I couldn't watch it live, but I got to watch the video archive late last night.
I admit I went into it hoping Medina would do well. So, with that disclaimer out of the way, here is my take:
1. Perry. Oh, lawsy. Could he possibly pile on the Gee Dubya shuck-an-jive any thicker? When an intelligent man wraps non-answers in "aw shucks" cornpone, he's lying. His continued claim of jobs created, when confronted with the actual net jobs +/- numbers, had the audience openly snickering. At him, not with him. No one believes an Aggie and Air Force pilot can really be that stupid. My score: -2
2. KBH. She focused on Perry as her primary target, as she should, and skillfully used her question to Medina to "bank-shot" (as one commenter noted) an attack against Perry. The sooooothing lulling dulcet monotone doesn't inspire confidence, because no one really believed she was that devoid of passion. I don't know why she wants the governorship over the senate seat, but she does, badly. Her non-answer to the Roe v. Wade question elicited more snickering disbelief than Perry on jobs. My score: -1
3. Medina. Not a polished speaker. Obviously nervous. That's to be expected when you're running for governor and your only previous office was as county GOP chair. And yet, she answered questions directly, with facts and figures, and an underlying passion of conviction. Of the three, she's the only one that I believe wasn't covering up anything. She has no record to hide from, which some say is a liability. I disagree. She can only run on her convictions, not her record. Neither Perry nor KBH seems to have convictions, only records that they're trying to dodge. My score: +0.5 on performance, +10 on effort.
Nobody really "won" this debate, but Perry and KBH both lost. Medina performed admirably. Belo should definitely re-think their exclusion of Medina from the next debate, but I doubt that they do. My inner cynic tells me they're just too closely tied to the existing power structures, and Medina doesn't fit in to their mold.