I agree that Bush looked angry while Kerry talked, and Kerry looked poised for the most part (and pained in a few instances) while Bush talked. I agree that Kerry did much better than expected by being articulate and succinct enough to answer questions in the allotted time (what could have been a big liability for him), I didn't see the questioning as substantive, nor did I view this as a debate. It looked very much to me like two men holding a press conference with a referee, saying "now it's your turn".

As to the questions being asked, they largely seemed to deal with issues that should be behind us, ie they spoke to what has happened in the past, not what is happening now.

It seemed to me a rehash of the same thing we've been hearing from both campaigns and the media covering them, ad nauseum, for the better part of the last year.

When issues were raised by the moderator, like Darfur or the relationship with Russia, neither candidate seemed to know what they were talking about. The response on Darfur was, simply put, appalling from both men.

I wasn't impressed by either candidate's performance. Both seemed perfunctory and safe. No gaffes, just like their campaign managers ordered. If I were an undecided voter, I'd still be despairing of the lack of choice for president.

If anyone won, it would be Kerry, but only because Bush looked pissed off, and stumbled a number of times when trying to remember his lines. But they were both spouting well rehearsed lines, that much was plain to see.