Romney doesn't have good policies. That's why he will lose. Regardless of debate skills.This is the phase when all the news outlets are trying to say the race is a toss-up. All the media outlets want a close race so they can make more money selling controversy. CNN is the worst.

...or was it a textbook example of rope-a-dope?

The discussion about the economy was not going to be easy for Obama under the best of circumstances, because of the 4 years spent in the hole the Republicans created. Good to get that one behind us. Now better tighten up your seat belt because Obama is going to come out swinging in the next round. And Romney is going to have to answer questions like: Governor, if you become president, to what cabinet posts or other important positions, will you be appointing the likes of Michelle Bachmann, Rick Sanctorum, Todd Akin, Rick Perry, Pat Robertson, Donald Trump, Rep Lewis, and Newt Gingrich? Knowing Romney, he'll probably say he never heard of any of them, and no matter how many times you say otherwise, he'll insist that doesn't make it true.

In terms of debate as theatre, Romney was Ali. On substance and content, he was Foreman.

Every dog has its days Jeff, you're having yours now. Enjoy it while it lasts.

????????

As a big Obama supporter, I have to say Jeff told it true. The president was not very specific and missed many oppurtunities to nail Romney. Particularly galling was allowing Romney to tack the term "trickle down" on Obama where traditionally it has been used to describe Romney's policies. Lehrer even tried to bail Obama out by asking him to respond, but Obama just went off into generalities. Obama also failed to respond when Romney esserntially called him a liar on his accusation that job exporting companies get a tax break. The president should not have let that pass, if in fact there was truth to it. Obama better bring his a-game to the following debates.

I would have to agree.  For some unknown reason Obama seemed quite uninterested in this debate while Mr. Romney was all fired up.  So first, let's be clear I think in the appearance area Romney easily won.  On the facts I found both to be a bit vague with Romney covering up issues with a flood of words and Obama a flood of numbers.  Most striking to me was Romney stating, "I don't have a 5 trillion tax cut."  He states he is cutting taxes by 20 per cent simple math gets you to 5 trillion.  Mitt seems to play pretty fast and loose with the truth there.  The other thing I found interesting about Mitt was that he sounded like a Democrat.  He promised every good thing under the sun but in the same breath said hey you won't have to pay for it.  I don't think will go unnoticed.  I don't think his reiterating support for voucherizing medicare will help either.

I'm not saying anything about Obama simply because what he has said he has said before.  There was nothing new there.  What will be interesting is whether independents respond to the purely theatrical aspect of Romney's performance or do they respond to the lightness of his statements.  Only the polls will tell.   Somehow this year feels different and I don't think the debates will have a very great impact. 

The "print waves" are flat this morning.  Flat and somnulant without energy, Obama spent his evening dozing.   Chris Matthew's leg stopped tingling last night.  It was replaced with a load in his pants.   Truth and facts were not on Obama's lips last night.  It was touching when he called the first lady 'sweetie" in a national debate that could  potentially  determine his political future.   He looked like he wished he was car shopping or anywhere but that stage.  That's what happens when you take a knife to a gunfight.   No ammunition, he carried an empty 45 as he faced dirty harry and heard the words, "make my day".     

Romney looked more crisp than Obama for a 90 minute period last night. That much is true. Here are a number of questions to put last night into perspective: 1. When is the next time Romney will embarrass himself, his party, and his country? As in London, as in the 47 minute fiasco. He is clearly a loose cannon. Quite capable of looking good, quite capable of highly inappropriate remarks. 2. What will he say the next time he is asked the same questions? His track record for changing his stance is so totally documented that anything out of his mouth has to be taken with great caution. 3. How does he handle the extremists in his party, not to mention the core party platform pieces around abortion, etc.? A brief debate on items which are too complex to articulate thoroughly in the time allotted simply does not provide an adequate rationale for choosing a person who's judgment encompasses such vast territory.

It won't get any easier either. Ryan v. Biden could go the same way and who ke next debate is foreign policy. As more comes out  knows what Mr. Gafftastic will say. As we hear more and more abuot Libya, it will be as hard to defend. His dealings w/ Israel, Iran, Russia will also be tricky. I was happy to see O got in an OBL reference though

At the end of the night, I can't say I even care who won the debate. Two things were missing. First, a debate should include everyone who is on the ballots of all of the nation's voting districts, so to exclude Jill Stein, Gary Johnson, and even Virgil Goode is a disservice to the voters. Second, neither Obama nor Romney have convinced me that 'none of the above' or a third party 'protest against a broken process' vote isn't just as valid as a vote between Democratic and Republican candidates. Today's editorial cartoon is perhaps the most honest description of how this election is going to play out.

Yes, Romney succeeded in looking... human... last night -good for him! This was clearly going to be the debate that gave him the best chance of looking competent(he's likely to struggle with the last debate on Foreign Policy and I'll give him a break and not guess what gems will come out of his mouth in response to the town hall audience questions forum in the next one). But can we all agree that the man has no operating definition of the word "Plan"? Telling the nation how he's going to lower tax rates, boost military spending and not acknowledge the simple math of doing so(Trillion$ in additional national debt, higher overall taxation for the middle class or evisceration of Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid) is just intellectually dishonest. Mitt's side is complaining that fact-checkers and economists aren't allowing for the 'job-creating effects' of his tax breaks(hello 'supply side', 'Arthur Laffer' and 'Voodoo economics'). Take him at his words on his time running Bain: he studied the businesses they took over, tried to fix 'em up and sell 'em. That's what America is getting with this guy. He never managed ANY of those companies.

Best I can guess is that Obama's side rationalized beforehand that their guy is better off letting Mitt go on the record(yet again) with more of his economic nonsense. And I detected effort on Obama's part at not coming across as 'arrogant' which was smart considering the state of the economy.

the thing that shocked me was how Obama just let Romney and even Leher at one point just interupt and take over w/out any fight.

A little giddy this morning Jeff?  No arguing Romney out-pointed the President, who turned in a lackluster performance,  but Romeny did it with low blows, clinches and and throwing shots after the bell.  A better refereed bout would have resulted in a more even outcome. 

Once the dust clears and the fact checkers get to work the Romney campaign will ahve far less reason to be doing the happy dance.  Willard will pay a price for his autocratic style and disregard for the truth.

Oh and Ali? Please?  That man was an artist in the ring.  I've seen Ali fight and Romney is no Muhammad Ali!

On being objective, I have this to say.  I find that Shedding my predilection to be happy when I feel real truths have been revealed as in last nights debate is nearly impossible.   On heing honest, I have this to say.  As an obvious Profox conservative, I was afraid that Romney was an empty suit until last night.  He is the real article.  He was presidential and showed great strength and intelligence.    So, please cut me a little slack if I celebrate his obvious strength and ability as he demonstrated on that stage last night.  My  less than erudite comments were a bit  effusive.    Blaming the moderator for Obama's repeated "Uh's and Ah's"  caused by his missing teleprompter is really silly.   As The system worked wrote, I really felt sorry for him at one point.  He looked down at the floor and looked like he was in over his head.  That's no place for a president to be.

Obama is an empty suit without that teleprompter.  He is in way over his head and the media can't hide that fact any more.  Get used to the words 'President Mitt Romney'...

"HHK"  "I suspect that it comes from being a minority/underdog in MA.  The underdog  mentality always seems to chortle at the misfortunes and trip-ups of the party/persons thay see as their "oppressor".

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yeah I get the underdog thing, but it is so, One: intellectually childish and two: it doesn't convince anyone to vote for their candidate.  Beyond that it makes for lousy thread conversation. 

"stakiinnh" 

I didn't lose any debate.  I wasn't there.  I have said numerous times my only reason for preferring Obama over Romney is a refusal on my part to take part in giving control of the US government to the Southern leadership of the Republican Party.  I do not like them, do not trust them and living amongst them I know them pretty well.  So lose the debate, not hardly.  Don't care.  Frankly I thought it was for the most part boring.  I should've let my wife watch Ghost Hunters.  Neither candidate had anything of value to say.  Romney won the optics and good for him and if that gives you a tingle good for you. However, having been in politics for many years a debate performance doesn't make an election.  Merely a point in time. 

This race was always going to be close for a number of reasons.  Obama didn't have it won before the debate and Romney doesn't have it now.  It appears to be a base year it may simply be a matter of who gets their folks out.

When the facts aren't on your side, all you've got left is aggressive bluster.  ThinkProgress has already released a report on the myths Romney spouted last night: http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/10/04/958801/at-last-nights-debate-romney-told-27-myths-in-38-minutes/ - should be great reading for the brainwashed right-wing automatons constantly squealing like stuck pigs about how "OMG Obama is such a liar!"

If you like your men BS-spewing blowhards who run from the facts, Romney is the guy for you - and you're the perfect Republican.  

This is the first time (and hopefully the last) that I, unfourtunately, have to agree with Jeff Jacoby.

There were many points upon which Mr. Obama could have easily and effectively challanged Romney, but he was asleep at the podium. 

One example:

Mitt said he is going to keep the two very popular and likely costly provisions of Obama Care; no rejection based on existing conditions (though that is not truely what he is willing to do), and letting children stay on parents healthcare till age 26. Yet he says the individual States should decide how to manage health care.  That is clearly contridictory, Mitt so which is it?  Furthermore, it clearly would create a federal mandate for which the States would to pay.  Talk about going back to the Bush W play book.

Mr. Obama tried to address Mitt's fibbing regarding his stance of pre-existing conditions, but his response was muddled and he fell flat on his face.  (btw in case you could not follow at home, Mitt's  stance is just what current law is - basically, insurance companies have to keep an insured if a major illness crops up - but only if they have been on the plan more than 3 months) 

When all is said and done, Romney's "victory" will be emphemeral.  Every lie and evasion will be there for everyone to see. He focused on entertainment, not information.  Scripted zingers are not leadership. Just one example, he never heard of tax breaks for outsourced companies. The brilliant business strategist never heard about that?  He may have entertained the red meat crowd, but as usual could not recognize or tell the truth. And I am sick of hearing what he did in Massachusetts.  To paraphrase:  Nothing became  his time here so much as when he left. What happened in Massachusetts (health care for all) was derided by him all over the country when he left.  Now that he has the nomination from the Know Nothings, he  claims the very credit he ran away from.  Some morality.