I watched it on PBS and didn't think the President did nearly as badly as the pundits said. At least he didn't sling a bunch of lies like Romney.

the twitter box at the bottom of the screen drove me nuts - the c-span video last night wasn't working well on my little laptop. So, I'm re-watching it this morning on c-span - with out the bias from twits.

Any mention of them on the tv news and I change the channel. Tweeting is all well and good for those who like it, but why do we need to be updated on them? People who care are on Twitter anyway.

It was a wonky debate. And people need to watch it twice. Unfortunately most people won't take the time to do that.

They say that those who watched the Kennedy-Nixon debate on television thought Kennedy won.

And that those who listened to it on the radio thought Nixon won.

family friend home from her job.

She comes from a family of Rethugs, but she's learning . . .

Anyway, I was trying to listen to the debate and wasn't paying attention to all of her chatter when I suddenly heard what she was saying. She was saying that she didn't like "his" -- meaning Romney's -- VOICE; that he sounded like a telemarketer, or one of those people on TV who are always trying to sell you things.

I said I thought he sounded like Buzz Lightyear and she laughed out loud and agreed.

Hopefully lots of 19 year olds had her reaction!

It slices and dices and makes julienne fries! But wait there's more! If you act now you'll get not one but TWO Ginzu Knives for just three easy payments of $29.99.

Yes. Mitt is that annoying voice telling you your life sucks and he has the perfect gizmo to fix it. Uh huh. Yeah, Mitt. Sure.

NURTURING!

Seriously.

A 13-year-old girl who says that Romney's voice is nurturing? Oh, I'm sure she came up with that word on her own.

Smarmy, yes. And if you listen to him with the ear of love, yes, it's kind of bland and soothing and I can see how a person might find it nurturing. It just made me laugh to hear that.

that muzak is music.

so it was delayed and broken into for them to answer the questions. What annoyed me was nitt wanting to get another word in when Jim should have gone on to the next question.

not to mention his lies.....bobbing head and blinking eyes...ugh....mealy mouthed.

I was very surprised to find out after that Romney won.

I thought Romney lost on content and style.

at your suggestion.

I watched it on CBS and it was mostly split screen.

I think that was the general format for all tv coverage?
Well, maybe Faux news had a crown on Mitts head, who knows.

What is to be gained by watching the debate a second time (on C-SPAN, no less)? The people who post on this board (or in my case, read more than post) are all solidly in President Obama's camp. The people who we need to win this election are not going to watch the debate a second time, and they certainly are not going to watch it on C-SPAN. The instant reaction to this debate was that Romney was the decisive winner and that is what matters for now.

I believe Romney lied about what he would do as President (much in the same way Dubya lied in his debates with Gore) and also played fast and loose with the facts, but I also think he won the debate by speaking with more passion, using a simpler vocabulary, and sticking to simple points.

No one is going to watch this again except weirdo who visit pol boards :p

I also agree with your second paragraph.

Insight. Clarity. A different impression. A defined opinion. More information. Education. I'll take all the information I can get and I don't fear where I get it. Sounds like you're not too interested in anything but your first impression...

He was all over the place and sounded like he was on crack. He did not "look" better in any way, if that's what "winning" is about.

Then the next day (or a day later), the media played the split screen and suddenly the story was not that he answered the questions well - and Bush had major trouble on at least one, but that Gore sighed.

Now, I think that making demeanor the number one criterion is silly, but there is also that Romney lied about things that he HAD TO KNOW. For instance, the plan he denied was his is still on his web site.

stream it, since cspan's always got full recordings of things like this.

Thanks.

And don't like to disagree with them and treat them like right wing Hannitys, well except that Hannity would never ever diss his own candidate. When will people realize these individuals are not true leftists? They are controversy salesmen just like Rush is. That's why they do this. Rush and co. never have reason too, since the candidates they support say shocking things as it is.

wanted to see the debates, not the talking heads, and I agree with your perspective of the debate. Interesting.

I didn't watch the debate b/c I had a deadline. Read the news sites, blogs, pundits etc. this morning and got the impression that is was a train wreck. So I decided to watch the debate today.

Obama did look dead tired, and somewhat "off", but I think he did pretty well, overall.

Maybe it's about the expectations that were built up, and maybe Obama expected to go up against far right wingnut Romney, not the shape-shifting, 180-degrees-turning-all-over-the-place Romney he encountered.