As an independent voter with Dem leanings I find clearly that Romney delivered a knockout first round. I felt bad for the President when cutaway camera shots show him nodding his head in agreement to Romney's blows. Romney's theme is rightsizing federal bureaucracy with a states' rights accent - Obama agreeing his federalism tax & spend is a runaway train..

The problem for the president was that he had to defend his record without the help of his teleprompter or his media sycophants. Unfortunately for him he was over matched.

The president looked uncomfortable and at times looked like he would rather be anywhere else but there, Mitt seemed more sure and confident, Mitt won, not by a crushing win, but he definitely won.

I think Romney did a better job and I hope that continues for the next two debates.

I agree with what I read in the Daily KOS "If debate victories led to electoral victories, we never would've had President George W. Bush. And we would've had a President Hillary Clinton."
At the end of the day, MA is going to elect Obama and NOT Romney. The race we have a say in this year is for US Senate and perhaps the MA 6th Congressional District Seat

Is Romney lying his way to victory?
1. When Romney claimed that "pre-existing conditions are covered under my plan." They're not.
2. When he said Obama had "cut Medicare by $716 billion to pay for Obamacare." Obama didn't.
3. When he denied proposing a $5 trillion tax cut. He did.
4. When he said Obama had "added almost as much to the federal debt as all the prior presidents combined." Not even close.
5. When he resurrected "death panels." (That was called "one of the biggest whoppers of the night.")
6. When he stated that half the green energy companies given stimulus funds had failed. (Only if three out of nearly three dozen is half..)

Earnhardt,
We agree!!!!!

My feeling is that Romney left himself & his plans wide open to criticism and Obama should have just KILLED him on it. And he didn't, ugggh. Alright two more debates, Obama needs to come out swinging.

Regarding this thread... what else can a liberal do but whine about last night?

Reverend E. Raleigh Pimperton III

For those who want to blame Jim Lehrer, President Obama actually spoke for 4 minutes longer than Governor Romney.

Romney helped himself a lot last night. Obama not so much.
Nevertheless, I agree that winning one debate does not lead to an election victory. Romney needs to follow through in the next 2. But we have a very tight election here. It has been tight all along. I believe this thing is going to break late one way or another. A lot can happen on the world stage and a lot will depend on consumer confidence and economic numbers that come out over the next few weeks.

Janet - Wow. You certainly may want to check some of your facts and sources.
1) Pre-existing conditions were not part of Romneycare because MA already had a law in place protecting these individuals.
2) The $716 million is a CBO (government, not partisan think tank) estimate over the next 10 years, and yes part of the savings amount comes from "growth", just like Obama's $4 trillion in deficit reduction over the next 10 years comes from "growth". Can't have it both ways.
3) The $5 trillion estimate comes from the stated "non-partisan" think tank Tax Policy Center (although headed up by a former Obama staffer) and assumes no economic growth as a result of the cut which has never been the case (see JFK 1961, Reagan 1981, Bush 2001.)
4) First 232 year of United States: $10.5 trillion in debt
Since January 20, 2009 - $5.6 trillion in debt
Depending on your definition of "not even close". $1.4 trillion per year under Obama with no end in sight.
5) The IPAB is a very real part of Obamacare and has never been truly defined even two years post the legislation becoming law (talk about not providing specifics)
6) Yes, the jury is still out. If failure is defined as not turning a profit then the statement stands. If it refers to whether or not the entity remains in business because of government subsidies then your statement is correct.

As for medicare adantage coverage it certainly has been cut from last year. Obama took over 700 billion from medicare and it showed in my doctor bills this year already.

Governor Romney has been called a shape shifter, and last night I saw the plastic plutocrat morph into a smarmy nonstop-talking snake oil salesman before my eyes. Will the real Governor Romney please stand up? Or maybe he should be compared to Joe Izuzu, the car salesman, who, when he was spieling, had "He's lying" cartoon bubbles over his head. When Romney referenced the Declaration of Independence and America's moral ethic after slandering 47 percent of Americans for being dependent leeches, he showed himself to be severely sincerity challenged. Fact-checkers galore are already citing the governor's inaccuracies and downright untruths. The president missed numerous opportunities to counter Romney's assertions, and it's puzzling why he didn't. I wonder how the Tea Partiers reacted to the stealth moderate. The next debate is a town hall forum format. It will be interesting to see which of Romney's personas shows up and how aggressive the president will be.

Romney was clearly in control last night, Obama continued to repeat what he "thought" were Romney's plan. Even when Romney corrected him on numerous occasions, Obama continued to repeat what he believed Romney's plans were. Clearly, the Governor came across as presidential, and Obama came across as lost.

Income inequality didn't get any mention in the debate, nor has it been much discussed by either candidate on the campaign trial. In 2010, 93 percent of the gain in national income went to the top 1 percent, and according to the Economic Policy Institute in Washington, the top 1 percent possesses a greater collective worth than the entire bottom 90 percent. Professor Joseph E. Stiglitz, winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics, argues that inequality is stifling real democratic capitalism in his new book, "The Price of Inequality: How Today's Divided Society Endangers Our Future." I recommend his book to anyone who is curious about how we can restore sustainable and equitable growth in this country. He outlines a growth agenda based on public investment and explains why trickle-down economics doesn't work and why the across-the-board tax reductions favored by Governor Romney are unlikely to lead to growth. He outlines how government investments in infrastructure, education, and technology were the basis of growth in the last century and can be again. President Obama made the same point in the debate. Stiglitz cites economic historian Alex Fields, who points out that in the1930s, '40s, '50s, and '60s we had high productivity and much of that was because of public investments. Stigliz proposes political and economic reforms which could lead to a more efficient economy as well as a fairer society, but we have to abandon myths and heal divisions before it's too late.

We can all stop talking about the '50s, '60s, '80s, '90s etc. Demographics were in our favor during that those time periods (similar to emerging markets now). No President will bring us back to those times because our demographics are now much more similar to Japan and Europe. The choice is do we want to follow European big government policies (ex. some of Northern nations) and Japan down the road of low to no growth, 20% plus youth unemployment etc. Obama's policies and actions (he has been President for 4 years, 2 of which he controlled the House and Senate) are clearly following Europe. The choice then becomes apparent - do we want to follow Europe or do we become the entrepreneurial engine and economic leader of the developed world - "continuing" our glorious history of U.S. innovation and global leadership.

What income inequality? Everyone gets what he/she deserves based on the supply and demand of free market, well, except public sector and union workers.

Automobile, airplane, manufacturing dominance WW II, interstate highway system, personal computer, internet, mobile communications, smartphones. I'm sure I missed about 200 others.

I'll take a President who knows how an economy is supposed to operate versus a guy who thinks throwing money at it will solve the problem.Obama couldn't manage a lemonade stand.He is an embarassment to this country and a Socialist who wants to drive us into obscurity.A vote for Obama is a vote against what made this country prosper.It certainly wasn't entitlements!