GERGEN ON CNN: No knockout punches and no memorable lines, but one of the best debates I remember. Calls it a draw for the candidates.

UPDATE: Cynical take here:

Kerry managed to not contradict himself within the space of a single sentence. Bush succumbed to vapor lock a couple of times but everyone knows that just makes him seem like a normal guy. All in all, we don’t know who won. We’re going to wait for the media to tell us.

Maybe not.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Mickey Kaus scores it as a Kerry victory, though not a smashing one. Interestingly, the Insta-Wife thought it was a smashing victory for Bush. It didn’t seem that way to me, but while I thought Bush’s visible exasperation hurt him, she saw it as the natural response of a man who was busy fighting a war at having to listen to someone talk about its impact on prescription drugs. Go figure.

MORE: Lots of women are emailing to say that they agree with the Insta-Wife. I don’t know if that’s representative, though. It’ll be interesting to see the polling on this in a few days as people think about it.

SPEAKING OF MULTILATERALISM AND NORTH KOREA:

The US and China have said they were confident North Korea will return to six-party talks to end the stand-off over Pyongyang’s nuclear programmes.

US State Secretary Colin Powell said after talks with Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing the format was “what we should be concentrating on”.

Mr Li described the talks as the “only feasible and correct option”.

This is bad news for Kerry.

UPDATE: But Kerry’s position has been consistent.

TOMMY FRANKS ON CNN: Osama bin Laden is not in Afghanistan, as Senator Kerry said he is.

On lacking a plan for winning the peace: “If you read my book, you’ll find I mention a term called ‘catastrophic success.’ It’s a good news thing. . . . But it takes a long time to bring stability to a place that hasn’t known stability for a long time. It’s inaccurate to say that there was not a plan . . . but some in our media built expectations that that would happen more quickly than was possible.”

UPDATE: Reader Chris Greer doesn’t think Franks was as positive as I make him sound above. I don’t have a TiVo, but I was typing it as he spoke. He did say that he’s a civilian now, and doesn’t have secret info — but he also said what I reported. Maybe there’ll be a transcript tomorrow.

DANIEL DREZNER was liveblogging, too.

Lots more here, too.

WRAPUP: Both closing statements were pretty good. Overall, while neither of these guys is an especially good orator (or maybe because neither is an especially good orator) it was a more substantive debate than I had expected.

Kerry was tougher than I had expected, which is good — except that you never know what he’ll say next time. If I hadn’t been paying attention to the campaign, though, I’d be fairly impressed — and Kerry has to hope that most people who watched the debate fall into that category. [LATER: Andrew Sullivan seems to agree with this take.]

Bush started off weak, got better as it went on, and finished well (“the transformative power of liberty”). Both did a pretty good job of sticking to issues and there weren’t too many cheap rhetorical tricks. I don’t think it’ll change a lot of minds. But I have a very consistent track record of getting this stuff wrong (I thought Carter beat Reagan. . . .) so take my opinions with a large grain of salt.

UPDATE: This take from The Corner:

John Kerry plus: He does not come across as arrogant and obnoxious as we believe him to be.

John Kerry minus: His positions don’t hold together in any coherent way.

George W. Bush plus: He has an air of authority, experience, and purpose I don’t recall from 2000.

George W. Bush minus: The President is a dismally poor public speaker.

About right, I’d say.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Chuck Simmins:

Overall, a near draw, which translates to a win for Bush. Kerry started strong a few times then failed to move in for the kill. Unwilling or unable? . . . Both men seemed at a loss for words at times when I expected them not to be. Jitters?”

Neither one is an especially great orator.

Hugh Hewitt thinks it was a big Bush win.

LAME QUESTION FROM LEHRER: Kerry says you’re a liar. Does that raise any hackles? Bushy: I’m a pretty calm guy. Kerry thought Saddam was a threat too.

Kerry: Bush didn’t go to war as a last resort.

N.Z. Bear: “OK, I’m not hypersensitive about such things. But these questions are turning out to be extraordinarily biased. Every question seems to be ‘so, let’s talk about the mistakes Bush has made…'”

UPDATE: Reader Charlotte Muhl writes that there weren’t many questions about Kerry’s record:

Is anyone saying the obvious? This foreign policy debate was all about putting Bush on the defensive. Why no attention to Kerry’s 20 year Senate record of votes and statements on foreign policy, military and intell issues?! All I heard from Lehrer the entire evening was one sorta, kinda follow-up question on Kerry’s post Viet Nam protest.

Indeed.

N.Z. BEAR IS LIVEBLOGGING TOO, and observes: “Not that this is a revelation, but thus far, it looks like this will be a draw. Both candidates are doing ok, no obvious gaffes, no big moments (yet). I don’t see a lot of minds being changed by this…”

IF I WERE KIM JONG IL, I’d be worried no matter who wins.

THE CHARACTER ISSUE: Bush: He changes positions on something as fundamental as what you believe is right in Iraq. You cannot lead if you send mixed messages. They send the wrong signals to our troops, our allies, and the Iraqi citizens. There must be certainty from the United States President.

Kerry: Bush has done it more than I have in terms of the Presidency, and it’s tough. Nice words on the daughters, and Laura Bush. To the point: It’s one thing to be certain, but you can be certain and be wrong. You’ve got to change and get your policy right. He’s not acknowledging the truth on the ground, on stem cells, on science. (Stem cells must be polling well.)

Bush: You shift tactics based on what’s working, but you don’t change your core values because of politics and because of pressure.

Kerry: I’ve never wavered in my life. I’ve been consistent on Iraq. Saddam Hussein was a threat, he needed to be disarmed but we didn’t need to rush to war. Hmm.

A DARFUR QUESTION: Do we send in troops?

Kerry dodges by talking about Iran. Finally gets to Darfur: “Yes it is a genocide. Many of us are pressing for action.” But do it through the African Union. Give ’em logistical support. But we’re overextended. That’s why I want to make the Army bigger. (But I’d send troops to Darfur.)

Bush — responds on Iran, noting sanctions predate his administration. True, but a distraction. On Darfur: I agree it’s genocide. We’re the leading donor. We’ll commit more. We’re very much involved. (What Bush should say: The problem with my approach is that it’s too Kerryesque, working through the UN and other organizations. Okay, maybe not.)

DID KERRY JUST SAY he might “preempt” in Iran and North Korea?

Bringing up Kyoto seems silly though.

Jonah Goldberg: “WHY Does Kerry keep saying we didn’t secure Saddam’s nuclear facilities if he thinks he didn’t have any?”

Bush is hitting Kerry on North Korea, contrasting the Clintonian bilateral strategy with his own multilateral strategy — see, he can bring in allies! “Now there are 5 voices speaking to Kim Jong-Il.”

Kerry straddles in response to a Lehrer followup: I want both bilateral and multilateral talks!

BOY, IF BUSH produces Osama next week, Kerry’s going to look bad.

JONAH GOLDBERG: “the best presidential debate in decades?”

More substantive than I had expected.

C-SPAN’S CONSISTENT SPLIT-SCREEN is the best of the TV treatments, I think.

NOW KERRY’S TALKING TOUGH: Don’t back off on Fallujah; close the borders. No long-term designs on Iraq.

His best moment so far. Kind of loses his thread with the training angle, though, as he echoes Bush so closely.

Bush quotes Allawi. Slaps Kerry for criticizing Allawi, Lockhart for calling him a puppet. Good comeback. Bush’s consistent theme: Kerry’s not serious here, and hasn’t made the tough decisions a commander-in-chief has to make.

UPDATE: Reader Doug Jordan emails: “Kerry’s position boils down to: US troops don’t work; let’s use some others. The Prez should say so.”

KERRY PUTS HIS FOOT IN IT: The President says that even knowing there were no weapons of mass destruction he would have gone in the same way. I would not.

Er, but Kerry said he would have gone to war even knowing there were no weapons of mass destruction.

And how’s Kerry going to “change” the fact that North Korea has nuclear weapons.

Hugh Hewitt thinks that Lehrer is pitching softballs to Kerry.

UPDATE: Bush points out the Kerry contradictions. “As the politics change, his positions change, and that’s not how a commander-in-chief acts.”

Strong comeback for Bush on sending troops to die and understanding the stakes. It’s the first time he’s seemed fully on his game.

Kerry response: “I was in Vietnam!” Take another drink.

Kerry’s comeback gets better, until he starts talking about a summit as the key goal. That seems limp.

I DON’T THINK that analogizing his vote on the $87 billion to his anti-Vietnam war protesting was a good move for Kerry.

But PoliPundit thinks Kerry is doing well.

HUGH HEWITT is posting a debate scorecard with questions and answers.

I’m surprised that Bush hasn’t mentioned this story in support of his forward strategy on homeland security:

A man arrested by U.S. authorities in Iraq had a computer disk in his possession containing a public report downloaded from a U.S. Department of Education Web site on crisis planning in school districts, including San Diego Unified.

The man was described as an Iraqi national with connections to terrorism and the insurgency that is fighting U.S. forces in Iraq. Officials in San Diego said the man’s intentions were unknown.

Good story.

STEPHEN GREEN will be liveblogging the debate. He’s already warming up.

UPDATE: Shape of Days will be liveblogging, too, and will be hosting the Bush campaign’s instant-fact-checking RSS feed. As far as I know, the Kerry campaign doesn’t have one of those.

And here’s a gigantic list of other livebloggers.

UPDATE: Capt. Ed will be liveblogging, too. The Northern Alliance guys will be gang-live-blogging (live-gang-blogging — no, that sounds like something Wonkette would make off-color comments about. . . .). And there will be group-chatting (Wonkette again!) over at The Command Post.

Bill Hobbs has an open comment thread, (he’s “enriching his marriage” — I’d be doing that too, and the heck with blogging, if I had babysitting available tonight. . . .) and Begging to Differ will be on the job. And there’s combined blog-and-chat action at The Patriot Paradox. And don’t forget Oliver Willis — though he really ought to be on TV.

The folks at The Corner are liveblogging, too.

INDCJOURNAL got quoted by Brit Hume regarding his interviews with CBS reporters and producers on the bogus-email story. You can see the video here.

JIM TREACHER AND PUCE want to be on Google News, just like Daily Kos.

Seems fair to me!

GEORGE W. BUSH’S CAMPAIGN BLOG will be liveblogging the debates. So is Kerry’s. That’s rather clever.

I’M SUPPOSED TO BE ON CNBC’S “KUDLOW & CRAMER” in about an hour. I will not be as snappily dressed as Kudlow.

UPDATE: I guess it went OK. Looking quickly at the email, the main themes are “You’re not as good looking as Wonkette” (true) and “You weren’t wearing pajamas!” (Also true.)

RICHARD BROOKHISER lists Bush’s ten biggest mistakes.

I’VE BEEN FISKED.