In response to:

A Solid Romney Win Where It Matters

cjurgens Wrote: Oct 23, 2012 3:30 AM
I agree that Obama was attempting to say that the capability of the Navy, based on the firepower of modern ships, was what was important, not the number of ships. He did it clumsily; it was not the best line of the night. If it had been, Romney folks wouldn't be able to use it like they are. If he had just said what he meant instead of trying to demean Romney, his point would have been clear. That said, my takeaway is that, based on the capability of modern ships, the Navy has come up with a number (and not just a number, but numbers of different kinds of ships) that is needed, and we are cutting the fleet below that number. What I didn't hear from Obama was any thoughts about the "two war" capability. Still a Romney win for me.

When analyzing who won a debate, you can look at a number of factors: Who achieved their overarchhing objective, who had the most memorable lines, who might have left behind ticking time bombs in terms of statements that will return to haunt them.  Looking at any of the three, Romney was the clear winner, and Obama the loser.

Obviously, Romney's overarching objective wasn't to score debate points on Benghazi or Syria.  It was to prove that he is competent, calm, knowledgeable and -- most emphatically -- not a warmonger.  It was to make sure he seemed presidential.  He achieved it.  By...