Obama was 5 points ahead of McCain just prior to the debate. An axiom of Presidential debates is that they favor the underdog: he has less to lose than the leader; and when both share the podium, both have equal stature.

McCain showed two advantages:

First, he constantly put Obama on the defensive by making him respond to his criticisms. Time after time, McCain made an accusation that Obama chose to respond to, instead of moving the debate somewhere that Obama wanted it to go. As one observer said, "Obama needs to improve his counterpunching."

Second, McCain's answers were shorter, crisper, showed more "emotional" content. Obama's answers, while far more thoughtful, were longer, more convoluted, and he hesitated and stuttered.

Obama scored early on the bailout plan, but McCain rescued himself by accusing Obama of $932 million in earmarks for Illinois (which Obama didn't refute), and made him defend $18 billion in earmarks as being less than $300 million--when Obama should have said that the GOP invented earmarks.

Obama's position on talking to enemies was far more thoughtful than McCain's. But McCain, sensing that Obama is vulnerable with Jewish voters, hammered on Iran and "no preconditions." One of the reasons we've lost so much prestige and influence in the world is because we talk only to friendly nations, but I suspect the voters will like McCain's position better than Obama's because Obama's is harder to defend.

McCain undoubtedly thought out the use of "Senator Obama just doesn't understand..." Obama should have forcefully slapped him down with the first use of that phrase. He never took it on head-on.

I believe that, on content, Obama won. And McCain at times looked tired and old. But televised debates are about image and impressions. Even if it was a draw, it benefited McCain more than Obama.