Opinion by Ray D’Cruz

There’s been a strong campaign by media outlets, particularly Sky News, for the UK to have a formal, televised leaders’ debate as part of the upcoming UK General Election. It would be a first for Britain, but certainly not a first with countries like the US, Australia, Canada and New Zealand hosting election debates.

In this opinion article I will raise and respond to several questions:

1. Is it time for the UK to have a leaders’ debate?
2. Who should participate in the debate?
3. How should it be conducted for it to be a beneficial and worthwhile exercise?

Is it time?

Yes, it probably is time that leaders’ took their message to the public through a televised debate. So many other parts of politics are conducted through the medium of television that this seems like a natural extension. We see press conferences, Question Time, interviews and informal debates, so why not a formal, structured debate?

Indeed a formal, structured and well-run debate has the capacity to raise the quality of televised political debate significantly. It has the potential to move leaders beyond the 15-second grabs (assertions) that we must up with most of the time. Having said this, the spin doctors will see this as a slight variation to their daily routines and will try to script and spin every word. That is a risk that can be addressed in the conduct of the debate.

There are dangers to televised debates. Image and impressions count for much and can sway audiences. Perhaps they can sway audiences in lieu of good arguments. Richard Nixon sweating and failing to make eye contact with the audience during the 1960 US presidential debate with John F. Kennedy is said to have lost him an election. That was the first US presidential debate to be televised. Nixon’s substance versus Kennedy’s presence might have explained who the majority of radio listeners thought Nixon won while the majority of television viewers thought Kennedy won. It is almost 50 years since that debate and we are well and truly past the age of detailed policy argumentation. The age of image is here, and a television debate, properly run may be able to create some additional time and space for political debate.

Who should participate?

There is some conjecture about whether it should be the three leaders of the major parties or all leaders (including minor parties).

It is my view that only major parties should be represented; that is Labour, Conservatives and Lib Dems.

This is primarily to ensure that the debate does not become too crowded and messy. Five or six speakers is simply too much. A six speaker debate for 90 minutes means an average of 15 minutes per speaker. Even if the debate is solely dedicated to domestic issues, it means each speaker has 15 minutes to communicate their views about economic management, health, education and a raft of other issues. Add in the likely interruptions from other speakers and you have little more than the usual 15-30 seconds per issue grab that we are greeted by on the nightly news. That sort of depth of coverage does not justify a debate. You have to draw the line somewhere.

If you want an example of a confusing, muddled and ultimately unsatisfying debate, just watch the 2008 Canadian Leaders’ Debates. The most recent election debate featured five speakers. It was a messy debate, with the four opposition speakers regularly combining to attack the incumbent Prime Minister Stephen Harper. It created a strange scenario where Harper was under constant attack, but with unofficial rights of reply he was able to dominate air time and therefore may have won the debate.

This debate highlighted another problem with minor parties joining leaders’ debates: their narrow interests are not compatible with debates that cover a wide range of issues. In that debate, the Bloc Quebecois leader either looked for ways to drag mainstream issues back to his party’s narrow interests or simply dropped out of the debate. This particular problem – sectional interest party participation – really does help to decide where that line should be drawn. So, BNP, Greens etc should be excluded.

How should it be conducted?

Debates should be conducted independently of television companies and political parties.

Both groups have such strong interests that are incompatible with educating the public that they cannot be expected to produce the debate. Indeed the Sky News campaign for the debate, duly endorsed by other Murdoch media, has been so vociferous that one should be suspicious. Make no mistake about the motivation of television companies: these debates will be draw massive audiences. The Australian experience is that television networks cannot be left to run debates by themselves.

In Australia, one commercial network introduced ‘the worm’ some years ago. Each member of the studio audience was provided with a hand-held device with a dial capable of being pointed in a positive or negative direction. Audience members were asked to respond to leaders’ comments. If the leader said something that the audience didn’t like, the worm (a little line on the television screen) would track down; if they said something popular it would track up. Aside from being distracting in real-time, the worm also occupied excessive amounts of post-debate analysis. It added very little to the analysis of the debate and the issues presented. Similarly in Australia, there has been much conjecture and dispute about the bias of moderators chosen by the television companies.

Part of the problem in Australia is that there is no independent debates commission, as there is in the United States. This means that parties and television stations have a periodic stoush to determine the number of debates, the structure and content focus of each, who will moderate, how long it will last, whether there’ll be a worm and so on. In the lead up to the last election then Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd pledged an independent debates commission but no announcements have been made yet.

In America, we see three presidential debates, each with a different structure and focus. The rules of engagement are clearly defined and respected by all participants.

If Britain is going to have a leaders’ debate, it should do it properly: it should establish an independent group that will oversee its design and production. That group may have media and party representatives, but the ultimate decision making authority should rest in the hands of independent people. They can decide on the structure and content of debates. They can manage the risks of spin and insufficient time and focus on substantial issues. They can choose moderators. And they can deal with emerging issues such as the role of technology. The recent New Zealand leaders’ debate featured audience interaction via questions submitted by video or email. 

Britain should have a televised debate but to ensure that the British people are the winners from the exchange, an independent body should oversee the design and production of televised debates.

Election Debates’ expert international panel has awarded the third and final presidential debate of the 2008 US election to Senator Barack Obama in a 5-2 split decision.

Judges Jason Jarvis, Ian Lising, Sumithra Rajendra, Neill Harvey-Smith and Omar Salahuddin gave the debate to Obama while Ray D’Cruz and Bob Dalrymple gave the debate to Senator John McCain. (Read individual adjudications by clicking on the adjudicator’s name; view judge profiles here).

Judges agreed that this was the most ferociously contested debate of the three – Sumithra Rajendran saying it was “an extremely engaging and lively debate which didn’t leave room for yawns.”

The judges differed on the impact of McCain’s aggressive manner. The majority being more impressed by Obama’s calmness. Neill Harvey-Smith said the “end product was that Obama looked and sounded presidential, while McCain’s aggression got the better of him.”

The minority were swayed by McCain’s tactical approach, particularly early in the debate, where he turned the economic issue into a tax debate.

Election Debates provides indepedent assessment of election debates through the application of objective rules of debate. Our analysis is free from political spin and media bias.

Read the individual comments and scores of the judges below. To learn more about how our judges assess debates read this post.

Read the debate transcript here.

What did you think about the debate?

Judge: Neill Harvey-Smith
Winner: Obama
Scores: Obama 78 | McCain 74
Reasons:

Barack Obama scored a victory in the third Presidential debate. This was the Joe the plumber debate. Unless you are Joe or one of his employees, there was little to choose on matter. Obama played safe by highlighting similarities as well as difference between the candidates and projecting a spirit of unity. He passed up several opportunities to score points off his opponent, even when under personal attack.

McCain was more aggressive, going for Obama both on the issues and on character. It came across remarkably like a British Parliamentary debate, with Obama seeming like the government side, with everything to lose, and McCain the opposition, putting holes in his opponent’s ideas and challenging him with strong accusations.

The end product was that Obama looked and sounded presidential, while McCain’s aggression got the better of him. He mangled his words frequently (“President America” and “healthcare avoidance” were my favourites), fiddled with his pen, scribbled notes on a giant pad that remained in camera shot and failed to balance attack with properly explained and constructive alternative policies.

Much of the debate was lost to point-scoring and fairly tedious detail, with McCain trying to show fight and Obama dead-batting, like the section on Bill Ayers. The man who most often and most successively brought it back to the people outside the hall was Obama. His safety-first approach was effective at neutering the anger of McCain, who looked frustrated and tired by the end.

Judge: Bob Dalrymple
Winner: McCain
Scores: McCain 81 | Obama 76
Reasons:

Senator John McCain of Arizona scored a clear win against Senator Barack Obama of Illinois in the third and final debate of the 2008 presidential election.  He accomplished this by being the sharper and more aggressive competitor, while his opponent sought largely to deflect arguments, rather than land any significant punches of his own.

This debate demonstrates the importance of stripping out of the broader political context from an adjudication.  McCain and Obama had different objectives last night.  Behind in the polls, McCain needed to land a “killer blow” whereas Obama merely had to avoid large mistakes.  In that context, the Obama camp is probably happier this morning.  Stripped of that context however, and viewed raw, McCain won the debate.

McCain’s aggression allowed him to carry the economy section of the debate, which he had failed to do on the previous two occasions.  He was able to frame the discussion on taxes, which put him on solid ground.  His invocation of Joe the Plumber allowed him to ground and personalise an abstract issue.  He avoided being tagged with argument by anecdote, by clearly and crisply explaining his tax plans. 

Obama did better in his attempt to tie McCain to the Bush administration, and also in his attacks about negative campaigning.  McCain’s defence to the former charge was partially effective, as he contrasted his own record of breaking from his party with Obama’s claimed slavish loyalty to his own party line.  The negative campaigning charge stuck, however, and McCain’s response was weak.  Using military wives as a shield looked more than a little craven. 

Obama sought to attack McCain’s choice of running mate by contrasting the experience of his own choice, Joe Biden with Sarah Palin’s perceived lack of same.  McCain took the more direct approach, and hammered some of Biden’s past foreign policy pronouncements.  In debating terms, this was very effective.

McCain also attacked Obama’s relationship with Bill Ayers, using Hillary Clinton’s prior attacks on the same topic as cover.  Ultimately, Obama’s strategy of deflection worked very effectively on this point and neutralised the issue.

McCain debated effectively on energy, picking apart the vagueness of Obama’s position on offshore drilling.  The healthcare debate descended into farce somewhat, as both candidates sought to address “Joe the Plumber” directly to sell their plans.  The abortion question produced little, if any, clash.

The final topic, education, produced some interesting policy clash, however.  McCain sold his vouchers policy effectively.  Obama praised the DC schools superintendent, which allowed McCain to trip him up badly by pointing out that she supported the vouchers scheme.

In terms of Manner, McCain was the more aggressive performer.  This would normally equate to being the better performer, but at times he risked seeming angry.  This impression was exacerbated by the seated format of the debate, which may lead the viewer to expect a more placid and conciliatory approach.  Obama’s more laid-back approach showed a greater command of his physical surroundings, but limited his capacity to land wins on the arguments.  On Manner, then, a broad tie.

Judge: Omar Salahuddin
Winner: Obama
Scores: Obama 88 | McCain 77
Reasons:

Senator Obama won this debate by a considerable margin. He was better organised in his responses, better able to focus on the ways in which clearly stated policies addressed each of the key issues raised and better equipped to respond to efforts by Senator McCain to discredit these policies, sometimes on a fairly scurrilous and irascible basis. Senator McCain, on the other hand, seemed much less able to refer to specific ingredients in his own policies and their implementation that qualified them in answering direct questions from the moderator. Through his constant referral to ‘Joe the plumber’, he founded much of his rhetoric in a less credible anecdotal reference: a model that he, himself, sometimes contradicted. 

While McCain opened with the “Mr. Angry” description of the status quo, Obama responded with a more cogent analysis of the demands levied by the emerging economic emergency. At this point, many of McCain’s interjected comments lacked the necessary relevance and seemed over-prepared. This condition was further exacerbated by a well-expressed (and calm) economic analysis of the economic (mortgage) crisis from Obama.

The ‘campaign ethics’ issues was a turning point in the debate for me. Obama engineered his response to this issue on the back of a clever concession in crediting McCain with having voted “…no to torture,” at the half hour mark. He handled continuing allegations over past associations with aplomb, while Joe the Plumber was cynically told that he could keep his wealth. McCain seemed much less able to successfully weave his arguments together at this point, whilst Obama seemed comfortable with his own plans and their sincerity.

Energy and Climate Change was another key issue for me. Obama responded much more strongly to the “Drill now!” (offshore) standpoint of McCain by rejecting the ‘within the first term’ condition imposed by the moderator and developing a much more coherent response, even pulling the debate back to the key element when McCain threatened to drag it off-track.

On Healthcare, Obama’s five point plan was cleverly underscored by remarks on the need for efforts to deal with diseases before they can become chronic (Obama was categorical, for example, on removing government subsidies for private health Insurance companies), while McCain seemed determined to give Joe (the itinerant plumber) $5000 to buy his own healthcare protection and trust that such a poorly examined ‘band-aid solution’ would serve (“Obama wants government to do the job – I want Joe to do the job”). This is where some of McCain’s analysis seemed simplistic and occasionally started contradicting other things he was saying.

Obama was rock-solid on Roe v Wade and the appointment of Supreme Court judges, while McCain seemed to be trying to engineer a body-swerve around efforts to get him to respond directly to the question. Obama was superb on education and his response to the problems in this sector. This was completed with useful arguments about helping parents to show more responsibility and funding educational initiatives that work, including the training of good, professional teachers.

In summary, McCain came out strongly and tried to seize the initiative, but quickly exhibited the weaknesses inherent in his own policies, which, in avowal, lacked clarity (in response), depth, applicability and innovativeness. Obama, on the other hand, displayed a greater level of sincerity and a willingness to face problems from the perspective of a clear need for change, and the basis upon which that change should occur.

Judge: Ian Lising
Winner: Obama
Scores: Obama 82 | McCain 81
Reasons:

It should be mentioned that of all debates that have been held in this election cycle, this round had the most amount of direct clash and actual refutation taking place. Though some might think that Mr. Wurzelbacher, now forever immortalised as ‘Joe the Plumber’ won this debate quite handily, this round actually goes to Obama by a hair.

A debate round requires not only a solid line of argumentation taking apart your opponent’s position, but an independent case that exhibits the merits of your own. McCain did precious little to clarify his own bland claims to his suggested health care program, education reform, and general economic strategy. Instead, he chose to attack Obama’s proposals using as much time as he could spare. McCain was the clear aggressor for most of the time. He took Obama to task at almost every opportunity. The only problem is, that his positive matter suffered. Obama may have been on the defensive, but the debate ends up on his territory, since we have little the build on from the McCain bench.

A great example of this was when McCain attacked Obama about his association with Bill Ayers and ACORN. Certainly, it should be noted that Obama was on his heels for the length of the period, but in the end, not only was Obama afforded the opportunity to clarify the relationship that he had with both Ayers and ACORN, but the focus was completely on him. The problem with this tactic is that it easily backfires on the aggressor if the end result is inconclusive, which was the case here. McCain unwittingly allowed the focus of the exchange to be more about ‘what is wrong with Obama’ than ‘what is right with McCain’.

The debate was tight only because Obama squandered several opportunities to ‘put this one away’. There were dozens of instances where Obama could have put considerable distance between himself and McCain, but he refrained. Some might think that this was to ‘take the higher ground’, but in a debate, it could cost you the round. In this instance, it just made it closer than it should have been.

Judge: Sumithra Rajendra
Winner: Obama
Scores: Obama 86 | McCain 79
Reasons:

Both candidates provided an extremely engaging and lively debate which didn’t leave room for yawns. However, Senator Obama was far more structured in his speech and his arguments were easier to follow as opposed to Senator McCain.  Obama was more apt at refocusing the issues in the debate. McCain characterized Obama as anti free trade, a candidate who wants to increase taxes and supports big government, while McCain painted himself as someone who did not want to increase taxes and wanted to freeze government spending. This was highly problematic because every reform or policy that McCain had proposed required funds and if he was freezing existing funding and was not going to increase taxes where was he planning to get the funds for his programs? This was a fundamental question that haunted the debate as it progressed.

On the subject of the economy, Obama had a clear strategy of what he wanted to achieve. While this might not have directly answered the question proposed it provided a clear picture of a long term plan. McCain on the other hand actually directly provided an answer to the question posed, however, its effectiveness is questionable. McCain proposed a short term and long term fix which included spending 300 billion USD to buy off the bad mortgages so that homeowners could have a place to live.  Was this an effective short term or short sighted solution? Obama argued that this was a giveaway to banks and argued that the best way to help these homeowners was by renegotiating these mortgages. This seems like a more practical and easily digestible plan as opposed to spending almost half of the rescue budget on paying off bad loans. 

A special mention must be made here to Joe the Plumber who seemed to feature rather prominently in this debate. McCain’s strategy of using the example of Joe the Plumber a small business owner who might be shafted by Obama’s proposed tax plans might tug at the heart strings of many; however, after 15 minutes of spending the discussion on Mr. Joe, the discussion seemed to be time consuming and irrelevant to the real issues in the debate. While Obama did say that those earning below 250 000 USD will not be affected by tax increases, this was exclusive to only families. In this case, an individual or small business that makes less than 250 000 USD will still be affected. However, this was never pointed out effectively by McCain. McCain should have capitalized on this issue but unfortunately failed to do so.

On the issue of trimming down or eliminating programs McCain seemed a bit clearer by singling out certain programs that he would cut. He also said that he would freeze current spending on programs. This was a detrimental statement as it begged the question where was McCain going to get the funds for all of his other proposed policies like healthcare and education reforms.  Obama’s answer of cutting programs that don’t work and expanding those that do also does not directly answer the question. Especially since it was targeted at the reforms and programs that they have been proposing throughout this campaign. However, Obama seemed to have a more practical approach to the situation of handling limited funds than McCain.

The issue of negative campaigning is one of those issues that could probably go either way since both candidates have engaged in their fair share of negative ads. However, Obama’s approach of acknowledging that this is how politics is sometimes and then proceeding to shift the focus back to what Americans really want to hear – the economy, healthcare etc. was effective. Also, the platform given to Obama by McCain to answer the allegations concerning the Ayers and ACORN associations benefitted Obama more than it hurt him.

Both candidates agreed that dependence on foreign oil had to be reduced and their approaches to it seemed almost similar. The distinction was this; McCain wants to pursue offshore drilling while Obama said “we will look into it”. Obama did not respond strongly to this and let McCain’s approach of reducing energy dependency seem more realistic. Obama also allowed McCain to paint him as anti-free trade, while it seemed Obama wanted fair trade for America. McCain took this point home, because he managed to successfully paint Obama as not only anti free trade but also make his energy independent plan look superfluous.

On the issue of healthcare Obama was a lot clearer compared to McCain. McCain had no defense to the argument that his proposal will create a scenario where employers might no longer provide healthcare to their employees. He counter-argued that by saying that under Obama’s plan small business owners like Joe the Plumber will be fined if they don’t provide healthcare for their employees. This did not resolve anything. What was interesting was how McCain then argued that Obama was restricting choice and was playing the role of “Big Government”. Obama dealt with this deftly by pointing out that under his plan people still had choice, but more importantly they had access to health insurance. This argument was won by Obama.

It was very obvious that both candidates shared opposing views on the issue of abortion. Both candidates agreed that a common ground needed to be reached; however, they had opposing notions of when this should be reached, with Obama favoring preventive measures and McCain seemingly preferring post – occurrence measures. They were both tied on this point.

Judge: Ray D’Cruz
Winner: McCain
Scores: McCain 83 | Obama 80
Reasons:

Senator John McCain won the third presidential debate of the 2008 US election because he made the running while Obama was simply too passive. McCain scored the wins while making some mistakes along the way. Principally this was a tactical win.

McCain was tactically better in the discussion about the economy. While Obama’s opening comments about the economy were well made, McCain managed to turn the economic discussion into a tax debate. McCain cast himself as the low tax champion who could wield both hatchet and scalpel. He contrasted Obama as profligate. Obama’s attack on the McCain proposal to cut taxes for the wealthy was not as sharp as in the last two debates (missing the point that that opposition to this tax cut would create savings). His advocacy of the middle class and attacks on the current Republican president were also not as visible and well supported as previously.

McCain also turned the education discussion into a debate about vouchers. McCain’s DC vouchers example caught Obama off guard. It didn’t always work for him though. Some issues he twisted too far – such as trying to turn the discussion about negative campaigning (with some righteous indignation) into a defence of the military wives and veterans who attend his rallies. And also suggesting the negative campaign was due to Obama’s refusal to engage in town hall debates. 

The discussion about the choice of vice president was a great example of the contrast between these two men in the debate. Others may comment about whether it is representative of their campaigns. Obama treaded around criticism of Sarah Palin’s experience to talk positively about Joe Biden (in tired and timid tones). McCain attacked Biden ferociously on his reputed strength, foreign policy. Obama stayed above the fray, McCain got stuck in.

On the detailed health discussion Obama was more effective, answering McCain’s charges very clearly while outlining a plan with precision and detail. McCain looked desperate while discussing Bill Ayres and ACORN. Obama handled each issue in turn clearly and convincingly. But ultimately, this was not a substantive issue for him, it was an issue to neutralise or negate. The same could be said of his defence of his voting record in the Illinois State Legislature on abortion.

Other issues were about even. Energy for example, saw both mention alternative, renewable energy supplies, but avoid certain issues (McCain silent on fuel efficiency, Obama silent on nuclear power). Free trade was an interesting issue but not decisive mainly because it was so messily debated by both.

The manner of both speakers provided a significant contrast. McCain was aggressive, boxer-like. McCain attacked Obama’s “eloquence” by suggesting viewers could not trust his words, twice taking issue with the wording of responses. He interrupted and interjected and once even declared himself the winner of an argument. His conviction was evident, but it was over the top at times, almost desperate. On the other hand Obama’s calmness bordered on indifference. Obama’s manner seemed to suggest he’d had the debate before and wanted to move on. That might be right, but here was a debate to be won. He couldn’t be bothered responding to jibes such as “spreading the wealth around” and “class warfare”. His opening and close were more authoritative but there was not enough variety in his manner, and it obscured some of his key messages.

Judge: Jason Jarvis
Winner: Obama
Scores: Obama 80 | McCain 73
Reasons:

Obama wins this debate in a clear decision for two reasons.  First, his style was vastly superior to that of John McCain.  Second, he was more coherent in presenting detailed policy answers to the questions posed by the moderator.  This was the most exciting debate so far in terms of the types of questions that the moderator posed and the directness with which the two candidates addressed each other. 

In evaluating style, there were sharp contrasts between Obama and McCain.  In this debate there were longer times allotted for both answers and follow up questions.  This allowed for deeper exchanges from the candidates.  The key difference between McCain and Obama was their manner, highlighted throughout the debate by their non-verbal communication.  It is clear that Senator McCain does not respect Senator Obama.  Throughout the debate he interrupted Senator Obama and made faces during his answers. He also made many deep sighs and sarcastic smiles as Obama made answers to questions.  This was particularly true in the discussion of recent attack ads made by both sides. 

When discussing the issue of Bill Ayers, McCain made faces that were reminiscent of Al Gore in his debates against George W. Bush.  In the discussion of education policy McCain wagged his finger at the camera in attacking an answer given by Obama.  While answering a question about free trade McCain made a deep sigh when Obama discussed the free trade agreement with Colombia.  Obama was responding to the McCain attack that he didn’t understand the issue because he hadn’t traveled to Latin America. 

McCain’s non-verbal was consistent with general style throughout the debate.  Over and over again he attacked Obama.  He used rhetoric and language that was very aggressive.  For example, when discussing economic policy McCain suggested that the Obama policy was “class warfare.”   Returning to free trade he chided Obama suggesting that he would rather sit down and negotiate with Hugo Chavez rather than give free trade to Colombia.  When Obama responded to McCain’s challenge to name one time that he had ever stood up to his party, McCain indicated that Obama was “not convincing,” although Obama identified three votes that he said were in contrast to the democratic majority or traditional democratic constituencies (trial lawyers on tort reform, environmentalists on bio-fuels, and teachers on education reform).

In contrast Obama was calm and overtly polite.  He simply refused to be rattled by any attack that McCain made, and he avoided opportunities to engage in attacking rhetoric, perhaps because he feels he doesn’t need to do this as the current front-runner.  The best example of this was during the discussion about Vice Presidential candidates.  Despite a plethora of examples of Sarah Palin being weak on her knowledge of issues, Obama refused to criticize her, indicating that she was a “good politician.”  McCain immediately attacked Joe Biden as being “wrong” on many foreign policy issues.  In light of recent Palin rallies where the audience (and even Palin) has called Obama a terrorist, his restraint here was surprising.

The second key standard in which Obama won was on substantive issues and arguments.   Obama was helped here because there was little discussion of foreign affairs other than on free trade.  The critical difference between the two candidates was witnessed in how often Obama repeated 3 key themes: tax cuts for the middle class, development of energy independence and education.  Obama started with those issues, went back to them at every possible opportunity in the debate, even if the question didn’t directly ask about them and concluded with them.  McCain simply lacked a clear message here.

The conciseness and specificity of Obama was witnessed in their discussion of health care.  Obama went line by line through a deep analysis of his policy.  McCain responded by listing off a serious of random project that ranged from physical education classes to attacking Obama’s plan.  At no point did he explain a coherent policy, nor did he ever answer Obama’s charge that the US Chamber of Commerce supports his plan. 

Additionally, McCain spent a lot of time discussing a person named “Joe the Plumber,” a person that Obama had apparently met in Ohio at a campaign event.  McCain continually went back to this person to suggest that this person represented the average American, who would suffer under an Obama administration.   McCain’s repeated usage of this story became tired, and by the end of the debate it was somewhat odd.  It would have been much more persuasive to provide concrete policy examples, as opposed to a folksy story about a man no one really knows, even if he is a real person.

The final area of questioning that was significant was a discussion of recent attack ads run by both candidates.  Obama did a good job of answering questions about Bill Ayers, noting that he had been on a board with him that included prominent Republicans, and was even funded by a Reaganite.  His discussion of ACORN was a bit muddled.  However, he did a good job of noting that Ayers would not be a member of his administration.  To his credit, McCain also did a good job of finally attempting to neutralize Obama’s constant suggestion that he is George Bush by pointing out that he and George Bush are different people, and suggesting that if Obama wanted to run against George Bush that he should have run for President four years ago.

 This debate was not very close, and was a clear win for Obama.

Election Debates’ expert international panel has awarded the second presidential debate of the 2008 US election to Barack Obama in a 3-0 unanimous decision.

Judges Ray D’Cruz, Jason Jarvis and Bob Dalrymple gave the debate to Obama by margins of 6, 5 and 1 respectively.

Election Debates provides indepedent assessment of election debates through the application of objective rules of debate. Our analysis is free from political spin and media bias.

Read the individual comments and scores of the judges below. To learn more about how our judges assess debates, read here.

Read the debate transcript here.

What did you think about the debate?