While quick polling after Friday night’s debate gave the edge to Obama, New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd saw it differently. Here is a excerpt from her column over the weekend: "Given the past week, the debate should have been a cinch for Obama. But, just as in the primaries, he willfully refuses to accept what debates are about. It’s not a lecture hall; it’s a joust. It’s not how cerebral you are. It’s how visceral you are. You need memorable, sharp, forceful and witty lines." Is she right?