Yes, no doubt Obama pwnd Romney in the Commander-in-Chief role.
But what worries me is that when Romney laid out a series of negative economic stats (economic growth, unemployment, debt, poverty, and the dog-whistle food stamps), and he says Obama promised X but delivered Y, and he grants that Obama is "trying" but that these negative numbers prove Obama just doesn't have what it takes when it comes to improving a struggling economy - I don't think Obama really deflected this.
Why the heck not?
Polls show folks think Obama cares more about them, but that Romney would be better for the economy, right? That perception about Romney is really his one chance of winning this thing, isn't it?
Why allow that perception to go unchallenged?
Why not counter Romney with negative economic stats about Romney's tenure as Governor? The stats are listed right on Obama's website. But they aren't much good on a website, compared to in a debate with zillions of people watching.
The website states:
Mitt Romney promised to bring his experience from the corporate boardroom to Massachusetts—the same promise he’s making now as a presidential candidate. But Romney economics didn't produce then—and it won’t now.Zing.
Stagnant job growth: During Governor Romney’s term, Massachusetts fell from 36th to 47th out of 50 states in job creation, while the overall U.S. economy grew.
Declining manufacturing: By the end of Governor Romney’s term, Massachusetts had lost more than 40,000 manufacturing jobs—a rate twice the national average.
Higher taxes: Gov. Romney raised taxes on the middle class, but pushed through a tax cut that overwhelmingly benefited 278 of the wealthiest individuals in MA.
Highest debt in the nation: Under Mitt Romney, Massachusetts’ debt burden grew to the highest per person in the nation.
Increased government spending: State spending increased every year while Romney was in office, and he left behind a $1 billion deficit for the next governor.
Jobs outsourced overseas: Governor Romney failed to protect good jobs in Massachusetts, and actually outsourced state jobs to India.
I suppose if done poorly the argument could come across as "I suck but so do you". But I'm sure Obama can avoid that, while demolishing his opponent's supposed greatest strength.
Debate #3 is of course billed as a foreign policy debate, so less opportunity there. But there's always the opening and closing statements....