If the last two elections have proven anything, it's that the actual performances in the presidential debates aren't what ultimately determines the victor; rather, an unquantifiable calculus of campaign spin, press perceptions, and comedic reaction shape what eventually becomes the conventional wisdom. This is why the instant reaction to Friday's meeting in Mississippi was only a small part of how the first debate will ultimately be viewed.

Going in, each candidate had something to prove: Barack Obama needed to show that he had the wisdom and temperament for the job and allay voters' concerns about his lack of experience. John McCain needed to reassure viewers that he wasn't a reckless old man who might nuke Canada simply because he misremembered the name of its leader but didn't want to admit to the mistake. The two combatants argued to what was, for the most part, immediately perceived as a draw and universally acknowledged to be one of the most boring debates of all time. Here's how the reactions changed and settled over the weekend:

The candidate's surrogates, predictably, each thought their man was the winner. Democratic vice presidential nominee Joe Biden had this to say:

while Republican Rudy Giuliani, filling in for an exiled Sarah Palin, saw a decisive victory on his candidate's part:

Instant-reaction focus groups generally favored the Democrat:

[V]oters thought that Obama "seemed to be the stronger leader" by a 49-43 margin, reversing a traditional area of McCain strength. And voters thought that the candidates were equally likely to be able to handle the job of president if elected.

These internals are worse for McCain than the top line results, because they suggest not only that McCain missed one of his few remaining opportunities to close the gap with Obama, but also that he has few places to go. The only category in which McCain rated significantly higher than Obama was on "spent more time attacking his opponent". McCain won that one by 37 points.

And what of the punditry, that great mass of laptop tappers who determine if a sigh is just a sigh? Some initial reactions:

Mickey Kaus, Slate: "[A] small, Pyrrhic victory for McCain. McCain wanted to make Obama seem naive and inexperienced. He did about 40% of that. Obama wanted to make McCain seem dangerously ambitious, bellicose and hotheaded. He did 0% of that."

Kirsten Powers, New York Post: "In the end, it was a draw. Obama fans likely saw a thoughtful, informed and measured performance, while McCain fans probably believe that their man showed a greater command of the issues."

James Fallows, the Atlantic: "Neither Obama nor McCain made any serious mistakes (except, perhaps, for McCain's churlish on-stage personal bearing); neither had any moments of surprising brilliance or rhetorical flash. McCain performed closer to the top of his debating range than Obama did."

Fred Barnes, Weekly Standard: "It wasn't a commanding performance, but it was a pretty good one for McCain. However, Obama had an easier task, a lower threshold to meet. He has a small but significant lead over McCain. To protect his lead, all he had to do was not make a serious mistake usable for sound bite purposes. Obama managed that task quite well."

Eve Fairbanks, New Republic: "They both lost tonight. We can go back and forth about whether McCain's anecdotes were more intimate or whether Obama's jabs were snappier. But beyond stylistic differences in the personalities they project from behind the podium (McCain's the weary parent, Obama's the sharp young know-it-all), I thought they both conspired to bring us a narrow, defensive, small debate."

Dick Morris, New York Post: "McCain scored points by pinning the naive label on Obama and warning about the danger of his policies, but that impression was counteracted by the seeming knowledge and seriousness of Obama's approach. He didn't look or sound like a naif. Advantage: Obama."

Deborah Tannen, author and professor of linguistics, in Politico: "McCain kept insisting on getting the last word and refusing to stop no matter what. Though Obama insisted on refuting false characterizations of his record, he often took a mature 'okay let's move on' stance, kind of like an older brother toward an overheated younger one. His composure came across as presidential, and that's what he had to accomplish."

The campaigns themselves rushed out a couple of ads highlighting what they thought were the most beneficial aspects of the debate for their candidates. The McCain team highlighted how often Obama seemed to agree with McCain:

while the Obama team called out McCain's neglect of the middle class:

As Saturday wore on, most of those opinions started to crystallize into predictable shape. McCain partisans became even more convinced that the Arizona senator had shown Obama as a dangerous neophyte on foreign affairs; Obama fans were increasingly impressed by how calm and restrained he was throughout his opponent's constant attacks. Sarah Palin, still being kept under guard in Philadelphia, observed that "McCain did awesome."

As far as comedy, Saturday Night Live weighed in with a largely listless, intermittently amusing skit which relied too much on McCain's reckless stunt of suspending his campaign earlier in the week and not enough on the actual substance (or, you know, "substance") of the debate, which, to be fair, was boring as shit:

By Sunday morning, news of the bailout had begun to eclipse debate chatter. Campaign surrogates David Axelrod and Steve Schmidt battled it out on Meet the Press, but the lines had already seemed to settle:

So who won? If you look at the conventional wisdom, it's a small victory for Obama, which turns into a larger victory when you factor in McCain's need to have done much better than the Democrat. But the real winner is anyone who decided to skip the debate entirely to go see a movie, any movie, because holy fuck was this a boring debate.