I have a couple of things to say about these debate scores:
First, everyone keeps stating how terrible Obama was in the first debate, but this is largely based upon the national media slamming him for the way he handled questions, his appearance, his tone, etc.
What has been completely overlooked in media coverage and by most people from what I have seen is this: Romney continue to flip-flop his position on many key issues. Any objective person watching the debate would realize Romney didn't dominate it the way the media made it seem. While he did appear better from some points of view, his actual answers to questions and statements he made left something to be desired. In other words, Romney was a lot of flash with little substance, but the flash convinced people he was better.
Second, swamphawk you've got to be kidding me. Having a debate centered around foreign policy was the worst decision they made. Some questions about foreign policy I could see, but an entire debate about it was a large waste of time. That and domestic policy issues can be covered in as a PART of one single debate and be done with it.
Third, the debates should have been like this: 1. The economy, while touching on foreign and domestic policy briefly 2. Key social and moral issues (abortion, women's rights, gun control, etc.) 3. A side by side comprehensive look at the candidate, what they believe, and a statement from each on why they should be elected
The VP debate is useless. No one votes based upon VP anyway.