26 September, I was far away in the United States for the first televised debate between the two presidential candidates. The trip was made upon the invitation by the US Foreign Press Centre to study the US presidential election. Media representatives from more than twenty other countries were also invited.

The debate was conducted in the hall of the University of Oxford. However, the 3,000-strong media could only watch the entire proceedings through TV monitor at a makeshift media centre about 50 metres away. We could only visit the hall and take some photos a day before the actual event.

The debate was moderated by Jim Lehrer, executive editor and anchor of The NewsHour on PBS. Prior to the debate, he told the invited guests not to cheer, applaud, or make noise during the debate, except when they put their hands together to welcome the two presidential candidates on the stage, as well as after the debate ended.

According to the agreement between both election camps, the first debate was supposed to talk about foreign policy and national security. But after the Wall Street crisis came to light, the Bush administration had launched a US$700bn rescue plan. Therefore the moderator began by quoting what Dwight Eisenhower said during his 1952 presidential campaign: "We must achieve both security and solvency. In fact, the foundation of military strength is economic strength."

The first question he asked: "At this very moment tonight, where do you stand on the financial recovery plan?"

The debate was conducted in a question-and-answer mode. The first question was directed first to Democrat Barack Obama. He was given two minutes to answer the question, followewd by two minutes for Republican John McCain.

From the 90-minute debate, what I personally felt was that both candidates have shown their gentleman manners. Although there were occasional interruptions and arguments, they have not been overly aggressive. Their arguments have remained largely the same and no novel ideas have been drawn from the debate. To be frank, I felt that the debate was a little dry.

Prior to the debate, public consensus had generally opined that economic issues were McCain's weakest points, and it was duly proven so.

Obama launched his aggression since the very beginning, with his finger clearly pointing at the 8-year-old Bush administration's failed economic policies for the financial crisis the US was encountering. He also ridiculed his opponent McCain as having said merely a week earlier that the US economic fundamentals were stable.

McCain, on the other hand, repeatedly emphasised that both Democrats and Republicans had sat down together for the first time to seek solutions for the country's economy, which was a good sign.

In this first round of debate, Obama's performance was at best average, but as economic issues took the front seat then, Obama's arguments generally received a broader sense of approval from the audience. McCain, on the other hand, appeared a little nervous when confronted with economy questions. I noticed when he answered the first question that his expression was not only kind of stiff, he also kept on winking his eyes and cleared his throat three times in a bid to relieve his tension.

Nevertheless, when the topic was switched over to foreign policy, McCain was clearly displaying his superiority and slowly saw his confidence restored while his remarks were also more assaultive. He also said he was well prepared in the area of foreign policy and did not "need any on-the-job training."

It was generally agreed that the two candidates were basically tied in this debate, although the results could have worked to the favour of Barack Obama, as many voters felt that Obama has at least shown "the look of a president" after the debate.

Major US newspapers opined that the undertone of the first debate was that of conservation, without any marked winner.

The Wall Street Journal called it a drama played according to the script, and the candidates were only displaying their respective strengths along the pre-determined formats, with nothing to gain or lose.

The New York Times, meanwhile, said the debate had allowed both camps to take a breather now as the proceedings had basically met the anticipated presumptions.

However, most web surfers felt that Obama was in the upper hand chiefly because of the passion he had triggered, the hope he signified, as well as his exceptional skills in linguistic expressions.

A friend of mine who had migrated to the States said she was equally disappointed with both candidates, describing the debate as unexciting. She said they only tried to play some verbal tricks without clearly stating their stands on the issues or charting a clear future development path for the United States.

It is still premature to tell what influences the first debate would have on the presidential election. Both camps claimed victory after the debate, but to be frank, neither Obama nor McCain has dealt a lethal blow on the other, in this debate.

While the debate might have successfully consolidated the support of those who have decided whom to vote for, it might not have done enough to convince the undecided. (By LIM MUN FAH/Translated by DOMINIC LOH/Sin Chew Daily)