This is a point we all need to get a grip on. Last night's debate was what the whole campaign would have been if Dean had won the nomination: A serious, ideological debate between an appeasenik and a war president with a confident vision. No silly extras. Not even a "There you go again" moment, not that it would have been bad to have one. And that's why Dubya won it, because you had a dove spouting Michael Moore fantasies and eight different positions against a tough guy who lives in the real world.
That was my impression as well. Kerry's senatorial MO is to 'sound good' in a very superficial way. He's a bloviator and he will, as we know, say ANYTHING, if it helps him politically. Kerry is not constrained to comments in the US interest, while Bush is. Bush may have overestimated the audience and their ability to see through Kerry's nonsense. He is on the inside and it was patently obvious to him why Kerry's stances were absurd. Not necessarily so to the audience, though...he could have done some more basic explaining.
This debate will continue to reverberate, and in Bush's favor, as Kerry's comments begin to sink in, and Bush and Rove develop a better rhetorical strategy against an opponent unrestricted by reality, consistency, or national interest.