Pundits: No clear-cut winner

[2Design]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/14009

CNN’s Anderson Cooper, shortly after the first presidential debate said, “there was not a sense the world had changed.”
PAID POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT

That’s a pretty high bar to set for a debate. But at the same time, with this week’s headlines of impending financial collapse and a suspended presidential campaign—not to mention doubts that the debate would actually take place — perhaps only a world-changing showdown could have lived up to the hype.

For hours beforehand, pundits tried to get inside John McCain’s head. There were questions about his “temperament,” his “risk-taking”, and — as the Obama campaign might say — his “erratic” ways.

But when the “two prizefighters,” as NBC’s David Gregory called them, exited the stage, the attention shifted away from the chaotic past 48 hours and toward the previous 90 minutes.

Fox’s Brit Hume called it a “spirited debate,” but like other commentators, agreed that there was no standout moment that will be replayed on an endless loop.

[deadparrot]

1. I tend to agree.

But by virtue of it being a tie, Obama wins. McCain is behind and this was his perceived strong suit--he needed to win and win big.

[Jade Fox]

2. Hedging their bets again.....

Pundit morans.

[xiamiam]

4. its how they get paid...duh!!!

[TheCowsCameHome]

3. If McCain was supposedly the foreign affairs expert, it means Obama won

Obama did a fine job, and it was McCain that came up short.