'No huffs, no laughs, no sighs'
Updated on 08 October 2008
A muted reaction by US commentators to what was a muted second presidential debate between John McCain and Barack Obama.
Republican candidate John McCain went head to head with Democratic rival Barack Obama on US TV last night.
With just four weeks to go till the election, how were the performances received in the USA?
"There was no indication that the debate did anything to change the course of a campaign that appeared to be moving in Mr. Obama's direction," reported the New York Times.
'Less vigour than expected'
Writing in the same paper, Frank Bruni found the debate "remarkable for the dourness of its mood" with candidates tearing into each other "with somewhat less vigour and venom than expected, given how little time remains until Election Day, given how nasty the campaign had recently turned".
Although McCain grew more combative during the last half hour of the debate, during the first hour "candidates' voices communicated anger less often than mere frustration.
"The decibel level was sometimes whispery and the gestures usually muted. There were no exaggerated huffs, no big laughs, no long sighs".
'Radically changed economic realities'
Obama may campaign as the voice of change, but neither candidate was reacting quickly enough to the economic climate for Steven Pearlstein in The Washington Post.
"Rather than talking about sacrifices, the candidates got into their most spirited exchanges while trying to outdo each other in proving that he would be the most aggressive and committed in cutting taxes for most households.
"In the end, neither candidate seemed prepared to tear up the carefully crafted programmes that they used to win the nominations and instead address the radically changed economic and budget realities that will face the new president."
'Obama centred, McCain scattered'
On the criteria McCain set twice during the debate - in tough times we need someone with a steady hand on the tiller - Obama was the clear winner, says Ariana Huffington at the Huffington Post.
Obama "was centered where McCain was scattered. Forceful where McCain was forced. Presidential where McCain was petulant."
On the same site, writer and actor Paul Reiser wishes there had been a stronger atmosphere in the hall. "I would have loved for someone from the audience to ask McCain to his face if he sincerely believes Obama "pals around with terrorists" or wants to "attack our own country." And if not, why does he allow that to be said in his name?"
Will it have changed the voter's perceptions? "Once again: I think if you already like Obama - you like him more after tonight. Likewise McCain. If you want to vote for him, tonight would've given you no more reason not to. And if you're on the fence, I don't know... Are there really that many people genuinely on the fence? How big could this fence be?"
40 per cent of these undecided voters thought Obama won the debate against 26 per cent for McCain, according to a snap poll by CBS News. Thirty four per cent thought it was a tie.
Meanwhile FactCheck.org debunks the dodgy claims in the debate, including Obama's shaky claim that his healthcare proposals would lower insurance premiums by up to $2,500 and McCain's claim that a plan to write down trouble mortgages is all his idea.
