On substance, Romney declared, "Syria is Iran’s only ally in the Arab world. It’s their route to the sea,” yet the Persian Gulf is Irans entire southern border (perhaps why it is NAMED after Iran. ) Substantively, Obama destroyed Romney if only because the latter chose the "me, too, but better," approach I expected him to forego as 1) too tame for the base and 2) easily countered by asking, "if you agree with me on everything why are you running against me?" (as Obama essentially did.)

It was similar even when they pivoted the "foreign policy" debate to the economy. Romney denied his "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt" op ed urged Detroits bankruptcy, claiming the private sector would have saved them; Obama countered no private firms had the capital or desire for that during the Bush recessions double dip. Several were asked—including Bain Capital— but all refused. Without a US government bailout the Big Three would have gone into Chapter 7 liquidation and no longer exist. Obama could have more succinctly asked how Romney will spend $5 trillion on tax cuts, $2 trillion on the military AND end the deficit, but I think he conveyed the point.

So much for substance; on to what matters: Form. I admit some bias, but Romney struck me as frenetic to near the point of desperation, as if he thought ignoring time limits and sneaking in an extra closing rebuttal on each question would prevent another pummeling. Several times that left him briefly flailing and stuttering. The biggest thing I noticed from the start was that Romney was almost covered with what is technically called "flop sweat" (one Obama staffer reportedly tweeted Romney "looks like Nixon, only sweatier.") Nearly as noticeable were the narrow-eyed stares and smirks Obamas responses earned; if looks could kill Romney would have been in Secret Service custody by the halfway mark. He swung back and forth from patronizing patrician to unctious snake-oil salesman, and neither looked "presidential."

Obamas firm but measured confidence was a stark contrast. He put slightly too fine a point on it a few times (e.g. he should have stopped at "bayonets and horses" without giving Romney a condescending lesson on carriers and nuclear subs,) but for the most part he was assured without being arrogant. He was not nodding along with eyes downcast like a naughty schoolboy being lectured (as in the first debate,) but neither did he present a contemptuous phony smile that never reached his eyes (as Romney did nearly every time Obama spoke.) He met Romneys eyes with neither disdain nor submission, but only due acknowledgement.

So, yeah, it is not likely to move the needle much, as they say. The first debate was Obamas chance to solidify the then-prevalent impression of himself as commanding leader and Romney as inept scrooge; he blew it, and can never get a second chance. A month is not very long to create and run clips of Romney stating his current positions juxtaposed with clips of him saying just the opposite a couple months ago. The final debate is not likely to change things much, let alone as the first debate did; ending an economic election with a foreign policy debate all but guarantees that. On form, sustance and everything else though, it is hard to call it anything but a decisive Obama victory.