AP Photo by Alex Brandon

It often happens that the pundit “scoring” of a presidential debate ends up quite at odds from the polls of viewers that soon follow.

We’ve seen it again with Friday night’s debate, which most pundits (on TV and in print) scored very or fairly even, with perhaps some recognition that Obama made some small gains because he pretty much held his own on McCain’s turf. Of course, as we now know, virtually every poll taken by the networks and outside sources gave Obama an edge — and not a small one. He easily swept surveys of undecideds, even carried a Fox focus group. At least in the polls, it was no contest.

We’ll see if and how it affects the head-to-head matchup surveys in days ahead but for now we have to ask: Why did so many mainstream pundits blow it?

Of course, there is always the striving for “balance,” the effects of pre-spinning, and in some cases their favoring of McCain from the outset. And, to be frank, McCain gave a pretty good account of himself.

But many pundits threw out the window what they, and others, had said beforehand, about Obama needing to appear presidential and seem expert on international matters. When he did just that in the debate, they suddenly forgot the importance they had placed on it beforehand.

But here’s the key to the viewer/pundit disparity. It took awhile for McCain to build up to it but then he hammered it home near the end: Obama, he charged, lacked the “knowledge and experience” to be president…

But the pundits barely recognized that the “experience” charge was a non-starter — and that’s why they scored the debate fairly even even as viewers seem to have rated it a landslide for Obama.

I didn’t watch the so-called debate. But, I am a news junkie and, spending the time I do wandering the minority of newspaper sites truly concerned with news, I agree with Greg Mitchell – that the “undecided” are simply starting to make up their minds.

Obviously, that doesn’t include the pundits.