I by and large agree with you. Of course, the media needs to draw viewers in so they analyze these debates to within an inch of their lives. Really, a debate has not mattered a bit in an election for sometime. Why?? Simple, both candidates follow the "do no harm" approach.
The MSM is acting like Bush had to defeat Kerry tonight. In order to do that, one must be on offense. But, the nature of the issues and the questions pretaining thereto required Bush to play defense. He do so magnificently without sounding defensive. By the same token, Kerry came off as polished and, well, as himself.
One key stat to get a hold of is whether the ratings dropped during the debate. In other words, did the people really watch the entire thing? I tuned out after the first 30 minutes and honestly, those were not the best minutes of the debate for Kerry.
In the end, Kerry stands where he has always stood on Iraq etc., nowhere, leaning to anti-war. Bush stands where he stands. The voters have already mAade up their minds which position is better.
Now, its on to the next joint press conference.
P.S. Bush is not a good debater. Ergo, I don't know why anyone at FOX was expecting him deliver a "knock out blow." The only reason Bush seemingly won the debates against Gore was that Gore was supposed to have "wiped the floor" with Bush. Because Bush held his own, i.e. met lowered expectations, victory was declared.
Bush not good at debates? If that's true; how on earth did he beat Ann Richards and Al Gore, and some of his fellow Republicans in the 2000 primary debates? I agree, he has had his quirks; but he didn't do any worse than anyone else!