One of the ways to figure out who "won" the debate, is to turn the sound off. Part of the way we process our impressions of the candidates is through body language. IN this debate in particular, Obama and McCain telegraph very different things.

Obama is calm, forthright and presidential, while McCain is confident at times, but also fidgety, blinky and peevish. His refusal to make eye contact with Obama seems even stranger, when there's no sound, especially since Obama seems so much more natural by comparison.

While there is other, important criteria, by which to judge a debate, turning off the sound is an interesting way to get at the crux of the candidate's personality.

"....but also fidgety, blinky and peevish...."

You make a good point in your post, but part of the excuse, or reasoning, for his fidgety and blinky demeanor could be ascribed to his captivity as a POW. It might be somewhat bothersome to a viewer to see McCain display these manifestations, but in the long run, viewers won't really count them as negatives against him.

In the brief part of what I saw of the debates, Obama seemed perturbed and defensive while McCain controlled the conversation. It was during the part where Obama was trying to remember the name on the bracelet he wore.

Well, by all means, lets elect a president on the basis of his "body language".

Rubma:

In the brief part of what I saw of the debates, Obama seemed perturbed and defensive while McCain controlled the conversation. It was during the part where Obama was trying to remember the name on the bracelet he wore.

Trying to remember? He did remember it.

Thanks be to the fact that Obama can read....how Presidential.

Too bad it wasn't important enough for him to remember. Ask anyone else that wears one of those bands....they can tell you without reading it. I'm sure the kids mom feels much better that her son and her words to Obama pleading for him to make sure other moms don't feel the pain she felt was not worth his memory.

I wouldn't attempt to characterize how someone who you don't even know feels about something, if I were you. That is sort of an ad hominem argument.

The fact remains that Homeboy did remember the name, whether you liked the way he invoked it or not. You won't win this argument, Rubma, so I suggest you find another canoe to paddle.

The question "who ' won' the debate?" is the wrong one to ask. The reason for debates is to cut out all the filler and distraction from the media, and cut to the heart of what candidates believe, and where they are planning on taking this country. In the end, therefore, one is able to scale the candidates’ responses on agreement, on one side of the scale totally agreeing, the other side not at all agreeing, or somewhere in the middle.

That said, the mannerisms of the candidates (your “volume off” approach) are of no value. How polished one looks makes no difference if one wants to know the issues, and where each one stands. Obama can look as polished or fidgety as he wants- it's the substance (or lack thereof) that makes the difference. In this case- McCain "won," hands down.

Another "win"- if you must call it that- for McCain was his utter squashing of the persona Obama wished to portray him as: A Bush clone who only acts and operates like his Republican counterpart. Watching the debate, one is immediately aware this is not the case, for the simple fact that McCain is able to pull out names of contacts, working relationships, and world experiences as if it were a mere trifle. In addition, McCain is able to speak and convey ideas in a more fluid, logical way, totally a 180 from the 2005 debate, Bush V Kerry. You can say "Obama looks more natural" (whatever that means), but with only the sound, he is "naturally" substance- free, vice McCain.

I'm not looking for personality. "Hope" and "personality" are not plans of action.

Rubma, he wasn't trying to remember the man's name. He was forming his thoughts. It's obvious he started to say the man's name and then revised his thoughts because he didn't get the bracelet from Sgt. Jopeck, he got it from his mother.

Jesus, even I don't pick McCain's words apart that much.

OBAMA: Jim, let me just make a point. I've got a bracelet, too, from Sergeant - from the mother of Sergeant Ryan David Jopeck (ph), given to me in green bay. She asked me, can you please make sure another mother is not going through what I'm going through.

If you want to parse words, read McCain's;

McCain: And I'll tell you, I had a town hall meeting in Wolfeboro, New Hampshire, and a woman stood up and she said, "Senator McCain, I want you to do me the honor of wearing a bracelet with my son's name on it."

He was 22 years old and he was killed in combat outside of Baghdad, Matthew Stanley, before Christmas last year. This was last August, a year ago. And I said, "I will -- I will wear his bracelet with honor."

And this was August, a year ago. And then she said, "But, Senator McCain, I want you to do everything -- promise me one thing, that you'll do everything in your power to make sure that my son's death was not in vain."

No rank mentioned. Didn't he know the man's rank?

It's quite possible McCain practiced this part of his speech and quite possible that Obama did it off the cuff, never indending to use a man's death until confronted with it.

As a military member you should have been proud at the response Obama gave. Obama understands that the death of more cannot validate the death of those who went before. Each person's death is validated on its own. Each of us chose our path when we entered the military and nothing can make my choice or your choice invalide. Especially when one cannot define victory, as McCain cannot.

OBAMA: No U.S. soldier ever dies in vain because they're carrying out the missions of their commander in chief. And we honor all the service that they've provided. Our troops have performed brilliantly. The question is for the next president, are we making good judgments about how to keep America safe precisely because sending our military into battle is such an enormous step.

Hey...great argument....really. How could I assume to know how Obama felt....as if it mattered.

Again, ask anyone that wears one of those bracelets and see how quickly they come up with the name on it. You have proven that Obama can read, not memorize....

Ads, you make a great point when I read the debate, but I watched it. He was thinking about what the fuck the name was on his bracelet....not some great oratory display. He had to look at for Gods sake....something lost in the reading of the debate.

No need to parse words Ads....but I'm sure Obama appreciates your blind followership.

Rubma, are you really this bitchy? I watched too and I didn't see what you saw.

Of course he glanced at his bracelet. He started to say Sgt. Jopeck's name and then revised his statement. What person, except John McCain who practiced using a soldier's name as a campaign prop, wouldn't look at the object they are talking about?

When I talk about some jewelry I'm wearing or a book I'm holding, I typically look at it too. Doesn't mean I don't remember what my jewelry looks like or the title of the book.

I'm afraid you're wrong, Rubma. You were listening and watching with obvious bias.

We receive roughly half of our communications from others through body language.

This is why there are so many miscommunications via phone or email.

Here is a presentation from and FBI specialist in body language assessment. <link>

We elected a guy because we wanted to have a beer with him. Why not because of his body language?