Was it Republican candidate Mitt Romney, as many television analysts – and the CNN post-debate poll — said immediately afterward? Did President Obama seem less than enthusiastic about being there? Was Romney better prepared, and puffed up with the unbridled energy that comes from being the challenger, while Obama was too serious, perhaps as another analyst said, “more burdened with running a country and not just running his mouth”?
Opinions ranged from Obama being more substantive, but less willing to engage; more focused on numbers and stats and slightly dismissive of his opponent — to Romney scoring major points for style and performance and greatly advancing his various plans, while the President was more directly conversational toward the average American voter.
Some of you have already weighed in. For the rest, what does it all mean anyway? Not the importance of the election itself, but the debates as forum, as theater? Are they nothing more than a series of speech-lets interrupted by a frequently inefficient moderator (as my teenager mused)? And by the way, my husband wondered, who would even want that job, given the unfathomable difficulty of getting any damn thing done in Washington?
Meanwhile, if debate TV is your thing, tonight at Montclair State University, the New Jersey Senate candidates will have their own debate, broadcast over NJTV.
Image: Flickr via Creative Commons