Obama vs. McCain, final round

Last night's debate was definitely more interesting than the previous one. Both candidates were focused, knowing that this would be the last chance to sway voters on television. McCain seemed more energetic -- probably because he's the underdog -- in his answers, often going on the offensive. He brought up issues about Obama's ties to Bill Ayers and Obama's contribution to ACORN, the community organization under investigation in several states for voter fraud. Obama was on the defensive, trying to explain the allegations of wrongdoing.

McCain scored points for the attacks, but Obama handled well in defense. At no time was Obama thrown off balance by McCain's punches. My opinion is that McCain should've done these in the second debate and not the last one. I don't think it was enough to refuel the buzz in the last weeks of the campaign.

Karl Rove in his WSJ column points out that there are still a significant number of undecided voters:

Barack Obama holds a 7.3% lead in the Real Clear Politics average of all polls, but the latest Gallup tracking poll reveals that there are nearly twice as many undecided voters this year than there were in the last presidential election. The Investor's Business Daily/TIPP poll (which was closest to the mark in predicting the 2004 outcome -- 0.4% off the actual result) now says this is a three-point race.

Mr. Rove aka "The Architect" has a very good point. It's always been the undecided and independent voters who'll determine the outcome of an election.

Biden vs. Palin, the poll story

Everyone is looking at poll numbers to gauge the public's reaction to the V.P. debate. Ezra Klein of The American Prospect referenced CNN and CBS polls to claim victory for Obama on both debates: 2-0.

Never mind that Drudge Report readers overwhelmingly think Palin won. FOX News readers also declare Palin the winner.

Biden vs. Palin, the buzz after

Here are some post-debate commentaries from pundits of old and new media...

Adam Nagourney of the NYT practically yawned through the debate based on his analysis. I've learned through the years to believe the opposite of whatever the NYT publishes.

Peggy Noonan of the WSJ gives Palin a better grade and offer her POV from being a Reagan speechwriter.

Fred Barnes of the Weekly Standard calls it a comeback for Palin.

Michelle Malkin thinks "Sarah made history. Biden is history." Palin did a great job, but I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss Biden. Never underestimate the opponent, right?

Biden vs. Palin, round one

Let's face it: tonight's debate was all about Sarah Palin than Joe Biden.

We all knew Biden could handle it. The uncertainty was surrounding Palin after the MSM and blogosphere heavily criticized her lame Katie Couric interview. But I think after tonight's debate, Gov. Palin passed the test.

She had presence. You couldn't tell by her appearance that she was a newbie in the Washington political scene. You could tell she was fresh, somewhat different, but she presented herself as any seasoned politician could. She became more comfortable and confident as the debate went on. And she looked happy to be on stage arguing with a career senator.

She was a good communicator, always talked to the camera, unlike Biden who seemed to only acknowledge the moderator. She was confident enough to be on the offensive, pointing out on several occasions that her opponent simply cannot move beyond the past eight years of Bush and that the Obama/Biden plan for Iraq is equivalent to raising a "white flag of surrender." She echoed Ronald Reagan's sentiment on big government and freedom, quoting the former president: "Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction." Every chance she got she contrasted her partner against the opposing ticket: tax cuts vs. tax hikes, victory in Iraq vs. withdrawal, bureaucracy vs. reform.

She knew a lot of the attacks would come from association with the current administration, so she made sure those blows didn't stick. In fact, she turned them against Biden, almost insinuating that he's just an old broken record filled with BDS tirades.

What remains to be seen is how independents and undecided voters view this debate. But for those McCain/Palin supporters who were a little worried about her performance, I think they could go to sleep knowing she did well. There's always tomorrow morning to read all the analyses there is...

V.P. debate moderator is pro-Obama

Gwen Ifill of PBS' "Washington Week" has a pro-Obama book coming out and the McCain campaign didn't even know about it!

She should be disqualified to be the impartial moderator for tomorrow's vice presidential debate.

More fallout from Obama's bracelet

The blogosphere is abuzz with commentary on Obama's bracelet from the debate. Apparently there is evidence that the family of Sergeant Ryan David Jopek from Wisconsin had asked Obama not to wear the bracelet during his campaign.

The bracelet

In last night's debate, McCain talked about a bracelet he wears given to him by a fallen soldier's mother. She told McCain to do everything he can to ensure "my son's death was not in vain."

Then Obama said "I've got a bracelet, too." His was given by a mother of a dead soldier who wanted no mother to go through what she'd been through.

Charles Hurt of the New York Post summarizes the difference between these two men:

Obama will accept defeat if continuing on hurts too much. For McCain, any mission where defeat is an option is a mission not worth fighting in the first place.

I couldn't agree with him more.

Post-debate thoughts

I cannot say that I saw the whole thing, but definitely the majority of it.

First, both candidates did a good job in playing offense and defense. I'm glad McCain did not hold back in throwing punches, forcing Obama to play defense on the main issues: national security, foreign policy, and the economy. Many times when McCain was on the attack, you can see Obama shaking his head, signaling to the moderator that he'd like to rebuke, and just looking plain annoyed.

The best line from McCain? Something to the extent that Obama is so far left that he has a hard time reaching that far across the aisle. That's the McCain we know!

Second, Obama follows through on his "Change we can believe in" mantra to paint his opponent as another Bush. Several times during the debate he brings up Bush and labels McCain a "Bush supporter." This is an obvious scare tactic. The Obama campaign wants voters to view McCain as old school Washington. Did McCain hurt himself when he kept on referring to his background and experience? Maybe, but I'd like to think that Americans still long for the comfort of knowing McCain's history and how that's shaped him. We want change, but change in the right direction.

Third, I think McCain kicked butt in topics relating to foreign policy and the military. McCain's vast knowledge and experience helped him substantiate his claim that Obama holds a naive world view.

The V.P. debate in the coming weeks would be closely watched: Palin vs. Biden. Again, we have a younger, less experienced Gov. Palin up against the experienced Sen. Biden. This election surely boils down to Old vs. New.

McCain suggests postponing debate

The blogosphere is over-analyzing McCain's decision to suspend campaign activities and suggestion to postpone the first presidential debate until Congress and the White House reaches an agreement on the Wall Street rescue plan.

Seriously, what does it matter which date the debate is held? Obama proclaims that the American people deserves to know ASAP how each candidate stands on economic issues, especially pertaining to the Wall Street crisis. Besides inconveniencing the staff at the debate venue (Ole Miss) and the Commission on Presidential Debates, what harm is there in delaying a head-on debate? I'm in agreement with John Podhoretz of Commentary:

This cannot possibly be a major issue. But it is being treated as though it is an unprecedented move, a desperation ploy, a brilliant political stroke, a game-changer, a Hail Mary pass — pick your cliche. Why?

Both McCain and Obama are United States senators. What's wrong with actually doing their job to fly to Washington and be tuned into the largest economic crisis since the Great Depression?