."

A look at post-debate chatter from around the galaxy:

National Review: "John McCain delivered a solid performance in the first presidential debate of the general election Friday night, one more impressive than that of Barack Obama. Obama's surrogates are complaining in every available venue that McCain was 'condescending' and 'mean,' a sure sign their man lost. For our money, McCain wasn't tough enough on Obama."

New Republic's Nate Silver:

"By a 62-32 margin, voters thought that Obama was 'more in touch with the needs and problems of people like you.' This is a gap that has no doubt grown because of the financial crisis of recent days. But it also grew because Obama was actually speaking to middle class voters. Per the transcript, McCain never once mentioned the phrase 'middle class' (Obama did so three times). And Obama's eye contact was directly with the camera, i.e. the voters at home. McCain seemed to be speaking literally to the people in the room in Mississippi, but figuratively to the punditry. It is no surprise that a small majority of pundits seemed to have thought that McCain won, even when the polls indicated otherwise; the pundits were his target audience."

John Judis, also in TNR:

"All in all, it was a draw, which is a plus for Barack Obama, because he is ahead in the polls. What did Obama have to do? Like Reagan in 1980, he had to reassure voters that he wouldn't bite them. In Obama's case, that mean assuring them he was not a black radical or Muslim and that he had a sufficient command of foreign policy to run the country. He did that. McCain, on the other hand, did reasonably well -- he escaped the economic discussion unscathed and showed himself knowledgeable about foreign affairs -- but he needed to show Obama up and he didn't. He did well, but not well enough to change the race."

John Dickerson, in Slate:

"Obama and McCain looked like equals onstage. McCain turned in a marginally stronger performance, but Obama looked strong enough, and in a tough year for Republicans with Obama leading in the polls, that's a victory for the Democrat. Obama did what he needed to do to convince people he could be commander in chief -- his challenge for the night. McCain showed he could talk about the economy -- his challenge -- but not so brilliantly that he dented Obama's advantage on the issue."

Joe Klein, in Time:

"The more I think about it, the more McCain's performance annoys me. He seemed condescending and small throughout, whereas Obama was far more gracious and -- I hesitate to use the cliche, but what the hell -- likeable. For McCain's dismissive posture to have worked, Obama would have had to seem as uninformed and overmatched as, well, Sarah Palin. But Obama was as well informed -- indeed, better informed -- than McCain, even on foreign policy, McCain's alleged specialty. . . . I'm not so sure people are going to want him glowering in their living rooms the next four years."

Power Line's Paul Mirengoff:

"If McCain out-debated Obama (as I believe he did) but still 'lost,' that would be a pretty strong sign that voters just aren't buying what he's selling and that, consequently, McCain is destined to be rejected in November."

Now we can all start debating how Palin will do in her debate this week. Bill Kristol, who's well sourced in McCainland, says in his NYT column:

"McCain picked Sarah Palin in part because she's a talented politician and communicator. He needs to free her to use her political talents and to communicate in her own voice.

"I'm told McCain recently expressed unhappiness with his staff's handling of Palin. On Sunday he dispatched his top aides Steve Schmidt and Rick Davis to join Palin in Philadelphia. They're supposed to liberate Palin to go on the offensive as a combative conservative in the vice presidential debate on Thursday."

Well, sure -- as long as she can field questions better than she did with Katie.

Is it fair to post this YouTube video of Sarah Palin in the Miss Alaska competition? We already know she was in a beauty pageant. The bathing suit is modest. But the footage gives you a brief glimpse of that period of her life. Hey -- don't all click at once!

Howard Kurtz hosts CNN's weekly media program, "Reliable Sources."