Did either candidate commit a gaffe that undermined his chance to win the White House? No. Both had moments when they stumbled, misspoke or failed to answer a question. But no response caused any sharp intakes of breath in the live audiences.

Did either candidate crush the other in any single debate?

Not in our view. Only the most partisan of columnists and commentators saw anything approaching a thrashing.

Did any of the debates shed significant light on the policy differences between the two? Yes. To some degree, all three gave attentive voters a rough understanding of their positions on foreign policy, the economy, health care, energy and tax policy. These were mere policy snapshots, mind you, but the constant repetition of the same talking points embedded in the candidates' stump speeches did, over a total of four and a half hours, give voters some sense of their differences.

Did either candidate shade the truth? Both did, in all three meetings, to varying degrees. It is, after all, a no-holdsbarred race for the grandest prize of all.

What impressions did the candidates make? We can speak only for ourselves. McCain: bellicose, mercurial, expert with the rhetorical knife, antsy. Obama: Calm, calmer, calmest; well-prepared, if too detailed; less imperious each time; more "presidential" than "inexperienced."

Finally, did the debates, taken as a whole, give either candidate a significant boost? Hard to say. True, they were about even in the polls before the first debate, and Obama has since pulled ahead. But Wall Street and the economy have been tanking over the same period, and McCain has had trouble immunizing himself against the perception that President Bush and his Republican allies in Congress are responsible for bringing the country to the brink of financial ruin.

"I am not President Bush," McCain declared Wednesday.

But after three debates, he has not convinced enough voters there is a distinction to be made.