Sorry for posting my comments a little late, but my DSL wasn't connecting yesterday...
After the second debate, I still put Kerry ahead 2-0, but I have to admit that Bush did come off a little bit better this time around than he did last week. Where I think the President blew it was in losing his temper and cutting off the moderator when he was trying to ask follow-up questions. I haven't heard anybody else commenting on that, but I found it rude and showing a lack of character. Oh, and facts. He has trouble with facts, too.
There were some points where I wish Kerry would have pushed back at the President's lies a little more, but he did do a good job at both defending himself, and explaining what his position on various issues was.
The "town hall" audience asked some very good questions. I think most pundits underestimated the ability of "regular folks" to ask insightful, probing questions. I wish the rules of the debate would have allowed for a little more contact and give-and-take between the candidates and the questioners, but I do think it was still an effective format.
Here's an interesting article at "Vital Source" saying how progressive and liberal independents, Greens, etc., will be voting for Kerry (even if they don't love everything about him), while many conservatives (Republicans included) will be voting for "anybody but Bush" (either for Kerry or for conservative 3rd party candidates). While Nader has [unfairly] taken much of the blame for Gore's loss in 2000, the authors conclude, this year the wild-card votes could likely work against Bush. I certainly hope so.