O.K., the debate’s over, so the debates will begin.

The first big topic on the Web seems a holdover from the foreign policy debate, Pakistan:

Here’s Lisa Schiffren at the Corner:

“Obama’s explication is sound, but he did call for invading an ally, which was pretty offensive. McCain was right, too. Pakistan is so complicated and difficult that a lot of explaining is necessary, and there really isn’t a clear way to fix the problem. Obama is wrong to blame Pakistan’s contempt for us on our support for Musharaff. Pakistan has come to despise us over 25 years, regardless of whether we supported the dictator or the opposition at any moment, or whether we gave them money and arms or embargoed it all. Their politics toward us stem from their domestic politics, and the encroachment of fundamentalist Islam in their fragmented, impovershed culture. While I agree 1000% with McCain that we should not have abandoned Afghanistan in 1989, that nation is so fragmented and torn that it is not at all clear it can be put back together again. Morass. Swamp. Eater of Western armies. Yet we have learned that we can’t afford to let it become a vacuum, as these failed states do, which serves as a breeding ground for terror. So, we only have bad choices there, and steadiness and dealing from strength seem key.”

Her colleague Kathryn Jean Lopez, however, thinks Obama stumbled on that topic:

“When Obama says Pock-i-stahn I have an uncontrollable urge to read the New Yorker and find some Chardonnay. Fortunately I have an old copy of NR and a Coors Light to snap me back to reality. Seriously though — no one in flyover country says Pock-i-stahn. It’s annoying.”

And here’s Mark Murray at NBC’s First Read:

“McCain said: ‘Sen. Obama likes to talk loudly. In fact, he wants to announce that he’s going to attack Pakistan — remarkable.’ But this is what Obama said originally on August 1, 2007: ‘There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf will not act, we will.’ It’s worth noting that Palin — on at least two occasions — seemed to back Obama on this issue.”

And Noam Scheiber at the New Republic thinks Obama controlled the issue: “Devastating. The ‘bomb-bomb-bomb Iran’/’annihilation of North Korea’/’next stop Baghdad’ 1-2-3 punch was an absolute body blow. What is McCain thinking by trying to make this ‘talk softly’ case? On top of which, Obama gave off a subconscious ‘strength’ vibe by straight-arming McCain when he tried to interrupt.”

O.K., but what about issues that voters, um, really care about?

Dana Goldstein at Tapped looks at the big picture:

During the first half hour of this debate, I thought we were finally going to see the truth at the heart of the conventional wisdom: John McCain did seem better at the town hall style than Barack Obama. McCain used the old five-paragraph essay trick: restating the question at the beginning of his answers, which made him seem engaged with the interlocutor. McCain more often addressed the question-askers by name, and his silly “my friends” tic seemed more natural in this setting. Obama did seem, yes, professorial. Yet Obama found his sea legs after the first half hour. When he spoke about civilian national service and expanding the peace corps, “so military families and our troops are not the only ones bearing the burden,” he articulated his own “country first” ideology. On energy, Obama actually said straight out that Americans would have to change their lifestyles to fight global warming, from driving fuel efficient cars to weatherizing their homes. (It would have been even better if he had actually uttered the words “drive less.”) The clearest win of the night was for Obama on health care; while McCain told Tom Brokaw that health insurance is a “responsibility,” Obama said matter-of-factly that health care is “a right,” and that it is shameful that in the United States, cancer patients are forced to fight their insurance companies for coverage. This is an issue on which American simply agree with Obama and disagree with McCain, who was unable to clearly explain the tax mechanics of his own health plan. This debate was a tedious, awkward rehashing of what was covered in the last match-up between these two. But in the face of this economic crisis, the attacks and theatrics are simply fading from view. Issues profoundly matter, and they’re breaking for Obama.

James Fallows at the Atlantic is on the same page.

From a horse-race perspective, John McCain came in behind and losing ground, in the middle of a financial/economic panic that works against him, and therefore needing a big win. This meant either damaging and flummoxing Obama, or so outshining him in audience rapport, mastery of policy, and empathetic connection through the camera, that the debate could be presented as a turning point. None of that happened. (McCain’s best performance was at the end, rejecting a “Yes/No” question on whether Russia is an “evil empire.”) At this stage in the race, a tie goes to leader, and this was not a tie.

And so is Taegan Goddard:

Tonight’s debate wasn’t even close. Sen. Barack Obama ran away with it — particularly when speaking about the economy and health care. Talking about his mother’s death from cancer was very powerful. On nearly every issue, Obama was more substantive, showed more compassion and was more presidential. In contrast, Sen. John McCain was extremely erratic. Sometimes he was too aggressive (referring to Obama as “that one.”) Other times, he just couldn’t answer the question (on how he would ask Americans to sacrifice.) And his random attempts at jokes (hair transplants?) were just bad. Tom Brokaw was terrible as moderator. His fixation with the rules — particularly when the candidates were not complaining — was distracting and a disservice to everyone. The format didn’t work very well, but Brokaw made it worse.

And Andrew Sullivan piles on:

This was, I think, a mauling: a devastating and possibly electorally fatal debate for McCain. Even on Russia, he sounded a little out of it. I’ve watched a lot of debates and participated in many. I love debate and was trained as a boy in the British system to be a debater. I debated dozens of times at Oxofrd. All I can say is that, simply on terms of substance, clarity, empathy, style and authority, this has not just been an Obama victory. It has been a wipe-out.It has been about as big a wipe-out as I can remember in a presidential debate. It reminds me of the 1992 Clinton-Perot-Bush debate. I don’t really see how the McCain campaign survives this.

What about conservative partisans? Michael Graham at the Corner won’t say McCain won, only that we all lost:

It wasn’t a debate — there was no “debating.” It wasn’t a town hall — the people didn’t speak. It wasn’t an interview — there were virtually no follow-ups. It wasn’t a contest of ideas. The two “contestants” shared most of the same ideas. This was a lost 90 minutes out of my life, and a huge, irreplaceable, lost opportunity for the McCain campaign. Why is it that a maverick like McCain allowed himself to be led by the nose like this?

And his Corner colleague Bill Whittle finds fault in the format.

Nothing tonight on abortion, on corruption, on “associates.” I agree with Ramesh that selection bias is no excuse for McCain performing poorly, but he performed better on foreign policy. The things that will (should have said “would”) have hit Obama in the polls were subjects that were not raised tonight and I see no reason to think they will be raised next time. The news won’t cover these issues. It has to come out in the debates. And I don’t see much chance that we will see that next time. This was not a great night for our team. It’s up to the 527’s now I think. I don’t know how else to get the negatives about Obama out there.

Well, I guess we have that to look forward to. The Opinionator bids you a good night.