I don't know why we refer to presidential dog and pony shows as debates--there is little if any debate involved.

Nevertheless, last night's performance was instructive on a number of levels. Communication skills are among the most important a president possesses, and this was a minor demonstration of the candidates' qualifications on that score.

We are still quoting Abraham Lincoln's speeches one hundred and fifty years after the fact, and it appears that great presidencies are always accompanied by memorable utterances.

Various minor surveys have been carried out and produced varying results--a California poll had Giuliani "winning" the debate. The Drudge poll has Romney winning handily. Redstate has declared McCain the winner.

Clearly a bias is involved, either directly for the candidate, or indirectly for a particular style embodied by certain candidates. That's all part of the process, but I strongly suspect that after six and a half years of George W. Bush's wrestling with the English language, a lot of people would welcome a more natural fluency in their president.

From that perspective, Romney did himself a lot of good. This was no picnic--each candidate had to respond spontaneously and in short order. Some, like Tom Tancredo, simply couldn't do it. Giuliani also seemed comfortable in the format, but less effective in his responses. McCain took a different tack.

Unable to compete with Romney and Giuliani on their "turf", he wisely decided to "be himself"--direct, succinct and animated. It was a notable change from the monotone delivery of his press conference in Baghdad several weeks ago. Obviously some people at Redstate liked his style very much.

If anyone could be said to have "won", it would have to be Romney, if for no other reason than the fact that the debate allowed him to highlight one of his strengths, introduce himself to a larger audience and address some of the criticisms made of him.

Giuliani on the other hand, could be said to have "lost" in the sense that he didn't appear to have properly prepared for the debate. He lost an opportunity to advance his campaign and gave up ground to his rivals.

Addendum: I thought it odd that a Republican candidates debate would be broadcast on MSNBC. I suspect that this was a little bit of a nose-tweak to the Democrats who couldn't abide a debate hosted by Fox. Chris Matthews actually did a creditable job. He was in good humor and his rapid-fire delivery moved the debate along very well. The fact that the questions were carefully considered beforehand produced an even-handed event.

MSNBC post-debate analysis was bad. MSNBC is about as left-wing as it gets and the various participants couldn't help but perceive and discuss the debate through the lens of their own bias. There simply was no relevance in their analysis for the debate's audience, which was naturally conservative and Republican. From that perspective, the Democrat candidate may have ultimately been right for the wrong reasons. Brit Hume's analysis of a Democrat debate would have been no more enlightening to actual Democrat primary voters than the MSNBC crew's perceptions were to Republicans.