By the standards of pure politics, Sen. Barack Obama “won” the second presidential debate. He leads in virtually all the polls, and while underdog Sen. John McCain sounded somewhat more authoritative on foreign policy — which should be a source of strength, given his much greater experience — and drew a distinction with his foe on tax policy, he failed to say anything memorable that would startle many voters into questioning Senator Obama’s suitability for the White House.

Indeed, the second debate was, from the standpoint of political theater, boring. The questions could hardly have been more formulaic, and the politicians ran off well-rehearsed sound bites that they have used in similar forms on the campaign trail.

Repeatedly running over his allotted time to answer questions, Senator Obama, 47, seemed as bright, mellow and professorial as ever, pointing his finger as he lectured his audience and handling all questions with studied ease. Senator McCain, 72, eschewing the combative style that many of his conservative supporters had hoped to see, seemed like a kindly grandfatherly type, shuffling across the floor, speaking in a soft voice, using the phrase “my friends” ad nauseum, and talking about reaching across the aisle.

The general lassitude was a surprise, since the “town-meeting” format — involving questions from an audience — is designed to stimulate out-of-the-box queries that might reveal aspects of the character of the candidates rarely illuminated by the inside-the-Beltway mentality. But the carefully screened audience seemed to stick to the Washington script, and a tired-looking moderator Tom Brokaw, 68, hardly helped with his own wonkish questions, such as whom Mr. McCain would select to be his Treasury secretary.

Senator Obama seemed strongest on domestic policy, complaining about how the rich have unfairly flourished during the Bush years, and calling for a much greater federal role in health care as a way to shift the country’s wealth more toward the poor and the middle class. Such answers played well to the growing conviction of struggling Americans that they have not shared much in the boom times, and are now being punished for a financial disaster brought on by the wealthy and connected in Washington and New York.

If Senator McCain ever hit his stride, it was during foreign-policy questions. He stressed the debacle that a surrender in Iraq would have brought about, warned about presidential negotiations with Iran’s leader without preconditions (one of Senator Obama’s less well-thought-out ideas), and cautioned against “telegraphing our punches” in the war on terror — specifically, in dealing with Pakistan, a crucial ally in an explosive region.

On tax policy, neither made much sense. Senator Obama has yet to explain how his proposed tax boost for people earning over $250,000 a year would be enough to pay for his proposed programs and address the yawning deficit. Senator McCain argued that Senator Obama’s tax hikes would hammer small-business owners and make it harder for them to create jobs.

By the same token, Senator McCain failed to explain how the government can balance its books — especially facing huge Medicare and Social Security demands by retiring Baby Boomers, on top of staggering federal deficits and the recent massive Wall Street bailouts — while maintaining the irresponsible Bush tax cuts, which he wants to do. At the same time he was opposing Senator Obama’s tax hikes, he unveiled a new proposal that the government spend another $300 billion to help pay for mortgages Americans cannot afford. The numbers simply do not add up!

All in all, it was a good night politically for Senator Obama, who despite his relative inexperience more than held his own against Senator McCain. That leaves one more debate — Oct. 15, moderated by the 71-year-old Bob Schieffer, another longtime television journalist plugged into the Washington-New York nexus.