Whatever the intent, I'm hoping it has the effect of raising expectations for McCain. GWB always benefited from the 'soft bigotry of low expectation'. This time, hopefully, McCain won't be able to paly that game.

Motive or not, i hope the MSM does raise expectations for McCain, because when Obama takes McCain to the cleaners the MSM will have yoke on their face. This reminds me of the time before Kerry's first debate four years w/ George Bush--the MSM gave the exact critique Obama is getting about Kerry. And what happened? Kerry handed Bush his ass. So, let the games begin.

I'm cool with this. Expectations are everything in a debate. Let people think Obama is the underdog. There's only upside to a storyline like this.

Pufferfish

Meh.

As if McCain's 'instincts of a fighter pilot' did him any good when it counted.

These presidential debates are not like college debates, where well reasoned arguments score points. Rather, as Roger Simon pointed out recently, they are a matter of theater. Sabre rattling, bluster, short, pity if empty statements play well. This is what McCain excels in -- indeed, it's his only talent. And McCain is not as courteous as Obama -- he will interrupt, step on, Obama's statements.

So, I think the Times is actually just telling the truth, that Obama's style may be good for governing, but not for presidential debating.

Hey Greg - Call the NYT and ask them why - ask them if they caved.

The real issue is how it will the debate go over with the undecideds. Neither Obama or McCain have much of a hope of convincing the other's supporters from switching.

I think the economic crisis along with the long war in Iraq has altered the theater dynamics a bit this year. It will be which one leaves the undecided with the impression of real leadership. God only knows with many what that amounts to, but "well, there you go again" probably won't cut it.

McCain a scrappy fighter? really? if i can recall, didn't then Gov. Bush get under McCain's skin during a debate?

The headlines of both articles are (as expected) teasers to invite the reader into the material.

Both articles have both positive and negative things to say about the candidates.

I do think that Obama needs to practice conciseness in order to increase his effectiveness. He also needs to prepare himself for ridiculous attacks from McCain.

Obama is the underdog in this debate - it's about Foreign Policy after all, this is supposed to be McCain's bread and butter.

Obama's "problem" is that he tried to answer the question on the stage, not have ready-made answers to recite that best answer the question asked.

The format of the debate should be interesting, with both candidates going back and forth on issues, it could get interesting.

Obama better have an answer ready about the surge - because you know McCain is going to really try and hit him on that to score points.

Obama should get McCain to defend Palin's FP readiness and attack McCain's unwavering support of the war in it's early stages.

Did Obama ever accept the Stephanopolis Town Hall debate that McCain already agreed to?

I read those articles on the subway this morning and I wasn't complaining. Lowering the expectations for Obama is good. While I thought Obama did very well during the primary debates the punditocracy did not agree. Nonetheless, I think that those people who actually spend the time to listen to the candidates and form their own opinions will be pleased with Obama while those folks who do not tune in and instead get their news second-hand will "learn" that McCain won the debate. After all, the traditional media, especially television, has a big stake in concluding that this is a close race, even if the reality is somewhat different.

I DO appreciate the lowering of expectations couple with the fact that the debate is on McSpain's putative strength.

This is a Carter/Reagan set up depending of course upon "which Obama shows up"

A Snarky remark from SFCWALLACE?

COLOR ME SURPRISED!!!!

This was a gift, wrapped and tied with a ribbon from the NY Times to Barack Obama. What I love about this is that McCain can't whine about it at all, though you know they'd like to. "No fair, you're inflating expectations for us; you know we can't compete with Obama. You're obviously in the tank for him." Thank you NY Times!

I WANT lower expectations for Obama going INTO the debate. So if he does well -- it will mean more.

I'm terrified of how badly Obama debates. In the primaries he showed himself to be the weakest debater ever to run for public office. Against McCain, who is the self-admitted "master" of foreign policy, he's pretty screwed.

Hell, if Obama manages to turn up and not skip out of fear at the McCain juggernaut, we can call it a win.

/please run with this, media

Good comment, Monument.

Advantage Obama for this debate:

1. Foreign Policy is suppose to be McCain's expertise thus the people in general will have higher expectations for him.

2. Pundits believe that Obama isn't a good debater so expectations for Obama will be low in punditry-land.

3. Thus if Obama doesn't do any major stumbles and looks presidential as well as likeable going toe to toe with McCain even if he "loses" the debate, Obama wins just as Gore lost the debate to Bush in 2000.

Maybe they're just trying to "balance" the low expectations created when the McCain campaign announced he'd be taking a NAP prior to the debate, while Obama will be out shooting hoops. Last I heard, John McCain needs Ambien to fall asleep.

chill. it's all in the expectations. obama just won the debate