The unspoken subtext of Romney'sclaim is that same old chestnut, growth. It all hinges on an unstated but wildly unrealistic assumption that the policies will have the effect of lightening in a bottle and unleash some kind of double digit growth. Also. by devolving some costs to the states (increasing state taxes), he postulates savings.

Sorry Angel#77, you filtered what you witnessed last night with your heart and not your mind. Romney never looked nervous last night. He looked like a predator who couldn't wait to pounce on his prey.

The fact is the President almost never called Romney on his obvious untruths. He allowed Romney to paint himself as a moderate, as a man who cares about all Americans, and as a man who has a plan for the future which will benefit us all. The majority of people who watched the debate won't see through this clever bit of manipulation.

I did some debating in college. To win them you do not brawl, but you do fight. You contest every point and when your opponent uses a straw-man argument or some other fallacious appeal, you call them on it and show the weakness of their case. When you fail to do those things you lose. The President lost last night and lost big.

All I can add is I hope VP Biden stops the bleeding in the next debate and Pres. Obama wakes up. If he doesn't Romney will pull-off a great comeback victory, and the Republican Congress under Grover Norquist and the Tea-Party will be unleashed.

On apperance, yes, Obama looked worn and distracted out of the gate. But he kept his policy on track throughout. I admire him greatly for that. Romney made me want to throw something at the TV. Liars and prevaricators, particularly those with beautiful grey sideburns and perfectly black head hair, are not to be trusted. Obama has my trust.

What concerns me (regarding substance - what is substantial and what is not in these debates) is that "not ALL that glitters is gold!" ...and Mitt Romney "glittered with his "faux-facade" - presenting a sense of "substantial-ity".... but did the people LISTEN to him - as opposed to simply "HEARING" him. MAJOR DIFFERENCE!!!
He maneuvered his way through that "debate" with all the grace of a bull in a China shop....and people are CALLING that - "a winner." Well, folks, the way he debated last night, is the way he'll run the country if elected...with all the "grace" of a bull in a China shop - COMPLETE with lies, smirks, disregard for others, and his innate ability and craven love of power - to VACILLATE WITH CONVINCING APLOMB, his stand and view on any given topic! THAT'S what this great nation will receive if we vote for Romney. Is that what we WANT?

I'd have to be brain dead to vote for Romney, but right now I couldn't vote for Obama either. Obama is going to win my vote back. I half expected to hear on the news this morning that Obama had a close family friend die yesterday and that was why he didn't metaphorically show up at the debate.

I sure hope for Obama's sake he utilizes advertising to refute Romney's lies and highlight his flip floppery.

It is up to the media to hit Mitt with the lies he told and explain them to the American people. So far I have only heard them applaud the LIAR for his audacity. Seems like they got their wish...it is a more exciting Reality Show for them to cover.

FOURTH ESTATE where are you when we need you?! WE the PEOPLE need your help. We can't allow the liars and obscenely rich to take our country and ruin our American Dream. GO OUT AND TELL THE TRUTH- you are supposed to have OUR backs.

The smarter the journalists are, the better off society is. For to a degree, people read the press to inform themselves-and the better the teacher, the better the student body.
Warren Buffett

The winner of the debate will be determined by this weeks polls, not a bunch of people flapping their gums. Romney gets a couple of points, he won. Same with Obama. Shouldn't we wait for the outcome before determining the winner?

Despite the constant yammering of the Tea Party, the fact remains that the current economic mess was largely the creation of the Bush/Cheney administration, who took the budget surplus left by President Clinton and in eight short years turned it into an even bigger deficit than the one left by Ronnie RayGun. And then on top of it, the entire American economy started to go into a freefall before President Obama even took office, and he had to scramble to try to mitigate the damage. Just remember that it was this President that bailed out the auto industry and saved thousands and thousands of American jobs while Mitt Romney and Bain Capital were buying up American companies, "harvesting them" (his words, not mine) for all the profits they could lay their hands on, outsourcing the employee's jobs, and throwing them out, only to turn around and call them "lazy" when the unemployment ran out and they were forced to turn to social programs like Welfare. This Republican Party is so low that they've even managed to resurrect the image of Ronnie RayGun's legendary "Welfare Queen," the mythical creature who drives a Cadillac and eats steak and lobster on the taxpayer dime, despite the fact that this picture was never an accurate one in the first place and completely ignoring the fact that it was the actions of these vulture capitalists that threw American workers onto the Welfare system in the first place.

As for the President, space doesn't allow for all the things he has accomplished (the list is longer than one would think), but I'll address that one with two names: Mitch McConnell and John Boehner. McConnell and his cronies met secretly DURING THE INAUGURATION and decided together a plan of inaction that can be summed up in seven words: "We will NOT work with this President." And then he compounded the mischief by announcing quite openly that the main job of the GOP was to ensure that Obama would be a "one term President." As for Boehner, he sits in charge of the most obstructionist House since the Clinton administration in 1994 when then-speaker Newt Gingrich literally brought the government to a halt by refusing to do anything.

Mitt Romney is an amoral sociopath who lies with an insouciance that can only be described as breathtaking; is he the liberal centrist who governed Massachusetts (and set up a universal healthcare system that Obama actually used as a model for his own, which now Romney declares must be repealed), or is he the far right anti-abortion-under-any-circumstances-repeal-Obamacare-and-Roe-V-Wade wack job that he tends to morph into when he feels the need to pander to his base?

Last night's debate was a sham. The President couldn't point out the fact that Romney was lying his ass off without making himself look bad, and as for the so-called "moderator," I don't care how experienced Jim Lehrer is, if that's the best he's got, he needs to retire.

The way the debate was set up was perfect for Romney: it gave him a perfect opportunity to tell one lie after another, putting the President in a situation that goes against his grain; he is the eternal diplomat and it is his nature to try to build bridges. To blatantly call Romney a liar to his face in front of an audience would have been quite out of character for him.

So before you decide that Romney "won" last night's debate, give it a little thought. He lied his ass off last night just as he has been lying for the entire duration of this campaign, and if that gets him elected, the people of this country are more gullible than I would have thought and a pox on Americanus Ignoramus.

I was disappointed with the President's performance last night as well, for all the reasons already stated. But if he had come out swinging, he would have played into the "angry black man" narrative that was teed up on the Right on the eve of the debate. I thought Mitt was rude, obnoxious and very "unpresidential", and he blinked way too often to look at all truthful and trustworthy. And I think there will be some political price for Mitt to pay, if his fringe/base realizes that he did abandon them last night.

It's interesting how the most prevalent comment all around the blogs today is that the President didn't call out Romney on all the lies and inconsistencies and the people will be fooled, yet EVERY COMMENTER NOTICED ALL THE LIES!

I guess the people aren't as fooled as the people think they will be.

Interesting observation by Josh Marshall. The CNN snap poll taken just after the debate last night included NOT ONE person outside the South, under 50, or non-white. Look at page 8 of this PDF.

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images/10/03/top12.pdf

This is outrageous.

WTF happened to the Obama we saw at the DNC???

Romney did not shine last night. He shined us. Romney revealed himself to be the nakedly ambitious grifter that he is. He bullied the moderator into silence and proceeded to ignore the time limits and filibustered the evening, dominating the time of possession as we say in soccer. Throughout the evening he repeated the lies he has been called out for during the last 36 weeks -- see Steve Benen's estimable series Mitt's Mendacity. It was shameful. Then Romney denied repeatedly that his much touted tax plan would reduce revenue by $5 trillion over ten years. That threw the President who didn't really know how to respond. Despite the rules for the "debate" carefully negotiated and agreed to by both sides. Romney isgored them when it suited him and demanded they be enforced when he wanted them. Obama appeared deflated to some extent.

Obama's base wanted him to go for the jugular, despite the fact that's not hia style and never has been, so the liberals turned on him and said they were disappointed - again. I'm guessing few minds were changed.

I won't waste my time watching the next debates -- Romney has turned them into political porn just like everything else he touches.

What I seen last night was a man that really wants the White House and willing to say anything to get it, and a President that acted like he really didn't care either way. The President had many golden opportunities to call Mittens out on his lies but chose not to, why I do not know. It was extremely painful to watch to say the least, and I was just as angry as Ed Schultz and Chris Mathews were if not more so. Where was Obama last night ? Does it change my vote, no not at all, but I'm well informed, sadly most are not. Sigh ...

Romney came across as a frothing pit bull nipping and barking out lies. Romney was the condescending CEO, cold and unempathetic. He had the "I fire you" attitude, "the I am a rich man you listen to me don't you know who I am" persona. A man who has proven he would fire people just to make money to line his own pockets then bank his money in the Caymans and off-shore jobs.

Yes. Pres. Obama should have been aggressive while remaining Presidential. He took too many notes, with his head down, but his answers were accurate - after all, he has a proven track record. He needs debate preparation that is hard hitting - like a boxer punching and punching - but with the President's own way of delivering the punches.

To me Romney looked desperate - saying anything to win. I often wonder if he is sociopathic? That is, without a conscience, he will say or do anything depending on the audience. His core beliefs are unknown, if he has any. I still think Romney thinks he should be anointed for the Presidency and can't figure out why Pres. Obama opposes him.

President Obama may have had an off night, but he is still the best man for the job.

I'm so disappointed and angry at the President, even a nights sleep hasn't left me feeling better. That was an empty chair effort if there was one. Leave the substance aside, the President was HORRID with his delivery. I does NOT matter if you say the truth when you're long winded, disjointed and inarticulate in presenting it! Romney lied his butt off but he did so elegantly. The President stumbled all over his feet, which he spent more time looking at than the camera, there were more UHs and UMMMs and AHs then I could count. It was tough to hear what he was saying because he just didn't say ANYTHING well.

You owe your supports an apology Mr President. On the night we needed you to step on that stage, speak succinctly and eloquently you laid a giant EGG and poor big bird along with the 99% of this country may pay the price for it.

I actually saw pro Romney supports standing on the street corner with signs this morning...UGH!!!!!

I was very disappointed by the MSNBC crew last night. It right after it ended all but Laurence O Donelli where judging the debate on theatrics. Obama truthfully laid out fax and in a non histrionic way called out the inconsistent and absence of the Mitt Romney platform and position so on substance, honesty did a much better job.

You all reacted as if Barack Obama could have attacked Romney just as you do on the TV shows or in his commercials. Do you think that that really serves the country?

Also missed incredible gaffes such as calling his sons liars does not the apple fall from the tree?

It was to much to take we had to turn to NBC news and get shocking a better assessment of the debate from David Gregory? or CNN (very dishonest poll but at least doing fact checking) instead of your crew which could only slam Obama and not begin examining the substance and truths in the debate as it occurred instead of comparing it to what you imagined it should be like.

I guess you came to your usual senses in the morning once again maybe looking at a few facts instead of being bamboozled by drama. You all better debrief after this one and reflect wether you want to add to the problem of the media or be part of the solution which mostly you guys tend to be or we will not be tuning into your channel for the rest of the debates!

What? Romney lying? Changing his story? Shocking! But seriously, when have the presidential debates EVER been about substance? It's political theater and Obama clearly missed his moment.

I love your show, Rachel and I support President Obama but this is all spin. President Obama got his clock cleaned last night. I have no idea where he was but he wasn't in that room. All along, my rap on him has been that he has been unwilling to get in there and fight. Truth be told, he was AWOL during the healthcare debate, preferring to let the Senate Finance committee negotiate and write the bill.

This is not about whose facts are better. It is about whose story is better. Romney simply told a better story - and it does not matter that the story was not credible. President Obama didn't take his own brother-in-law's advice; he played Romney's game instead of his own.

If you have to lose a debate it is better to lose the first of three. But President Obama must realize that the game is on and he had better get in it.

What happened to the questions regarding women's reproductive rights, gay rights and voter suppression? Why did Jim Lehrer choose to leave out half the voters (or more) and their very real concerns about this election? These are domestic issues of great concern and Republicans are trying to suppress the vote, take over women's health decisions, and disenfranchise LGBT voters and minorities. Are these not domestic issues?

I can't help but feel that Romney's goal is simply to with the prize. I still haven't heard him delineate anything that he plans to do. When the President challenged him on many of his talking points, he simply denied that the President was talking about his plan, yet he failed to describe what his plan was. I don't believe that a plan exists for Romney. He is simply interested in winning the election, he has no idea what he will do on day 2! I hope that the President has a little more fire in his eyes for the next debate!

It was really infuriating not to see Obama put Romney in his place. It's sad that I knew the facts then Obama on how to respond to Romney. It was like watching a debate one cable news where the republican keeps hitting the democrat with lies and talking points and the democrat never responds because he doesn't know what his own facts are.

Romney looked smoother and more relaxed last night than Obama, who kept looking at his shoes. Romney also looked arrogant and condescending. Not to mention that he lied through his teeth.

In 1960, most people who watched the first Kennedy/Nixon debate on TV thought Kennedy won. Most who listened on the radio thought Nixon won. I can't imagine that a lot of people merely listened to the debate last night. But I wonder if you pitted words against words and ignored the visuals, who would you think did the better job?

Just an aside about perception: we watched the debate on CSPAN, which had a split screen for the entirety -- no cut-aways to Lehrer, just close scrutiny of the two candidates. And Romney was twitchy and sweaty, he grimaced and clenched his teeth, and wiped sweat from his face, and rotated his position repeatedly (literally and figuratively.) Obama did none of these things. When we switched to MSNBC after and saw Chris Matthews get upset, we were flummoxed; a side-by-side comparison had provided us with a clear view of which candidate was competent and presidential under stress.

NBC is in business with Bain Capital and MSNBC. Therefore MSNBC has business interests with Bain Capital. MSNBC is Punditworld and PunditWorld loves and seeks and foments confrontationalism. Obama isn't a junkyard dog. PunditWorld is a junkyard dog pound. Don't trust corporate media types, ever, for any reason....ever. Gobama!