I missed the debate last night due to an extended drinking session near London Bridge (two quick tips: if you ever find Honeydew beer on tap, then don't think about ordering anything else, and never turn around on an escalator if you value either your pride of the skin of your elbows), but the Guardian's summation seems pretty closely in line with what I was expecting. Another Clegg win would have been exceptionally welcome, obviously, but Brown and Cameron have had some time to work out how best to deal with the interloper, and from that report it sounds like they've figured it out (of course, if anyone has a different take, feel free to leave it in comments).
What I haven't missed, though, is the increasing number of newspaper headlines discussing, defending or attacking Clegg, including the quite spectacularly vicious "Nazi slur" stunt pulled by the Mail (thanks to Chris B for pointing that one out to me). Partially, this is probably a symptom of the media's ongoing battle with it's crippling ADD problems - Clegg is shiny and new and they can pullhimtobits!!!!! Brutal Snake told me he's concerned that even the positive coverage is simply stage one in another of the wearyingly predictable "set 'em up, knock 'em down" cycles from which the media seem unable to escape, and I can see his point (though personally my own take on Clegg's good press has more to do with people making themselves feel better over the fact that when the chips are down they don't intend to support or vote for him).
But it also feels not unlike an awful lot of people who I hate a great deal are running a little scared these days. I'm not too proud to admit that this pleases me. Those who are running Obama/Clegg comparisons are stretching things by some considerable distance, but in one respect they are genuinely very similar: when the intertubes exploded into a tornado of half-truths, smears and baseless accusations, it was because they were potentially very bad news for some very bad people.