Regarding a hot topic before the Senate, Allen declined to take sides with President Bush or Sen. John W. Warner in a GOP split over rules for CIA interrogations of terrorism suspects. Warner, R-Va., is Senate Armed Services Committee chairman. He and several Republican al- lies, including Bush's former secretary of state, Colin L. Powell, favor greater legal protections for terrorism suspects.

"I don't want to stop these interrogations," Allen said in the debate on NBC's "Meet the Press," adding that he hoped to serve as a bridge on the issue.

Webb responded, "I'm with Senator Warner on this." A decorated Marine combat veteran of the Vietnam War, Webb said the issue splits the "theorists who have never been on a battlefield" from people who have had to worry about the fate of their troops.

Allen did not serve in the military, and it wasn't the only time that Webb brought up the contrast between his own military duty and Allen's lack of it.

Discussing Iraq, Webb, a former secretary of the Navy, said, "If we had the right people in the Senate there would have been more questions asked and a better policy in place in order to defeat international terrorism." [...]

"This was Webb's debate," said political analyst Larry Sabato of the University of Virginia. He gave Webb good marks for improving his debating skill from a matchup in July. Sabato had scored that one an Allen win.

Allen also refused to pledge to serve his full six-year term if reelected, proving once again that he is more interested in spending time in Iowa and New Hampshire than he is in representing his constituents.

But my favorite take of the debate was from Weekly Standard contributor and conservative blogger Dean Barnett.

Before offering my analysis, I should confess a pre-existing fondness for Jim Webb. Like virtually everyone who has read some of his books, I respect him as an artist but even more as a man. Webb is a war hero, an outspoken and outsized intellectual, a patriot who has tirelessly served his country, and all-in-all a tremendously admirable individual. Our political system is richer when people like Jim Webb decide to enter it.

That being said, I didn't think Webb would be a very good politician. Webb's background didn't suggest that he would take to the tasks that a politician must constantly assume - relentless and humiliating fundraising, the endless happy tolerance of fools, and an uncanny ability to condense complex issues into 90 second sound-bites.

I should also say that given the vital partisan stakes involved this election season that Hugh and I have frequently discussed here, I squarely and unequivocally support Allen's re-election.

Or at least I did until this morning's debate. Now I'm not so sure.

IT WOULDN'T BE FAIR TO ALLEN to ignore the fact that he had to deal with being double-teamed by Webb and "Meet the Press" host Tim Russert. Still, Webb outclassed Allen in every aspect of the clash [...]

Even if Webb weren't so impressive, Allen might well have cost himself the election with his continuing inept efforts to defuse "Macaca-gate." Considering that Allen knew the issue was bound to arise in this morning's debate, his defense of his comments was fairly shocking: He claimed that "macaca" was a word that he just made up on the spot when he called a young Webb volunteer that name while the video-recorder whirred.

When Allen offered this latest explanation, I'm pretty sure even in Massachusetts I heard the sound of half a million Virginia conservatives simultaneously slapping their heads and screaming, "Oy vey!"

Webb will be an impressive Senator. And we can help Allen realize his dream of spending all his time in Iowa and New Hampshire. That'll be much easier if he doesn't have to come up with excuses as to why he's failing to adequately represent Virginia residents in the Senate.