The genius of the Obama campaign hasn’t been the way they’ve raised money, or innovative use of new technology to inform and mobilise. It’s been the ’steady as she goes’ strategy. No wild highs when things are going great and no deep depressions when hitting tough times. Cool heads prevail…

They used it to great effect against the Clinton’s (whose campaign resembles McCain’s in the level of indecision and inability to stick to one strategy) and now McCain is being subjected to it.

Obama has a great deal more work to do to convince those likely to be afflicted by the Bradley effect so his chosen path is certainly a shrewd one. When you’re a little different to win you have to do all you can to not ‘frighten the horses’ so to speak…

My feeling on the debate was that by the end of it McCain clearly looked like a defeated man putting on a brave face.

Towards the end he was reduced to complimenting Obama while failing to disagree with him as a number of solid points on the health and education questions scored – much more of this and McCain may actually end up casting his own vote against himself!

I think the 3rd debates strategy was to show McCain as an Angry White Man. And McCain obliged. I doubt the American people want somone who has anger issues with, as Matt Damon put about Palin, the nuclear codes.

“He needs to make himself comfortable to Middle America and the biggest danger to him has always been to come across as an Angry Black Man”.

Exactly!!

And, agreeing with Leon, Obama has held his nerve in terms of campaigning. I’m a great believer in the ability to hold one’s nerve!! Some of my greatest success in life the things I’m most proud of have come about because I held my nerve.

It is, an especiallyvimprotant thing for soemone with their finger on the nuclear button, so he’s achieved a double whammy. Not only does he seem to be reaping the gains of holding his nerve but he’s being seen to: talk about embodying your narrative!

(PS attempts to remember a bit of code and block quote – I’m warning you now, it may have gone wrong)

I agree with every comment above and Sunny.

And I think it was McCain’s best debate, but it wasn’t enough.

Also, I did notice something…

I watched the first hour on the TV. McCain was overly pale (is he okay?), awkward, and appeared peevish (no it’s not a Liberal meme, he did).

I listened to the last 30-mins on the radio. I was amazed how much better McCain came off. He sounded less irritable and more decisive. He didn’t come across as though he was constantly referring to a mental script and his barbs were better aimed.

It made me wonder how much of McCain’s failings are aesthetic? I know his frail appearance and quirks can only do so much damage, but I can’t help but feel, after last night, that they have played a significant role.

That or McCain won the last third in his own right and the radio was coincidental..

If being good on the radio counted, Nixon would have won in 1960.

Indeed, 90% of communication is non-verbal. Nixon won the debate according to radio listeners, Kennedy according to TV viewers. Some have attributed this to the fact that Nixon refused to wear mattify on TV (make up to avoid looking sweaty under studio lights) and consequently looked shifty and nervous whereas kennedy did and looked confident, assertive and young. Obama has clearly had a lot of leakage training, his body language is very polished, he comes over like the super confident head of a global conglomerate adressing the AGM after a very sucesfull year.

There’s always the “Angry Black Man” risk for Obama, but I don’t think it had much to do with his performance. He’s due a landslide, and all he needs to do is not mess it up.

Not getting involved in the Ayers/ACORN/Palin horse-race stuff was the smart move. Obama was always trying to turn the conversation to the big economic issues, which people are worried about. McCain’s efforts to get him off them just made him look desperate and petulant.