Nothing memorable is going to happen in this debate.
No hard questions will be asked because at bottom both Romney and Obama are foreign interventionists. The only real difference is in terms of management style. No real substantive differences. Neither man will tell the truth regarding the true danger that our interventionist foreign policy poses to our Nation’s security and economy: that an interventionist foreign policy is an aggressive action that always earns an aggressive reaction, that the reality of the situation is that the US is losing the “War on Terror” badly at the moment and that we (particularly our children) have actually become less safe because of it, that talk of large cuts in the defense budget is merely campaign rhetoric and that although the defense budget may change - more Marines and soldiers and fewer submarines, for example - whoever is elected, defense spending will grow, probably starting with a US led intervention in Syria and a war on Iran which will utterly destroy what little is left of the US economy to the benefit of a few powerful defense contractors. This is the scenario involving the military-industrial complex that President Eisenhower prophetically warned us about so many years ago: that a few companies and oligarchs would, in a drug addict/suicidal type of way, put Greed over the interests of the Nation.
Romney has the most to lose, since he has doubled down in recent weeks on foreign policy and has demonstrated a lack of education on some basic geopolitical situations,even going as far as to declare Russia our number 1 geopolitical foe and claiming that this 21st Century must be an American century.