Carter Eskew agrees that despite it being a "technical victory" for Obama, he gained very little as he failed to disqualify his challenger. Romney, he adds, achieved his main goal of the evening: a moderate who was calm, reasonable, and "someone you can see in the Oval Office." Mitt Romney "had little coherent to say and often sounded completely lost," an editorial in The New York Times says, adding that the reason for his lack of substance was because he had no original ideas on world issues. "He announced that he had a strategy for the Middle East, particularly Iran and Syria, and really for the whole world, but gave no clue what it would be - much like his claim that he has a plan to create 12 million jobs and balance the budget while also cutting taxes, but will not say what it is," it says, comparing Romney's answers to a beauty pageant contestant groping for an answer to the final question. David Firestone agrees, saying that on substance the final debate was his worst performance. "He seemed constantly eager to change the subject, now agreeing with the president, now returning to the old crutch of wild charges, whatever it took to get back to his misery tour of how Mr Obama has crushed the American economy and its spirit," he says. Obama on the other hand was "nimble and sharp" Firestone writes, pointing out the president's far superior knowledge of world issues gained through experience. The problem with Romney's lack of foreign policy knowledge or clear strategy is that "it really does matter" as it is vital to the success of any presidency, he concludes. Mitt Romney put his hawk on a leash, writes Glenn Thrush, saying the Republican "soft-pedaled his once-tough line on Iran, barely talked on Libya and came close to articulating the soft power Democratic doctrine rooted in international women's rights." Romney cast himself as a "non-threatening centrist" who would give peace a chance, he adds. Thrush says it was about targeting women voters and the swing state voters of Ohio. Obama however was on the attack throughout the debate, delivering lines "his campaign had once promised would never pass from the president's lips: a car lot full of bumper sticker zingers and sarcastic asides." The line of the night which will be replayed over and over again on the cable networks, Thrush says, was Obama's "horses and bayonets" retort to Romney's jibe on the dwindling number of US Navy battleships. The final debate featured a "forceful and articulate defence of Obama's foreign policy," an editorial in The Los Angeles Times said, but the surprise was that it came from Mitt Romney. "A viewer who hadn't tuned into the campaign before Monday night might have wondered what all the shouting was about," it said. Both candidates support withdrawal from Afghanistan, a careful courtship of Syrian opposition forces, the continued targeting of suspected terrorists by drones, and the leveraging of military aid to induce Egypt and other nations where Islamists are ascendant to respect the rights of women and religious minorities. Both want to engage China in trade, but press it to play fair. The problem with that, it points out, is "if that vision is attractive - and it is - why not stick with the president who is already pursuing it?"