As posted to my sister’s page in response to a thread there, I place this item here, in my notes, so I can refer to it as needed.
I am judging the performance, in my posting, not the content. I thought both candidates were great debaters. Romney avoided directly answering several of the questions, and he did it deftly. Jim Lehrer, whom I’ve watched since the ’70’s, immediately lost control of the proceedings. I shed another tear for the loss of Tim Russert, who would have eaten both of those guys for breakfast, lunch, dinner, shat them out, and eaten them again.
I did not see Romney as either maniacal or psychotic, but as cool and professional. He operated extremely well within the confines of the rules*. That is, he got away with what he was allowed to do.
Obama performed well, but he looked tired. His words were well chosen, but his professorial approach hurt him here.
Make no mistake, Obama is my guy, but performance wise, Romney was the cooler cucumber.
That said, Obama was much FUNNIER. For that reason alone I’d vote for him, because comedy is my number one election issue.
As for content, it will take me days to read all the fact-checking stuff. For me, that’s like pawing through the stats after a great game, and I love the task. I feel like Asimov sitting on the floor of his apartment and indexing his books manually, for fun.
*This sentence was written due to the assertion that “Romney looked maniacal and nearly psychotic”, with which I disagree.