All those rules... did they help? I watched the debate on C-SPAN, which had both podiums on at all times, no cutting, just side by side whomever was talking. That is the way to watch a debate, I think. Also good... just watching the empty stage like the live audience does, hearing Lehrer count down to the start, "one minute.... thirty seconds...". The tension mounts and you don't have to hear what Tucker is thinking right before the debate.
Some early analysis among spin watchers concludes that both candidates beat cynical estimates with Bush answering ~75% of questions directly and Kerry answering ~90%. (e.g. by this analysis by "sweetchuck" at Hubris Blog). This blew away guesstimates ahead of time which bunched well below 50%.
I liked the format. I think the onerous rules, e.g. against asking for pledges actually seemed to work, avoiding that sort of grandstanding and achieving a little higher level of rhetorical sparring. The rules against direct questions did not end up meaning there was no conversation or real rebuttals, possibly because of Jim Lehrer's moderation softening the rules. I think maybe this was the case in spite of the intentions of the negotiators, but in the end we got a substantative debate with question actually answered. A good debate, and not...
... just because Kerry won.
Mr. President, don't outsource the "war on terror".