The search for Rellevance is with us that the debate was close, they call the debate for Dewine:

And arguably Mike DeWine won the debate because he sounded like a guy that knew his numbers, the legislation, the process and the trends, while Brown sounded like he was merely a politician trying to beat his opponent with whatever wedge he might find. But then it was pointed out that DeWine votes 93 to 96 % of the time with President Bush, up until last year. And Brown did a decent job at throwing a jab at that, linking DeWine to Bush, Bush to Iraq, Iraq to failures. And likely that's enough for Brown to stay near or above his opponent

The CJR Daily  checks up on reporting on the debate in both Ohio and other major news sources.

The Chief Source finds that Brown came out ahead in the debate.

Clearly Mike Dewine came into yesterday's Meet The Press debate on the offensive. That is what you do when you are behind in a campaign. Dewine seemed irritated in general. I don't know if his campaign snuck a booster seat into his chair, but Dewine was practically belt high at the table and had to lean down to rest his elbows. There were many topics discussed, but Iraq proved to be the most interesting

And the Chief Source again on Dewine's Iraq comment:

I almost fell on the floor. I couldn't believe he actually said it. Does any American think we are getting any security benefit from the war in Iraq? Report after report shows that it is making us less safe. That is why the President cannot declassify the National Intelligence Estimate. It seems to me contradictory to argue for staying in Iraq and then say we shouldn't have gone in the first place. You either think Iraq is a good investment of U.S. resources or a waste. Dewine is trying to have it both ways. I'm going to be curious to see if Dewine's Iraq comments get any press in Ohio because those were the big story out of this debate in my opinion.

Tom Bevan of Real Clear Politics thought Dewine had the edge

In my opinion, Brown lost this debate for the same reason I thought George Allen lost his encounter with Jim Webb a couple of weeks back: Brown seemed the more evasive of the two. When Russert asked him directly what to do if Iraq is indeed a "failed state," Brown stumbled before quickly heading back to his canned talking points about "the status quo."

RS James of Grouchy's Liberaltopia was not so favorable towards Dewine:

In another exchange with host Tim "Let's Do Lunch" Russert, DeWine donned the mantle of "bipartisanship" and bragged on all the times he worked with Dems to "get things done." His record in the Senate, presented by Russert in a graphic, belies that claim: he voted 76 percent of the time with Bush in 2005, and over 90 percent every year since Bush sneaked into the presidency. Hilarious, Mikey -- how do you accomplish bipartisanship and rubber-stamp Bush at the same time?

Michael O'McCarthy of the Radio Left Blog thought that Dewine's commentary on Iraq was particularly interesting:

The most telling revelation by Republican conservative, Ohio US Senator and reelection candidate "Stay The Course" Mike DeWine in his appearance on Meet the Press in debate with contender Sherrod Brown was his statement in response to a very direct question from Russert.
....
Russert asked him why the US ought to stay the course, as DeWine and Bush demand, if the Iraqi citizens don't want the US in their country and rather, support attacking and killing US men and women soldiers.

DeWine said that "we're in Iraq for us!"

Of course brain shallow Russert had no follow up. Like, "you mean we really don't give a damn about the Iraqi people?"

Thank you Senator Mike DeWine for inadvertently substantiating the objective reason for the US war against the people of the Middle East and Iraq in particular: That is US corporate state interest.

The Crassus Blog also thought the debate was close, but ended up giving the ballot to Dewine:

DeWine's answers are a lot more detailed than I thought they'd be.  He's proving himself, in my eyes, to be more connected and in-tune with current realities--including coming out unequivocally for Secretary Rumsfeld's resignation. All in all, a close debate that I'd have to give to Mike DeWine.

I think the blogs raise some important questions about how we view the debates. First, do our political leanings influence how we view the debate? It seems as is almost all liberal leaning blogs think Brown won the debate, and vice versa.

Given this, is the debate just political rhetoric being thrown back and forth?

Are the only people who watch this people who already care enough to take a serious interest in Meet the Press and not undecideds in Ohio.