John Kerry won the televised debate against President Bush last night, according to focus groups and editorials in the major US newspapers.

However, although the first of four televised meetings was won by Mr Kerry, he failed to land a knock-out punch on Mr Bush before the November election, they concluded.

The New York Times said: "If Americans who tuned into last night's presidential debate were waiting for one of the candidates to catch the other in a fatal error, or leave him stammering, the event was obviously a draw.

"But if the question was whether Senator John Kerry would appear presidential, whether he could present his positions clearly and succinctly and keep President Bush on the defensive when it came to the crucial issue of Iraq, Mr Kerry delivered the goods."

A Gallup poll of 615 registered voters who watched the event found that, irrespective of who they supported, 53 per cent thought Mr Kerry did a better job in the debate. Only 37 per cent picked Mr Bush. The remainder were undecided.

The week before, Gallup had found that 52 per cent supported Mr Bush while 44 per cent preferred Kerry.

In the debate, Senator Kerry created a more favourable impression for 46 per cent of viewers, Gallup said, while Mr Bush created a more positive impression for 21 per cent. The majority, however, were not much changed.

This was broadly the view of the editorials in most US papers. The Los Angeles Times was the most forthright. "Senator John F Kerry won Thursday night's debate on foreign policy by a comfortable margin, but Americans may yet decide that President Bush is better able to clean up the mess he created in Iraq."

The Gallup survey found almost no change in the candidates' respective standings. President Bush had 54 per cent of voters' support for the way he would handle Iraq, the same percentage as after the debate. Senator Kerry gained slightly, up from 40 per cent to 43 per cent.

The Washington Post said that the candidates differed more on past actions than future plans. "Mr Bush stoutly defended his decision to go to war; Mr Kerry forcefully criticised that decision and the war's management and offered himself as a more competent commander in chief.

"But Mr Kerry had a more complicated position to defend, and it showed at times. He called the war a mistake and a diversion [from Afghanistan and the war against al-Qaeda], but later said that American soldiers were not dying for a mistake."

The Post ended its editorial by saying: "Both performed credibly enough to keep voters tuned in for the next debate."

USA Today declined to give an answer to its readers on who won, but seemed to come down on the side of Mr Kerry. It said: "In shorthand, the choice is this: A President who will act independently and quickly, even at the risk of alienating allies or making a grievous mistake. Or one who will proceed more deliberately in concert with allies, potentially at the price of missing a crucial opportunity."

Times Recommends

• Experts baffled by vanishing sea lions
• CIA caught in a dirty and secretive war
• Double life of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab