First, allow me to say that I loved this format. This 5 minutes of interchange between the two candidates was vastly more preferable than the 90 second rapid fire soundbytathon that defined 2004 and 2000 debates. This debate was actually a conversation filled with rebuttals and counterclaims. This is the format that all debates should be in the future.

Secondly, both candidates were extremely sound in both presentation and content. I heartily disagree with John McCain on a number of issues, and believe his neo-conservative approach to Foreign Policy will doom us all, but he did a good job of both exposing Obama's flaws and doing a good job of explaining why he believes what he does.

Obama, for his part, was excellent in both content and delivery. He steered the debates to the independent consitituiency, and I think that effort is reflected by the post-debate polls. His command of both foreign policy and spending issues was excellent.

Finally, I, like many, am disappointed about the lack of depth in the debate, but I definately recognize the limitations of such a format. It was a shame we couldn't cover everything, but that's as much the fault of the moderator as it is the participants. So with all the complaining about the lack of coverage to side-issues like outsourcing* or Darfur**, this debate was limited by time and circumstances, and I understand why the debate was limtied.***

*Seriously Lou Dobbs, you've been on this kick for 8 years. How is your xenophobic little soap box still keeping you on my television. Lou Dobbs - the only man who is an independent because neither party wants his vote.

**Honestly, to the folks who were complaining about this - what did you expect each candidate to say? This is largely a UN and African Union concern, with South Africa unlikely to yield to any European or American demands to help arbitrate the situation. Did you honestly expect a productive debate from a topic as one sided as this? Did you expect John McCain or Barack Obama to come out in favor of genocide?

***There were several issues undercovered, but undercoverage and reactionary policy has become a integral part of American Foreign Policy, more on this later.

That said, there were several reasons that I think Obama won this debate.

Obama, more than McCain, focused the debate on high impact issues with high dollar figures. He deftly deflected the issue of earmarks by putting a dollar amount on it and then eclipsing it with the investment necessary for continued presence in Iraq and the number 300 billion dollars of tax cuts McCain would give to the corporations.

Not only that, but he did a good job of explaining his stances in an easy to understand way. The best example is where he pointed out that while American business taxes are high, the ever-present amount of loopholes meant that the government collects much less than they should from American businesses, and that the business community have paid much less than they had to throughout the Bush Presidency.

This was made even more effective by Obama's constant focus on the large issues. He did a particularly good job demonstrating how the failures of the American Economy and foreign policy was caused by failures of the conservative belief system, rather than an aberration. His attack on Neo-conservatism, the policy of exclusion and trickle-down economics were some of the highlights of the debate for me.

McCain, on the other hand, sweated the small stuff and sweated it a lot. This focus on Earmarks might be good on the stump, but when you're staring a 700 billion dollar bailout in the face, it's much less effective. Similarly, he did a poor job of rebutting Senator Obama, and generally stuck to his original points - while Barack rebutted, McCain reiterated. McCain also had more "uh-oh" gaffes*, but those are hardly important. I think John McCain's failure was not one of presentation or content, but a failure of adaptation. Some of his arguments carried a lot of weight (the foolishness of strikes in Pakistan, for example), but his failure to put emphasis on these issues really hurt him.

*Ahmadinejad, the name of Pakistan's new president, calling the Russia-Georgia conflict "a Russian attack", and claiming that Pakistan was a failed state before the rise of Musharraff.

So, overall, I'd give the advantage to Obama because of the clarity of his message, but it was a genuinely good debate from both sides.