Personally, I can't for the life of me figure out why the media is falling all over themselves to portray last night as a clear-cut over-the-top Romney win.
I watched the debates, and at best thought it was a draw. If Romney came out with an edge, it was marginal.
And for me, even had I known nothing at all about Romney before watching the debate, I would've been turned off by his performance. I found him rude and obnoxiously aggressive, disrespectful to the moderator and the debate format by repeatedly interrupting and forcefully bullying the moderator into allowing him to continue to speak even well after his time was up. Why the hell would I think this is a desirable trait in a President?
And sniping at Big Bird is a winning strategy with more than a small fraction of the population? On what planet?
And then there's the actual content. Fact-checkers and various bloggers have already noted the fact that Mitt made at best a nodding acknowledgement towards the truth, and in fact big chunks of his comments last night were either entirely or mostly false, and in some cases demonstrably clashed with previous statements he's made on the campaign trail.
So, to the media, it doesn't matter if you actually say something factual in a debate, as long as you say it loudly overtop the attempts of the befuddled moderator to bring the debate back in line? Behaving like a lying douchebag counts as winning?
I may have to take up drinking.