In response to:

A Solid Romney Win Where It Matters

Hoosierguy Wrote: Oct 23, 2012 5:03 AM
If the "bayonets & horses" comment is the only thing that the libs can latch onto, then it seems to me that Romney won. "Bayonets and horses" will have about as much success stopping Romney's momentum as "binders" did. The only thing Romney had to accomplish last night was to not be tricked into saying something stupid. He looked very presidential, while most of the night I thought Obama's head was going to explode.
para_dimz Wrote: Oct 23, 2012 9:45 AM
That should have been an opening for Romney. The hi tech military needs to upgrade because it is worn out from 11 years of hard use not because the numbers of weapons is in question. Stuff gets worn out, blown up, out of date. That's what should have been Romney's comeback or better yet his first comment.

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...