The debate is over, and the early consensus seems to be that it was so high-minded as to be fairly useless. Gloria Borger on CNN: "I don't think we learned a whole lot that was new."
John King, likewise, notes that, oddly, there were no questions about the single biggest issue, illegal immigration: "That took the fireworks out."
The folks at MSNBC's First Read agree. They call it a "forum...for the PBS/NPR crowd who swears they don't like debate fireworks." But that was good for Huck:
"This was an opportunity for the field to slow Mike Huckabee and the format didn't allow for it, so on that score, I guess Huckabee can call himself a winner. He was VERY careful to look presidential; he clearly didn't want to look like a marginalized religious candidate and on that score, he did well."
ABC's Political Radar is on the same wavelength: "Apologies all around, but did a debate just happen and I missed it? That makes for a great afternoon for Mike Huckabee..."
Over at American Spectator, the bloggers seem to think that Fred Thompson stood out -- a Reaganesque refusal to provide a raise-your-hand answer to a Q on global warming, and the (conservative) wit to cite the NEA as the major obstacle to better education: "Good for him. This was the Fred we were supposed to be getting when he decided to drop out of the race."
National Review Online, likewise: "Thompson. Don’t know if it will be enough, but he ought to get at least a little bump out of this. The moment he basically told the moderator where she could stick her 'show of hands' question – well, I was inspired." Calls the debate itself a "boring snoozefest."
Ambinder at the Atlantic: "No one laid a glove on Mike Huckabee. And... Mitt Romney had a hell of a good afternoon. He seemed more sinewy than usual, less programmed, quite (dare we say) presidential, and even-tempered." Not something we saw, but...