Well Obama won the debate but I'm probably not the best person to ask because I happen to agree with him on all the issues.
So lets see what others are saying. Independent polls are probably a good place to start. These are not fake polls like Fox's "text in" polls.
CBS: Obama won 39%, McCain won 25%, Draw 36%
Insider Advantage: Obama won 42%, McCain won 41%, Undecided: 17%
CNN: Obama "did better" 51%, McCain "did better" 38%
All the pundits said that since McCain was having such a bad week and since foreign policy was supposed to be his strong suit, then he needed to win to regain some momentum. they said a tie was as good as a win for Obama.
So all of these really are good poll results for Obama.
CBS gave some more information:
Nearly half of those uncommitted voters who watched the debate said that their image of Obama changed for the better as a result. Just eight percent say their opinion of Obama got worse, and 46 percent reported no change in their opinions. McCain saw less improvement in his image.
Thirty-two percent have improved their image of McCain as a result of the debate, but 21 percent said their views of him are now worse than before.
Why did voters' image of Obama improve? Many volunteered that they were impressed by his poise and knowledge about the issues, that he was more knowledgeable about the issues than they thought previously. When it came to McCain, those same voters said he "didn’t control himself well under pressure," that he was "angry and bad-tempered," and that he "talked too much about the past."
Obama smacked McCain on Iraq:
And so John likes -- John, you like to pretend like the war started in 2007. You talk about the surge. The war started in 2003, and at the time when the war started, you said it was going to be quick and easy. You said we knew where the weapons of mass destruction were. You were wrong.
You said that we were going to be greeted as liberators. You were wrong. You said that there was no history of violence between Shia and Sunni. And you were wrong. And so my question is of judgment, of whether or not -- of whether or not -- if the question is who is best-equipped as the next president to make good decisions about how we use our military, how we make sure that we are prepared and ready for the next conflict, then I think we can take a look at our judgment.
A total smackdown on the curmudgeon.
He even said the other day that he would not meet potentially with the prime minister of Spain, because he -- you know, he wasn't sure whether they were aligned with us," Obama said. "I mean, Spain? Spain is a NATO ally. If we can't meet with our friends, I don't know how we're going to lead the world in terms of dealing with critical issues like terrorism."
And McCain, it's Ahmadinejad (in Iran) and Zardari not "Qadari" (in Pakistan).
And why would you say Pakistan was a failed state in 1999? It was a democracy, with a few problems, but no where near the failed state we might experience if the McCain/Palin ticket wins.
And why were you afraid to look at Obama? Could you not look another leader in the eye? Or was it because it's hard to look someone in the eye when you know they are right and you are wrong?
You are no foreign policy expert John. Your judgement is flawed John. You lied about supporting veterans John.
You would not be a good president, John.