I stayed up late and watched a BBC show about the debate. There were five Brits, who had been asked to watch the debate. All were against Bush before the debate, but what else is new in Britain?
Only one said Kerry won the debate. Another actually said the debate changed his mind and he now supports Bush as the better leader. The other three said unfortunately the debate would likely win the President more votes. One said if Kerry were running for leader of the world, he would likely have won, based upon his multilateral position.
My view is that Kerry looked like a polished debater, and he should have. The man is a lawyer and has been in the Senate for 20 years. I expected him to argue endorsements of soldiers whom he could not name. That is the type of thing he did in debated against Governor Weld. Can anyone imagine Kerry being told, "we need you" by men in arms without recruiting them into his band of Brothers?
I think the Bush campaign got much more campaign material from the debate. Kerry's stance of using a "global position" to determine how best to wage the war on terror will haunt him, as will his inconsistent statements on the Iraq War. His complaint about troops not having body armor will be contrasted with his flip flop vote on the 87 billion dollars. So, my guess is the debate provided Bush with more fodder than Kerry. That seems to be confirmed by BBC viewers.