I suspect that it was whomever you want to have won it. Few people actually sat and watched it and we can now all pick and choose those soundbites that we like.
There is a sense, however, in which I think it was a mistake for Obama to do it. It inevitably presented him as less than Presidential - as, at best, a first among equals and a rather petulant one at that. I'm not sure that there could have been any other outcome. If you are going to sit around a big table and exchange ideas, one becomes - in some sense - comparable to those you are exchanging them with.
That might not be so bad. We don't like our Presidents to act imperial. But then one ought not to assert Presidential superiority ("there was imbalance because I'm the President," "the election is over'). In that context - around a circle created for dialogue - it comes across as haughty.
And coming across as haughty is not what Obama wants to do. The perception fueling his decline in the polls is that the idea is that his policy proposals are too ambitious and threaten to interfere not only with the part of, say, the provision of health care that we don't like but also the part that we do like. Given that an overwhelming majority of Americans like their health care, that is not a good place to be.
Of course, I don't think that there is anything unfair about this. The problem with ObamaCare is that it overcentralizes the provision of care in a way that threatens to stifle medical innovation and that will create unacknowledged winners and losers. The Senate bill, in particular, is set up to fail. The President's recent proposal falls back on price controls.
Here's the New Nixon.