One of the themes that Bush repeated a number of times during the debate was the need to "always be on the offensive" in the war against terror. In light of the obvious connontation that this implies in the context of the neocon strategy for figthing "terror" - perpetual war - Kerry could raise any number of biting questions as to how the resources (economic and human) for such a proposition will actually be raised. Perhaps it is time for him to break out the old addage about the "best offense being a sound defense". Bush seemed to get upset when Kerry suggested that the ball had been dropped on the funding of local (US) police and fire initiatives. He responded by arguing that some 3 billion dollars or so had been dedicated to first responders, but later on in the debate he glowed about the much larger figures that have been spent on local (Iraqi) initiatives. If Kerry is correct, he needs to illustrate the impact that the lack of funding has had on first responders in the US while at the same time provide an accurate illustration of the tremendous money pit that the funding for their counterparts in Iraq has become.
According to the Drudge headlines (no link given there), the Bush inner circle suggests Bush visit with Hurricane victims earlier in day was emotionally draining, contributed to "tired" appearance in debate... Anyone would probably be "tired" after a day of meeting with hurriance victims. But that's why not just anyone is qualified to be president. A country needs to know that its president and commander-in-chief, at the end of a long day, will still be able to think and express him/herself coherently, and remain in a frame of mind conducive to sound reasoning and decision-making. If this "tiredness" becomes a republican argument, Kerry will have been presented with a perfect demonstration of how Bush is "unfit for command".