...at least in the view of this one humble voter. I thought she  projected more confidence and a higher comfort level than Sen. Obama. I thought she was generally sharper and more concise in her responses than he was. I actually thought (for one of the rare times, frankly) that she was more LIKEABLE and even more genuine than he was. 

To be honest, I'm not  altogether sure this is a good thing. She almost seems to have arrived at that perfect pitch of serenity we are always hearing in concession speeches: ("Why couldn't ______ have talked like this during the campaign?"). Sen. Obama on the other hand maintained the familiar, edgy posture of the slightly harassed striver.

Let me give Sen. Obama credit for one excellent answer, on the Patreus question about military advice on Iraq. His rejoinder that the President (not the generals) sets the mission was exactly right.

I know there has been a lot of critcism of the moderaters and the line of questioning (particularly toward Sen. Obama). Keith Olbermann (normally a decent if somewhat over-stoked commentator, but far too much  an open Obama cheerleader to be further regarded  in any sense as an objective news source) actually speculated darkly  about Sean Hannity's influence, and George Stephanopolos' previous experience in the Clinton White House.

A few points on that:

(1)I think those of you complaining may have something of a point, but you're way late:  This sort of behavior has become the medium of exchange in ALL campaign debates. They  are ALWAYS more about controversy and  theatrical value than they are about a civics-class exploration of "issues". Remember how the whole campaign supposedly turned-around on Sen. Clinton's answer to something about the vital New York state driver's license "issue"?  If Sen. Clinton can put-up with it for 16 years, Sen. Obama should be able to survive it for one night.

(2)One thing I gather for sure from these objections, merited or otherwise: The perception is out there on ALL sides that Sen. Obama "lost", and that seems to require SOME kind of explanation, however labored.

(3)The Bill Ayers questions seem to be the most resented. I do NOT accept that Mr. Ayers and his relationship to Sen. Obama is somehow out-of-bounds, or a breach of some imaginary debate protocol. On the contrary, it seems to me entirely relevant. I fully understand that there are potential mitigating circumstances in every aspect of this matter, but those circumstances should be explored and explained - not ignored. I think voters will sort it out fairly, if given a chance to consider it in full.

All in all, I thought it was  a good night for my candidate.  We should know by this time next week if that is a majority opinion.