My spin on the debate last night: (really, Edwards-centric spin) The panelists admited after the debate to trying to feed Edwards questions that would steer him into negative attacks on Kerry. Many that saw the debate are summarizing Edwards performance as such: he did fine, but didn't come out swinging at Kerry enough.
On the one hand, Edwards no doubt has to give voters a reason to vote for him and not the front runner, and this inevitably means drawing differences and saying "I'm better than he."
On the other hand, Edwards has done precisely this. There are no policy differences between the two as such to make one of them un-voteable; ie, if you'd vote for one you'll probably vote for the other without feeling all your policy hopes are vanished. The difference between them is 90% personal, and Edwards has laid out what he can in this regard.
The rest is up to us to see- and it is noble rather than wrong- for Edwards to stay quiet. What do I mean?
The panelists threw soft balls that Edwards could have batted into negativity home runs. Edwards could have distorted Kerry's record, or taken Kerry to task in more harsh terms. However, the fact that Edwards didn't, to so many's chagrine, take the easy hits, is just what makes him the unique politician that he is. Had he changed course...why would I still feel so special about him?
The personhood of Edwards is what wins over indies and Repubs. This is what makes him more likely than Kerry to beat W. It is up for the voters to recognize that- and, slowly, they do.