Analyzing the debate

Now that the first nationally-televised debate is over, Barack is leading by a wide margin in the MSNBC polls.

These polls differ from the pre-debate favorability survey in that John Edwards does better in the latter than Hillary Clinton. This leads me to believe that there are a good number of undecided people taking these polls and not just netroots activists.

Of course, these aren't scientific polls. They might give a good impression of what people who watched the debate and have internet access think. But cheating is possible.

Personally I think Barack Obama did the best among the front-runners because he stayed on message.

This wasn't a good forum for anyone to stand out. They didn't have enough time to expound on their views. Barack especially likes to answer with examples and stories. I think only Bill Richardson went over the time limit more than Barack.

So nobody scored a knockout punch, but nobody fell apart either. Some of the second-tier candidates got a chance to shine a bit after being denied the spotlight by the front-runners.

Barack though came through as the true 'bring the troops' home candidate among the front-runners. Hillary sounded more like she was running for the Republican nomination.

Edwards had a hard time appearing as the populist candidate. He did a fair job of fielding the question about his expensive haircuts payed for with campaign funds, but was unclear on his position regarding hedge funds.

Obama managed to stay true to his campaign message that many of us have heard many times now. He was criticized about that very fact by some pundits, but it simply reinforces the perception that he is consistent. As for the idea that he didn't add enough substance to his answers that is just ludicrous. He didn't have the time to give much more than a general idea of his positions.

We can expect some of the major polling companies to release post-debate surveys soon and it will be interesting to see if they agree with the current MSNBC polls.