Personally, John Kerry surprised me. Kerry was confident and straightforward. He only said a few stupid things here and there, but they only seemed to happen at points when he just got good points going. Bush's main points were Kerry's flip-flops and that he was committed to finishing things no matter what. Another main thing Bush was doing was making a threatening presence by constantly pounding on his podium, by taking threatening poses while he was speaking and by acting with discontent and malice to most of the things Kerry said.
Kerry's main points were the plan's he had to do things better then Bush. He also focused on forming alliances with other nations. His final main point was how Bush messed up with the war on terror and how he won't admit it. One of Kerry's problems was that he drifted away from concrete concepts. He started out by mentioning many tangible statistics, i.e. the 10000/12000 hummers in Iraq without proper armor, he then moved from that to more abstract concepts by the end, mainly alliances and resolutions.
In the end, both Kerry and bush debated well. Kerry seemed to be very confident but he still made quite a few bad statements, he still blasted out quite a few buzzwords. Kerry also seemed to have more suave and style in his mannerisms and his delivery or ideas. Bush also delivered many key points, but he stumbled through them more taking many long pauses and beating the same ideas to death in maniacal bouts or repetition. Also, it seemed as the debate went on, bush lost much of his focus and even succumbed to a whole lot of blinking during his closing remarks. Now while this debate won't have much of a major effect on the campaign, I think Kerry did a better job of presenting his ideas and his positions on the issues.