I think the Bush strategy in this debate was to stay on message, let Kerry attack, and then attack Kerry after the debate in the media.
I'm not sure how wise that was, but Kerry sure made some whoppers.
I wonder about this one:
During the debate, Kerry said: "There are some 600-plus tons of unsecured material still in the former Soviet Union and Russia. At the rate that the president is currently securing that, it will take 13 years to get it.
"I did a lot of work on this. I wrote a book about it several years ago, maybe six or seven years ago, called, 'The New War,' which saw the difficulties of this international criminal network. And back then, we intercepted a suitcase in a Middle Eastern country with nuclear materials in it, and the black market sale price was about $250 million. Now, there are terrorists trying to get their hands on that stuff today."
That is probably how it will turn out, and is going to be the silver-lining from this debate. Kerry's short-term strategy was to win the debate, which in technical terms, I think he did.
In summary I think the positives are:
1) The Bush campaign has some rich targets to work with regarding Kerry's statements on Iran nuclear materials, bi-lateral talks w/NK, the "global test" and his "consistent" positions.
2) Many of the subjects that were debated have been lost on much of the electorate up to this point. Now that they were exposed to them, they may take note when the Bush campaign re-visits the issues with a contrary viewpoint and facts.
3) The President's more forward-looking and big-picture stance in the debate has left him with nothing to apologize for, nothing to clarify, and nothing that contradicts his previous record.