Slate agrees that Kerry ducked the "die for a mistake" question:

It doesn't add up. Kerry said tonight that Iraq was a diversion from the war on terror. He said the WMD intelligence was wrong. He added, "Two-thirds of [Iraq] was a no-fly zone when we started this war. We would have had sanctions. We would have had the U.N. inspectors. Saddam Hussein would have been continually weakening." The logical upshot of these beliefs—and the evidence—is that Americans are dying in Iraq for a mistake.

Slate thinks he should have answered yes. But they do credit Kerry with this:

Kerry offered a different way to judge the war's truth and worth: by the evidence.

Yes, if by worth we mean a cost-benefit analysis in which the welfare of Iraqis is weighted at nil. That's the central question on Nov. 2nd. Do we care about other people's freedom or not?