The first debate - our reaction

What did the O's editorial board think of Wednesday night's debate? Our early takes: 

Taylor Batten:

Democrat James Carville summed up Wednesday night's presidential debate best: Mitt Romney looked like he wanted to be there. Obama didn't.

Each candidate scored points on specific topics, but Romney's approach was more effective. He aggressively took the fight to Obama without coming off as snide or petulant. Obama, meanwhile, was sharp at times but in what was probably an effort to appear above the fray, he mostly was listless at worst or professorial at best.

Romney came in needing to win, and Obama came in needing not to lose, and that is precisely how each approached the debate.

Obama fumbled a huge opportunity by never mentioning Romney's "47 percent" comments. Those remarks at a Florida fundraiser in May had hurt the Republican, his own pollsters have said, and Obama could have connected with undecided voters by portraying Romney as a super-wealthy businessman who has written off half the country.

Instead, Obama came off as defensive, nipping at Romney on policy specifics while spending too little time convincing voters that he is the man to turn the economy around going forward.

Moderator Jim Lehrer had little control of the debate. Oddly enough, though, that may have made the event more substantive and interesting. It let the candidates go at it instead of being reined in by a more rigid format.

Some notable moments from the debate:

-- Neither was convincing that he could tackle the nation's budget deficit. Romney said he would name specifics, then came up only with cutting (miniscule) funding for PBS and repealing Obamacare (which the nonpartisan CBO says would add to the deficit). Obama, meanwhile,
applauded the Bowles-Simpson plan -- the very plan he ignored at its key moment. Obama did score a point when he reminded viewers that Romney said he would reject a deal that included $1 in tax revenue for every $10 in spending cuts.

-- Obama won on Medicare. He effectively raised doubts about Romney's voucher plan, while Romney hammered Obama on cutting $716 billion from Medicare -- the same $716 billion his running mate, Paul Ryan, wants to cut.

A barb from Romney that might work: Obama supports "trickle-down government." A line from Romney that won't work: "I like coal."

At times, the candidates said the opposite of what you would expect. Who do you think said these things?

-- "I'm not looking to cut massive taxes and reduce money going to government. ... I will not reduce the share paid by high-income Americans." -- Romney, not Obama

-- "Regulation is essential." -- Romney, not Obama

-- "The genius of America is the free enterprise system." Obama, not Romney

The bottom line: Extreme partisans won't budge from their guy, but the handful of voters who can still be persuaded are probably leaning toward Romney after Wednesday night.

Fannie Flono: 

Maybe President Barack Obama was distracted Wednesday. After all, he and wife Michelle were celebrating their 20th wedding anniversary. Or maybe his team decided the best possible debate strategy was to act "presidential" and stay above the fray. Or maybe he just didn't want to come across as the angry black man. Whatever the reason, Obama appeared lethargic at times and too reticent in the first presidential debate - although at points he seemed to rein himself him from
challenging Romney. So maybe it was a strategy - a bad one, if so.

Republican Mitt Romney, on the other hand, was like a bulldog, making his case boldly and putting Obama on the defensive quite effectively. Romney won the debate, and with the race tight in the polls, he's given himself a wedge to manage and overcome campaign missteps that have been persistently gnawing at him. He should be happy with his performance though he'll face challenges from fact checkers about several of his assertions and his shifting positions.

Obama though lost this debate as much as Romney won it. He made his best showing in defending Obamacare - effectively pointing out that is was pretty much a clone of Romneycare in Massachusetts and that hasn't turned into the job killer and costly boondoggle Romney says Obamacare will turn into. But he missed opportunities to go on the offensive against Romney. There was no mention of Romney's infamous "47 percent" gaffe, immigration or other issues Romney was vulnerable on.

Romney came off as more confident, energetic and aggressive. The debate itself got pretty dense with a lot of detailed information being thrown around. Some of it was lost on the average viewer who
hasn't been following the race and knew little about each candidate's proposals. The debate wasn't managed very well by moderator Jim Lehrer but that might have been the format's problem. He was frequently run over by candidates ignoring him. In any case both candidates are probably looking forward to the next debate. Obama for redemption, Romney to gain more ground with another win.

Peter St. Onge:

This wasn't the 47 percent guy, stumbling from one gaffe into another. It wasn't the candidate who made independents uneasy by giving himself up to the extremes of his party. The Mitt Romney that debated Wednesday night was the nominee moderates in each party hoped for long ago. He won the debate in a rout.

From the start, Romney sought to calm voters who may have grown uncomfortable with him. He told middle-income Americans more than once that they would not bear the pain of his tax plan, declaring plainly: "I will not under any circumstances raise taxes on middle income families."

Alternately, he was piercing, but pleasantly so, when explaining to those voters why they might be disappointed in the man they voted for in 2008. He reminded viewers of the promises Obama hadn't kept on insurance costs and the debt - and when Obama objected, Romney said: "But you've been president for four years, you've been president for four years." It was a line, delivered almost plaintively, that tapped into the frustration Americans feel with a stagnant economy.

Obama, meanwhile, was listless - more professorial than passionate. In the two biggest moments of this election - his DNC speech and this debate - he's been flat. His strongest moment: telling viewers that Romney had made several fine promises during the evening but wasn't backing them up with details. It was a theme Obama could've returned to several times, but didn't. And inexplicably, he didn't remind voters that only one candidate on the stage said that 47 percent of the country didn't take personal responsibility for their lives.

Romney took full advantage. Presidential challengers get an immediate bump from the first debate. Put Mitt Romney on the stage with the president in Denver, and he is momentarily not the guy who trails in battleground states, not the guy whose campaign was already getting postmortems from members of his own party. He is one of two candidates who could be president next January.

It was Romney's job to take advantage of that Wednesday. He did so and more. He was sure-footed, appropriately optimistic about his country, willing to express policy in big picture frames that resonate with voters. In doing all of that, he not only won the debate Americans care about more - domestic policy - but presented himself to doubters as a legitimate choice. A reasonable choice.