Quick couple comments. I've stopped watching a bit short of the end (that's enough of that).

Winner: Kerry. Without a doubt. He looked good (for him). I could actually see his eyeballs under his Lurch-brows, where they're usually just dark pits. He spoke assuredly and on message. It's the first time in the campaign I've heard him where his cadence didn't sound affected and calculated to sound "Presidential." He sounded natural (relatively) and did an excellent job portraying himself as the man to beat Bush.

In second place: Lieberman. He was charming, well spoken and given to humor. Also sold himself well and justified his positions well. Sadly, not well enough to beat anyone.

Third place: Edwards. Actually, Edwards' performance was a bit disappointing. He went on too long in some of his answers without needing to because he was repeating himself and unsure on some of the issues. He was particularly weak when Peter Jennings asked him about dealing with the Muslim world and in his confusion on Defense of Marriage. His answer on why he voted against the $87 Billion on Iraq (that he wanted the President to come back with another proposal) was OK, and at least provided enough explanation to blunt the charge of rank hypocrisy.

Fourth: Dean, I guess. Peter Jennings actually gave him a softball in the beginning to explain his post-Iowa shouting, and he could have used that a lot better. Overall, though, he was unremarkable. Hmmm...as I think about it, he may have tied with Edwards.

Fifth: Kucinich. He held up charts again. The Martians are a scientific people, after all. DENNIS KUCINICH, WE OF EARTH DEMAND THAT YOUR KIN STOP TAMPERING WITH THE VEHICLES WE HAVE LAUNCHED TO EXPLORE YOUR PLANET.

Seriously, the man's redeaming factor is that in all honesty, he speaks well. He really does. You almost forget his freakish looks, and as he starts to tell you about how we ought to put Iraq and their oil resources in the hands of the UN again, you almost, almost start to think, "Yeah, that sounds like an OK idea..." before you snap out of it and realize "HOLY SHIT, WTF IS THIS DANGEROUS LUNATIC TALKING ABOUT?"

Bringing up the rear, and I do mean the rear, are Al Sharpton and Wes Clark. Sharpton sounded like the spoken equivalent of an essay test you take in school, where you have to fill three pages but only have about a half page of knowledge, so you BS the rest of the way through it with nonsensical filler. "Oh yes, the Federal Reserve...well of course, it's important, and it should continue to be both Federal AND a Reserve..."

Wes Clark is just both slippery AND slimy. I don't believe him. I don't trust him. I don't like that he wouldn't repudiate Michael Moore's comments about George W. Bush being a deserter, and used the very same excuse that got Howard Dean in trouble, "Well, you know, it's out there." You better look into it now, General. Letting someone else make a serious accusation in your presence without saying boo about it is a no-no. I also found his delivery occasionally good, at times bad, but mostly unremarkable.

So that's it: Advantage Kerry. Lieberman was helped. Clark hurt. No one else affected.

Edit: No, considering he had so much to gain tonight, and in view of his at best mediocre performance, I'm putting Edwards in the "loss" column.

Update: Roger L. Simon's take here. He has a very similar take to mine. Dean Esmay, here. He also had a very negative reaction to Clark.

Update2: Transcript of the debate is here at the Washington Post (found through my referrer logs(?))