Obama needs a debate with no gaffes, while Romney has the tougher job of being aggressive while still looking presidential.

Christopher Newport University political analyst Quentin Kidd said that for Obama, a boring debate is best.

"If we wake up on Thursday morning and it's been a snoozer of a debate, it was a draw or nothing exciting happened or the dynamics of the campaign are the same, then that is to Obama's benefit, because he goes in ahead," Kidd said.

But a boring debate isn't good for Romney, said University of Virginia political analyst Larry Sabato.

"Romney needs a real boost. He has got to come out fighting, with a powerful critique of Obama's presidency," Sabato said. "At the same time, Romney has to be personally appealing and find a way to connect with the average person--something he has not yet been able to do."

Kidd said he thinks Romney needs to be aggressive but also tempered, because he needs to present himself as the same candidate voters have seen at the convention and on the campaign trail.

"If he comes across as yet a different Mitt Romney, that's a problem," Kidd said.

He thinks Romney must not approach this debate as a single event, but remember that he has three debates in which to present his candidacy and his message.

"You need to have a really strong first game. You need to stand your own and you need to take it to the president, but this isn't all-in-one right here," Kidd said. "If he tries to swing for home runs all night long, then I think that's going to be a problem for him."

This debate will focus on domestic issues, a potential problem for Obama, Kidd said, if the focus stays only on policies under Obama's administration instead of shifting toward a comparison of Obama's policies and Romney's proposals.

Kidd said former President Bill Clinton's convention speech did for Obama what Obama himself hasn't been able to do: It "gave leaning Democrats and some independents an intellectual reason to give Obama a second term."