To use a Liz Warren word, Romney hammered President Obama in tonight's debate. Not a fair contest.

This was the etch-a-sketch debate.  It turns out that Romney's not going to cut taxes on millionaires after all.  Ryan budget proposal?  Romney never heard of it.  However, Obama should have tied the Republican Congress to Romney.  All he need was to point out that voters should doubt that Romney would veto any right wing legislation pushed by a tea-party dominated Congress?

Romney was shrill and agressive, not presidential, but ironically, he did win a lot of points for effort and bold moves . . .I have to say he won.

f the American people fall for the Republican Party of lies then as Bush they get the disaster they deserve. Do not come whining when NOTHING comes trickling down from the top, when the 1% go yachting and when they CREATE NOTHING no jobs nada because they WILL ship jobs overseas. Big government is a good sound bite BUT it's ALWAYS a sound bite. We are a HUGE country and each state on the big issues cannot be going its own way. The one flaw I saw in the president is he did not verbally chop this deception that is Romney's whole life. Really? Appeal Obamacare? and then what? 50 more million in ER's? BAD VERY BAD and the sooner the American public gets it IF they ever do the better. The Republican Party is NOT about you and it never will be. Romney has nice hair and THAT'S it. TAX CUTS FOR THE VERY WEALTHY? WHY? So they can go to the Cayman Islands with their off shore tax free accounts? WAKE UP AMERICA YOU ARE BEING SCAMMED!

Is this a news article or an Oped piece?

Paragraphs 5 and 6 note 2 items deemed newsworthy that "were not said" during the debate.  These 2 items read unfavorable to Romney.  Were there any things unsaid by Romney during the debate that were unfavorable to Obama?  None were noted in this article.  It seems like the writers felt he need to make the important points that Obama failed to make during the debate.

It appears to me that the writers cannot separate their personal bias from their attempt to write a news article.  Move this piece to the  
Editorial page where it belongs!

President Obama seemed to take the tact of the "I Claudius" scenario.  He let Mitt Romney lay out plans that will destroy the economy and impoverish the nation.  The President stated his case but in very muted tones.  So the challenger gave it his best shot but on its substance brought no hope or relief to those who are down on their luck. Noone wants the government not to take over their private lives but want government to act in its designated role to "promote the general welfare."  Hopefully we do not have to go as far as the Roman emperor by easing the way for reactionary neo-conservatives to take over.  Claudius took this road to open people's eyes allowing a take over by his opposition to clearly demonstrate how bad it can get.  The choice is clear.  Do we study what Romney proposed and reject it or do we experiment dangerously with his view of governance?  He is a candidate running to head the government but sees his goal as destroying it.  He was emphatic that the private sector always does a better job where the very opposite is true. Mitt Romney was selling the Brooklyn Bridge and I have to admit he did a good job of it.  However the government at present was gutted by inappropriate ovespending during the Bush years and the economy was undermined by the financial industry's self indulgance and lack of concern for the public, an immoral view.  Romney said it himself that the debt was "immoral" but what he did not take responsibility for was his Party's part in creating that deficit and his supporters' role in sending the country into recession.  The distillation from last night's debate is Romney wanted to one up George Bush by proposing more tax cuts for those who don't need it, increase military spending, decrease funds for education, and making a fiscal hole big enough that safety net programs and people's incomes are endangered.  In short this was a pyrric victory for the challenger.  He is mostly a wolf in sheep's clothing.  The voting public will have to see through the verbal sugar coating to understand he has flip floped again to seem moderate by temporarily reversing his previous positions but in reality remains a "severely conservative" proponent of failed policies.

Romney won the debate, but you choose the word "Aggressor" in your headline.   I can imagine the discussion on the subject: " Let's see how can we  change a winning performance into a negative...."

Obama was way too wordy. He took simple points and made them sound complicaated. Romney promises to cut taxes for everyone, increase defense spending cut the deficit...Obama needs to point out over and over again this is simply not possible.

How is either candidate going to fix the fact that, when America was most powerful it was a dominant manufacturer and now, with most manufacturing being done oversees, it has to rely on a service economy. What exactly do we export now, comparatively? How many people can participate in a service economy? What are we doing with our education system to allow us to transition to a different economy? Our current economic malaise is a result of our being in transition in this global economy. I'd like to hear either candidate speak to how we're going to become sellers again.