FRIDAY, OCTOBER 25, 2002 — Remember those first two gubernatorial debates when Treasurer Shannon O’Brien looked so good — when she was able to push Republican Mitt Romney back and forth across the debating floor? So does the O’Brien campaign, and it’s struggling to get back to it.

Clearly, however, Romney has been helped by the dynamic that pits him against four women.

The multiple-candidate debate format certainly worked to his advantage last night, as during an attempt by NECN’s Chet Curtis to finally get a straight answer out of Romney on Ampad, the Indiana paper company whose workers lost their health care and, in some cases, their jobs after Romney’s firm purchased it. Just as Romney was going to answer, Independent candidate Barbara Johnson — who had earlier offered the observation that "there are kooks everywhere" — chimed in to criticize Romney for no particular reason. And Romney used the other two candidates, Jill Stein of the Green Party and Carla Howell of the Libertarian Party, as shields to take the heat off when these got testy.

It’s not that Romney had a perfect night. He made at least two contradictory statements — one of which could make him vulnerable to litigation. The first was when he said, "I put people over profit" in response to a question from O’Brien, which he contradicted by adding that he should be in the "investor hall of fame" for his success as an investor (putting people over profit generally fails as an investment strategy). Here’s some news for Romney: his duty as the manager and CEO of a company was solely to its shareholders. In other words, under American law, he had no obligation as CEO other than his duty to shareholders to maximize profit. Doing anything else could have exposed him to shareholder suits. That isn’t sexy. But it’s the truth.

Romney looked perhaps too aggressive when he started hammering O’Brien on her $45,000 pay raise. But O’Brien didn’t do herself any favors by failing to come up with the right response. What right does Romney, a plutocrat, have to criticize O’Brien for her modest salary, when he himself refuses to tell the public exactly how much he has made in recent years? Romney has failed to release his complete tax-return information. Somehow — perhaps because of the inability of her running mate, Chris Gabrieli, to share his returns — O’Brien never really made this point. In addition, Romney has improved slightly at thinking on his feet. After the debate, I was among the reporters who pounced on Romney. He had stated that O’Brien had begun the negative campaigns against him early in the summer. But, I asked, didn’t the Republican Party and Romney’s strategist, Mike Murphy, begin with negative radio ads? Romney replied calmly that the Democrats had begun with anti-Romney ads around the time of their challenge to his state residency, in June. It wasn’t the greatest moment, but it did the trick.

O’Brien didn’t perform terribly. She just didn’t seem to have an effective counter to Romney’s message of economic growth and tax-cutting. In the last two weeks, Romney has found his footing. O’Brien’s reference to social issues, such as health care and education, appeals to the Democratic base but doesn’t extend beyond that. Nothing happened in last night’s debate — perhaps because of the five-candidate format — to upset that dynamic.

The O’Brien campaign is clearly frustrated. An interesting exchange took place after the debate when O’Brien spokesman Adrian Durban approached Democratic strategist Mary Anne Marsh to spin her with a response to some specific point Romney had made. "You’re wasting your time," Marsh said, brushing off Durban and then giving him some quick advice on what O’Brien ought to be doing. Her handlers are suffering from the fog of war more than Romney’s, and lack of sleep and fatigue are setting in. Now the stage is set for one last winner-take-all debate with Tim Russert of NBC.