While partisans will likely find something from both Talent and McCaskill's performances to deem their favored candidate the victor, the debate format and Russert's questioning placed the incumbent Senator Jim Talent on the hot-seat far more often than Claire McCaskill. While a more traditional debate format typically assures equal time to both candidates, the more free-wheeling MTP format allows Russert the freedom to question and follow-up until he feels he's received an adequate response. This format, and the two candidates' responses to Russert, seemed to favor McCskill. For example, while Talent received more direct questions (and follow-ups) from Russert, thus allowing Talent to speak nearly one-third longer throughout the debate, most of the incumbent Senator's talk time was defending past statements and positions rather than asserting his own agenda. On several fronts, McCaskill simply sat silent while letting Russert do the attack.

It was Russert, not Claire McCaskill, who asserted (quoting the Kansas City Star) that Talent's position had "flip flop[ed]" on stem cell research; it was Russert, not McCaskill, who suggested that voters might find Talent a "rubber stamp" for George W. Bush, having supported the President's positions 94% of the time in the Senate; and it was Russert, not Claire McCaskill, who summarized the two candidates' positions on the Iraq war as Talent advocating a "stay the course" approach, while McCaskill advocated a change in the execution of the war - a position favored by a majority of the public.

McCaskill received hard questioning from Russert on her position to "re-deploy" US troops in Iraq over a two-year time frame, and also on a comment she made previously about George W. Bush's handling of hurricane Katrina and his apparent regard for black victims in New Orleans. Throughout the debate, however, a major difference in the two candidates' responses to Russert, which also contributed to the disparity in candidates' response times, was McCaskill's tendency to give much shorter, straightforward responses, while Talent tried to parse his positions that often led to Russert demanding further explanation.

Interestingly, in the current political climate the MTP Senate debate series actually works against incumbent Republican candidates and favors Democratic challengers. As illustrated in the Talent-McCaskill exchange, Russert ignores almost completely state-level issues that these candidates would likely be asked to address in a debate occurring in their home states with local journalists setting the debate agenda. On the current national political scene, however, the dominant national issues - such as the Iraq war, the Mark Foley congressional page scandal, and, more broadly, the performance and popularity of President Bush, are all topics that favor Democratic challengers and work against incumbent Republicans (as measured by public opinion polling). This fact is also demonstrated in Republican talking points (and hopes) that local issues, state-by-state and within individual congressional districts, will determine the outcome of mid-term elections. It was clear in several of his responses that Jim Talent wanted to talk about more local issues - such as ethanol and bio-diesel fuels, pay-day lending for service men and women, etc., yet Russert kept the focus of this debate on national concerns such as the Iraq war (framed by a lack of progress with the war), on House Republican leadership's handling of the Mark Foley scandal, and whether or not Talent believed "President Bush is a great president." Again, these are all issues on which Republicans are forced to play defense.

In the end, both candidates avoided major gaffes and provided satisfactory responses to Russert's questions (again, responses that will allow both campaigns to immediately claim their candidate the winner of the debate). Both candidates, too, clearly came to the table with their own overall theme for the debate in which they wished to frame their opponent. From Talent, we heard several times throughout the debate that McCaskill operates from a "position of weakness" with her ideas on how to deal with terrorism and the Iraq war. McCaskill charged multiple times that Talent was too willing to simply go along with Bush policies and unwilling to hold the current administration accountable by asking tough questions.

With just one month until the election, and a race that is "dead even," a nationally-televised debate such as this will likely attract the attention of even a few of those still undecided Missouri voters. The debate's format, Tim Russert's questioning, and the two candidates' performances point to a debate encounter that may well benefit the challenger more so than the incumbent Senator from Missouri.

Mitchell S. McKinney is Director of Academic Affairs for the National Communication Association in Washington, DC. He came to NCA from the University of Missouri, Columbia where he was an Associate Professor in the Department of Communication. He has combined practical political experience with his training as a political communication scholar, having served as a staff member in the U.S. Senate and at the White House. McKinney has served as a consultant to C-SPAN, and has consulted with the U.S. Commission on Presidential Debates and the South Korean National Debate Commission. His most recent book is Communicating Politics: Engaging the Public in Democratic Life.