Interestingly, the post-debate polling has shown that viewers--particularly independents--generally believed that Obama won the debate, and that he did so quite convincingly (e.g. here, here, here, here, and here). The analysis of why they disagreed so strongly with the pundits will continue; even those viewers might not be able to identify a single point in the debate when Obama completed his defeat of McCain; and perhaps this moment wasn't the deciding factor for them, considering how thoroughly Obama outmaneuvered McCain throughout the night.
For those curious, the clear moment of victory occurred during the last question, when Jim Lehrer asked the candidates about the likelihood of "another 9/11-type attack" in the continental United States.
Here's a summary of McCain's answer: Such an attack is much less likely than the day after September 11, but we're still a long way from safe. He has a long record of bipartisan reforms , including the push that he and Joe Lieberman made to form a commission to study the causes of the attack. Most of the 9/11 Commission's recommended reforms have been put into effect, and he's proud of being a part of that. Nevertheless, the country has to do a better job of human intelligence, developing more trained interrogators, eliminating torture, improving relevant technology, and work with allies. He can do that because he knows our allies. Also, the 9/11 Commission's recommendations resulted in the largest reorganization of government since Defense Department was formed.
Not a bad debate answer. He hits his primary themes by referring to his supposed record of bipartisanship and reform, of experience in the field, and knowledge of the allies with whom the US will have to work. He also lists five general tasks that he would pursue to improve security.
Here's Obama's initial response:
That's a superior reply in terms of debate effectiveness and substance. First, he answers the question but quickly pivots to discuss the broad theme of national security. Second, he outlines three priorities for national security: nuclear proliferation, refocused attention on al-Qaeda, and restoring relations with our allies. Third, he tells the audience that nuclear proliferation should be given higher priority, and that the ongoing expense of initiatives like missile defense are inhibiting our ability to give it the appropriate attention. That point works well thematically because it's an implicit criticism of Bush and McCain, who, the audience would understand, have made the US less safe by putting money into the wrong endeavor.
He builds on that theme by further implying that McCain's and Bush's focus on Iraq has also distracted the US from a higher priority, al-Qaeda, and that pursuing that priority requires diverting resources to Afghanistan and Pakistan. Finally, Obama steals McCain's point about rebuilding relations with ally nations. McCain said it was something that had to be done but basically asserted that it would happen because of his personal relationships. In contrast, Obama ties together our difficulties with our allies to two of the failures of the Bush administration: unilateralism and torture. McCain actually supports the former and has been irresolute on the latter (which makes Obama's compliment for work on the topic ingenious because it essentially calls upon McCain to do more). In conclusion, Obama explains why our international standing is important: because working with allies improves our long-term security; he thereby successfully informs the audience that Bush and (by extension) McCain have made the US less safe by diminishing America's international standing. It's all excellent, among other things, because it shows that he has a broader vision of America's role in the world beyond Iraq and makes it OK for people to think it's time to withdraw troops because doing so will allow the country to refocus on areas of higher priority. And it only laid the ground work for his next response, which is truly the coup de grace.
[I think it's also worth noting that Obama refocused the discussion from 9/11 to Iraq but done so in a way that reverses the neoconservative approach of defending against criticism of Iraq by stating its necessity in light of 9/11. He's successfully reframed the debate: unless we withdraw from Iraq, we will be unable to finish the work made necessary by 9/11 or to turn our attention other national security issues. In other words, by withdrawing from Iraq, we actually honor 9/11.]
I'd type up a longer summary of McCain's reply, but it really boils down to an assertion that "winning" in Iraq is the foundation of American security, and that withdrawal would be catastrophic. Obama's previous answer anticipated the assertion and disposed of it by presenting a broader view of national security, painting a vivid picture for the audience of what needs to be done, and explaining that continued focus on Iraq will prevent the government from pursuing those other initiatives. [McCain also made some pointless remarks about missile defense and asserted that Obama "doesn't understand." The latter was particularly ineffective in the face of a cogently and simply presented comprehensive view of the elements of national security.]
Here's Obama's response. I recommend that you watch until the final frame, because when you get there, you'll see that Jim Lehrer rather clearly knew who had just won the debate.
It's masterful in its subtlety, substance, and debate effectiveness. He hits three essential points and pulls them together into a conclusion that wins him the entire debate. First, he drives home that despite committing all of our resources (time, dollars, diplomatic attention, military) to Iraq, bin Laden is still at large and al-Qaeda is resurgent. Second, he draws the audience's attention to other security threats that have been ignored because of Iraq. The selection of China is particularly effective because of American unease about China's improving fortunes. The reference to China holding $1 trillion of our debt, borrowed to finance Iraq (and tax cuts for the wealthiest American individuals and corporations), highlights Obama's point that we've not only taken our eye off of other potential threats, we've potentially put ourselves in danger by engaging in Iraq. Finally, he ties it all together by reminding the audience that money spent on Iraq has meant foregoing both improvements in their lives (health care) and also the opportunity to invest in the future in the form of science and technology (he also could have cited infrastructure) that will be necessary for security both directly and to maintain our economic growth into the future.
And right there, Obama quietly drew the conclusion that the audience carried away from the debate: that continued focus on Iraq is keeping us trapped in the past, preventing us from moving into the future, and that of the candidates, only Obama sees the interconnectedness of these issues, so only he can begin to solve them. He thereby won both the economic debate and the foreign policy debate in a single answer.
Of course most viewers won't parse this part of the debate so closely, but the lasting impression, I believe, will be to see Obama as a candidate of comprehensive vision who sees the links between economic progress and national security and who wants to shift national security priorities to advance economic progress and thereby enhance national security.
And so I suggest that you again look at the face of a witness to Barack Obama's thorough triumph. That is the look of someone asking McCain, "You know you just lost, right, because there's nothing that you can possibly say to THAT."
