The final debate in the gubernatorial race between Republican Mitt Romney and Democrat Shannon O’Brien was much like the first debate in 2000 between Vice-President Al Gore and Texas governor George W. Bush: in both cases, the knowledgeable Democrat beat the stuffing out of the less-well-informed Republican. Whether last night’s routing will draw undecided voters to the Democrat any more effectively is an unsettled question; all I know is that when I called outside the 617 area code for a reality check on how O’Brien had played in 781 and beyond, I got this response: "Where is she coming off with that smirk?" My source, nonetheless, is planning to vote for O’Brien.

A cynic would say her performance reeked of newly installed communications specialist Bob Shrum, who helped prep O’Brien for the debate; after all, didn’t Shrum do the same thing for Gore in 2000? That assessment, however, would be unfair. The smirking, interrupting, tough-as-nails O’Brien was close to — if not completely — the real O’Brien, a politician who came of age when symbolic wakes for politicians who had crossed Senate president William Bulger were a regular occurrence. (Senators who crossed him were known as "dead.") O’Brien is a street fighter, a battler, a politician who can stick in the knife with a smile. That’s what she did when she told Romney, "You don’t tell the truth about what you believe."

Romney’s pathetic responses, describing O’Brien as acting in an "unbecoming" manner, might play well out in the suburbs beyond Route 128. They shouldn’t. Instead of engaging the issues she raised, he tried to spin O’Brien’s aggressive debating style against her. When she scored telling blows, questioning his letter to a Utah newspaper asking not "to be labeled pro-choice" and forcing him to admit, "I don’t know about the Mass Citizens for Life endorsement," he challenged her demeanor. When he trumpeted his record on abortion, she responded, "You don’t have a record ... other than waffling." On the state-budget deficit, O’Brien seemed to offer more candor than Romney, who vowed not to raise taxes next year — even as he failed to address whether a portion of his program included an increase in the excise tax that violated Proposition 2½. O’Brien also pinned Romney as someone whose numbers don’t add up by questioning his assertion that the state could save $1.7 billion by increasing medical subsidies from the federal government. (She made sure to point out that Senators John Kerry and Ted Kennedy — both Capitol Hill heavyweights — said it could not be done.) Romney defended himself by essentially denying he’d ever made such an assertion. For the first time in a major forum, O’Brien likened Romney to former governor William Weld, a Republican elected on a platform of cleaning up Beacon Hill who instead "raised patronage" to new heights.

Romney’s best moment came when he countered O’Brien’s attack on his record of reaping profits as an investor by cutting jobs. He responded with a question to O’Brien about companies in which the state pension fund invests. Some of them, of course, engage in tactics similar to — and possibly even invest with — his old company, Bain Capital.

Following the debate, the O’Brien team was quick to supply reporters with a Romney-campaign press release supporting O’Brien’s claim that Romney had said the state could save money by increasing medical subsidies from the federal government. "If Massachusetts received 77 percent federal reimbursement, the state’s federal share would increase by over $1.7 billion annually," the Romney release read. Shown the statement, Romney spokesperson Eric Fehrnstrom replied that Romney’s contention was merely hypothetical. Yet, the O’Brien team came back again with a photocopy of one of the pages from a PowerPoint presentation Romney made on the same topic. This time, his notion about increased federal subsidies contained no "if." But viewers didn’t get to see the documentation that bore out O’Brien’s attack. That’s too bad. When I tried to get Romney to comment on the document — I had staked out my usual position, to his side, from which I have asked him questions at two prior debates — he made a plea for more space from the swarm of reporters and television cameras surrounding him. Then he climbed up on a stage and out of my range.

Afterward, moderator Tim Russert said he thought it was a good exchange. "We have a very clear view of the candidates," he said. "I now have a very clear understanding of their positions on the death penalty, on abortion, on the state’s budget problems."

On the substance, O’Brien was the clear winner. On style, who knows? The election — if it’s as close as the polls now indicate — will hinge on the Democratic advantage in GOTV, or getting out the vote. The O’Brien team imported a huge array of supporters — mostly union members — to hold signs before Tuesday night’s debate. They are her army. Romney will try to counter with a newfangled-computer GOTV and voter-ID set-up. Who knows if that will work? What we do know is that it’s only going to get uglier from here on out.