Tonight at about 9:30, seconds after the Reagan-Mondale debate ends, a bazaar will suddenly materialize in the press room of the Kansas City Municipal Auditorium. A dozen men in good suits and women in silk dresses will circulate smoothly among the reporters, spouting confident opinions. They won't be just press agents trying to impart a favorable spin to a routine release. They'll be the Spin Doctors, senior advisers to the candidates, and they'll be playing for very high stakes. How well they do their work could be as important as how well the candidates do theirs.

Two verdicts will be at issue. The first is the one that television millions will reach themselves. The second is the verdict the public will seek from the reporters, pundits and experts who follow politics and try to keep the candidates honest.

The first verdict can be affected by the second. According to an ABC News poll the day after the first Reagan-Mondale debate, the score was Mondale 39, Reagan 38. According to a poll three days later, after expert opinion had sunk in, the score was Mondale 55, Reagan 18.

It's that apparent impressionability that causes some people to worry. They fear that the emphasis on the debates cheapens democracy, turns campaigns from issues and substance to melodrama and emotion. That's a harsh view, and, on reflection, it's unduly pessimistic. Campaigns are changing, in part because of television, but they're becoming more democratic, not less so. It's healthy when more people can see more of the candidates, under pressure that creates credibility. It's healthy when the public can hear what students of politics think.