The next morning, here are some comments from Pajamastan:

• Politburo Diktat:

  Kerry hit Bush hard on Iraq; he sounded reasonable and decisive. He did not get stuck in complex Senate-ese. Bush held his ground, reinforcing his image as steadfast and determined. His best monent - anecdote about talking with the the wife of the soldier lost in Iraq. Best Bushism - "MOO-lahs." Most worthwhile, informative disagreement - bilateral versus six-party talks on North Korea.

• Xtcian:

  Perhaps it's just a case of the Wizard of Oz; there's only so long this Administration could have hid Bush's true nature. Perhaps when you polish a turd long enough, some event will lay bare the truth of the turd. Could it possibly be that Kerry is just smarter and more qualified to be President? I'm not trying to be Pollyanna, but is it remotely possible that we just reached a point where the lies and spin fell away and the two men were revealed for what they were? Do I think millions of voters were swayed by this debate? No. Did anybody in Texas, California, Alabama or New York change their mind? No. Did the crucial 3,824 voters in Florida suddenly understand they could vote for John Kerry as President? Yes.

• John of Argghhh!!!:

  Great Job, John. Since you said, 6 months after you take office, you will withdraw from Iraq, seemingly without a qualifier - the troops will enter CYA status the day after the election, if you win. Way to go. They will pretty much immediately quit fighting - knowing that you are going to quit. They will get cautious. And, if the bad guy keeps fighting, that will get more of 'em killed. Way to inspire your soldiers, Senator. And now the terrorists know exactly how long they have to hold out. Good grief.

All over the place but for the most part respect is being given to Kerry for looking like a leader and not being pushed off that by Bush. Bush bumbled at a few points but he bumbles and people do not mind him for that if they support him. He reminds me more and more of Jean Chretien. The line I remember most is the one about having convictions but still being wrong and making Bush admit he agrees with being flexible and responsive when earlier he was talking only about staying the course. Not necessarily contradictions but Bush made more concessions than Kerry did. The saying nice things about each other moment was good as well, spurred by Lehrer's quetion to Bush about Kerry's capacity to be president and whether he would trigger another 9/11 if elected. Bush was very decent and civilized in response, pointing out how well the Kerry and Bush daughters are supporting each other during the campaign.

I still think John Stewart of the Daily Show was the best commentator on the night. For those who do not know, because you are outside North America, John Stewart is on TV every night with a satirical take on news. He is so good, however, that he has become an important source for actual commentary. Last night in addition to Wes Clark, the retired US general who led the war in Bosnia, he had Rudi Guillani, the former Mayor of New York from the time of 9/11. The first and open and active supporter of Kerry and the second an open and active supporter of Bush. Both treated the interview with respect, humour and a level of trepidation as Stewart has the power to simply say the plain thing. Rudy made an new and useful argument on Saddam - he was a WMD...in that he was sitting on 2 to 3 billion in cash, hand ready currency that was funding terrorism. Is that true? If so, why is it not the main argument. If it is not true, did Rudy tell a fib? I thought Saddam was hiding cash in his own walls for personal use in Argentina or wherever dictators go these days...