I mostly listened, and thus didn't see that. If it was obvious to somebody not pre-conditioned to be irritated by it (i.e., any of us), then perhaps his effectiveness was lessened. But listening to it, I thought Obama did sound more authoritative than McCain did.
Do you think Obama provided more substantive answers than McCain did, instead of just reverting to the blame game in place of actual solutions?
Of course not. But his Wall of Words made him sound a lot more informed and sure of himself than McCain did.
(Serious questions, not meant to be an attack, I’m just baffled by your take on the debate.)
I'm a cynic about things like this. I think that most of the public will settle for the style, and won't dig into what was actuall said to see who won on substance.
Thoughtful answers. You should watch the debate, though, to see what may not have come across just by listening. The first time Obama tried to interrupt he did it by holding up his index finger and motioning; after that he mostly interrupted verbally.