Sometimes a debate performance’s longer term impact is at odds with viewers’ initial impressions. This was true of the 2004 debate in which John Kerry seemed to do quite well, but made the “global test” remark which gave George W. Bush the opening to suggest Kerry would hold America’s interests hostage to world opinion. There were a few moments in the debate last night which may be less vivid, but nevertheless troublesome “global test” problems for Barack Obama.

First, he will have to decide whether he will break his promise–and it was a promise–to accept public campaign financing. He tried to dance last night, but the issue won’t disappear and a more aggressive questioner would have made Obama’s appearance quite a bit less comfortable. If Obama does go back on his word, the McCain camp will have plenty of opportunity to point out that there is not much new about a politician who can’t keep his word.

Second, the issue of “re-invading” Iraq is problematic. As others have noted, al-Qaida is already there, so the notion that we would have to re-invade only if al-Qaida set up shop is sophistry. Indeed, John McCain quickly picked up on this one, declaring: “When you examine that statement, it’s pretty remarkable. I have some news. Al-Qaida is in Iraq. It’s called ‘al-Qaida in Iraq.’ ” ( It will be worth pointing out that Obama seems not to care about the views of thousands of military officers on the matter.)

Third, he escaped the Louis Farrakhan question (although just barely) but nevertheless never responded to the question on his views about Reverend Wright. Both Wright and Bill Ayers are wildly at odds with the “bringing us all together” theme of the Obama campaign. I can imagine that the “you know a person by the company he keeps” comments will be coming soon. So the Democratic debates, if no longer determinative of the Democratic nominee, may be of great interest as we head into the general election.