The New York Times editorial:
"In contrast to the dismal meeting last week between President Obama and Mitt Romney, this debate gave voters a chance to evaluate the positions of the two tickets, in part because Representative Paul Ryan's nonanswers were accurate reflections of his campaign. ... Both candidates, however, demonstrated real engagement on issues that matter. It was a real change for voters starved for substance."
The Wall Street Journal review and outlook:
"But this 90 minutes wasn't about an exchange of ideas or a debate over policies. It was a Democratic show of contempt for the opposition, an attempt to claim by repetitive assertion that Messrs. Ryan and Romney are radicals who want to destroy 'the middle class.' Mr. Ryan's cool under assault was a visual rebuttal of that claim, and we certainly know who looked more presidential."Politico's Maggie Haberman: "It was fun for politics-lovers, but it's unclear how appealing the style of the Biden performance was to average voters who were watching. And in those exchanges, Ryan frequently did well by simply keeping calm. And Biden's open disdain for Ryan was a far cry from the measured, older candidate schooling the newbie performance voters saw from Dick Cheney in 2004." Bloomberg News editorial: "As it turns out, thankfully, something more than a bucket of warm spit. Last night's sit-down between Vice President Joe Biden and Republican vice-presidential nominee Paul Ryan was useful in both substance and style. It may not have changed many minds, but it clarified a lot of differences." -- Written by Joe Deaux in New York. >Contact by Email. Follow @JoeDeaux