Do debates matter? We'll find out soon because Obama has been winning the election, but Romney clearly won the first debate. Is anyone who will actually vote still persuadable?

Romney successfully combined warmth and urgency. Obama began way too cool by half. His details swallowed his message. Obama sometimes looked annoyed and unhappy, while Romney looked to be having the time of his life.

No major stumbles by either side and Obama got warmed up about halfway through. But Romney was ready for a debate, and Obama was not. The debate played to Romney's strength. No abortion, no evolution, no gay marriage, no fist-shaking conservative talking points. Just economics, health care, and the role of government.

Romney was much better at channeling Ronald Reagan than Obama was at channeling Bill Clinton. Let the fact-checking and spin begin. It's 13 days until the town hall debate....

No particularly tough China talk may mean less risk of trade protectionism and may be a plus for U.S. retailers & U.S. exporters.

On health care, a strong showing by Romney may help HMOs. But diagnostic labs, generics & hospitals may benefit if Obama prevails.

Forget the polls & pundits, let the market decide who won. If HMOs, big banks, & oil stocks outperform tomorrow, Romney delivered.

Political version of a Yankees/Red Sox game with good punch-counter punch but both holding their own. Mr. Romney seems quite comfortable and President Obama is not wavering. Obvious angles that don't require much teasing to differentiate.

I'm pleased that the focus is on domestic issues because this has to be at the heart of the concerns of the 14.7% that are underemployed.

Both candidates accepted little interruption from Jim Lehrer. But they both did a good job of staying on topic.

Each candidate has been good at correcting each other when one seemingly painted outside the lines. Mr. Romney has seemingly been a little more aggressive and President Obama was quick witted when he scolded - kiddingly - Jim Lehrer for using what was supposed to be his last five seconds by interrupting him costing five seconds.

Both are articulate and knowledgeable on the subjects. There was very little pause and little struggling for fact or information.

I think both candidates offered enough contrast well enough for viewers to make a choice.

President Obama is paying a price for never having bothered to tell the public the truth about the nature of the downturn. We have a weak economy because the housing bubble collapsed. The collapse cost us $700 billion in annual construction demand and $500 billion in annual consumption demand, for a total shortfall in private sector demand of $1.2 trillion.

The private sector will not replace this demand just because we want them to -- it doesn't make any sense. In the short term there is no point but to have the government fill this huge demand gap through budget deficits. In the longer term we can hope to replace the demand with higher net exports, but that will take time.

This is inescapable arithmetic. The fact that almost no one understands these basic facts, including many of the reporters covering the campaign, is largely President Obama's fault since he has not explained them to the public. This failure will now make his re-election path considerably more difficult.

My reaction is that we may finally have a race after all. The most interesting comments to come from Mitt Romney Wednesday night were the ones concerning Too Big To Fail. It was exciting to hear him make the nuanced argument that the banking industry is not monolithic, and that certain parts of Dodd-Frank favor the systemic six banks and make it harder for regional banks and community thrifts to compete. I thought Obama's silence about the shady way that health care was pushed through (the parliamentary trick we call reconciliation) was incredibly telling, almost as though he had nothing to say in his defense. Also, I thought the Bloods and Crips color scheme of their ties was highly apropos.

The debate showed just how difficult it can be for an incumbent to defend their record when the economy is not particularly healthy. Back in 2008, Mr. Obama made hope and change the centerpiece of his campaign and laid the responsibility for the deteriorating economy squarely at the feet of the Republicans. But these arguments don't work since after four years in power unemployment is north of 8% and the country is struggling through its worst economic recovery since the Depression. Throughout the debate, Mr. Romney was on the front foot on the economy, while President Obama struggled to defend his record or exploit weaknesses in his opponent's arguments.