I think you are letting your biases impact your opinion. Even the worst poll, PPP, showed Obama lost independents and Romney gained independents in this debate. I would love to see Romney in aggressive mode, but he didn’t need to be. You saw tonight who was winning and who was losing. A desperate sitting president making wild accusations, one after another. He looked desperate, and the followup on his slams of the Navy and his other whoppers will be just as damaging as those after the 2nd debate.
You wrote a well-thought out piece, however, I totally disagree with you on some major points. Mitt did let a few things go by, however, he didn’t take the bait being dangled before his eyes. That’s what the left wanted - to drag him down into the weeds and gutters with them. He didn’t play their game.
He also doesn’t have inside information to all that is happening within the WH, so in that regard - he did remarkably well. I do think Mitt let Benghazi slide, but there must have been reasons for it. I think he wanted to show a distinct difference between him and Obama in the area of class. Mitt showed class and respect to a sitting POS, er, I mean president. If he had gotten down in the mud with Obama - he would have looked silly. Zero stayed in the mud and showed himself to be the petulant, snotty, arrogant radical that he is.
If people think this is how you win a debate, then I gesture that many aren’t aware of what does and doesn’t make a good debate.