Look, I'm carrying no water for Hillary. While I don't think her nomination would be the end of civilization, she's also only fourth or fifth on my wish list (we've got a strong field, really).

But the reaction to Hillary's debate performance has been way out of whack with, well, her debate performance.

And while we'll see much more polling in the aftermath of that debate, I'm sure, the first numbers bear zero relationship to the emerging media CW.

Tuesday night’s debate was not Hillary Clinton’s finest moment of the campaign season, but there has been little or no immediate damage to her standing in the national polls. In fact, if anything, support for Clinton has ticked up a bit since she stumbled on an answer to questions about drivers licenses for illegal aliens.

Data from the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll shows that on the two nights following the debate (Wednesday and Thursday) Clinton held a 45% to 18% lead over Barack Obama. For Clinton, that’s an improvement from Monday and Tuesday nights when her lead over Obama had been 40% to 24%.

John Edwards was at 10% on the first two nights and 12% on Wednesday and Thursday. Bill Richardson went from 5% to 7% during the same time frames.

This is from a tracking poll, with small daily sample sizes (the aggregate over several days for a more accurate snapshot). So the potential for error is much greater. But bottom line is that at worst, she held steady. At best, she may have gained a little support.

It wouldn't be the first time the media completely missed actual public sentiment. And no, the debate was not as bad as CW would suggest.

However, the debate seems to have emboldened Obama and Edwards, and the newfound media interest in a real horserace could very well give us that in the coming months.

So while the debate itself may not have been a disaster for Hillary, she's still got to survive a more hostile media and energized opponents before the voters get their final say.