According to the author's logic, Barack needed to:
Sway a larger share of independent and undecided voters, which apparently he'll lose after taking a second look at his readiness. In their words
- "[J]udgment on his alliances/associations and his lies regarding the mortgage mess (and just about anything else he says) struck a nerve and will force these same independents to rethink whether Obama is worth their vote."
Do more than play it safe . Again, in their words,
- "The pressure was actually on Obama do more than just "play it safe."- He needed a game changing moment to inspire the electorate to vote for him and all McCain had to do was look competent/caring on economic issues."
According this this right-wing author, Obama needed to look less like a typical politician. McCain merely needed to appear competent on the economy.
The big punchline? "He's not the inspiring candidate for change any longer. He's just another guy running for office."
Save for the fact that McCain failed miserably at trouncing Obama at his so-called best format-town halls- he won, right?
Wrong. Let's look at the numbers.
Which candidate do voters think won the debate? According to CNN, Obama, by a 54%-30% margin.
Which candidate is seen as a stronger leader? Obama, by a 54%-43% margin.
Which candidate came across as more likable to voters? Obama, by a whopping 65%-28% margin.
No wonder why this columnist is alone in his view that Obama failed. The people that count think Obama won, and their opinion rules on election day.