Some were circumspect in their speculation; others were less so. And the crux was this: who was responsible?

Was this the work of a lone madman? Or of a terrorist? Or of several terrorists?

I am sure the question was asked in the White House and that it was foremost in most viewers' minds.

It was certainly foremost in mine - for professional reasons. Random shootings are not my province, whereas terrorism and events that touch the soul of a nation for months to come are.

The truth is of course cloudy. The alleged murderer was clearly a Muslim, but there is very little to suggest that he adhered to a hard-line interpretation of his religion or that he had political or religious motives.

He may or may not have posted something on the internet defending suicide bombers. But he also appears to have been traumatised by the idea of being sent to a combat zone.

Still, people will speculate - as I am doing. Life may become more uncomfortable for his innocent co-religionists, a regrettable consequence of any such attack.

We search for certainty and for answers. Some will go down blind alleys: reports of his "religious attire", for example, may turn out to be a red herring. There will be a demand for answers about how he got private handguns onto a military base. In a state where people love their guns and their right to carry them, it may be a fairly pointless inquiry. In any case, it can't be hard for a solider to get his hands on a gun.

A lot of us wondered how he managed to shoot forty or so people with two guns. I imagine the truth may be that although his victims were soldiers, few of them were armed.

But for some, nothing less than a conspiracy will do as an explanation. On the website of a respected newspaper, I see one poster has blamed Barack Obama, whom he calls "that Marxist thug". It's not that it's hard to follow the logic; it's that there isn't any.

Still, searching for patterns and for answers is part of what it is to be human. I loathe cliche, but perhaps, for once, this is a "senseless tragedy", devoid of deeper meaning.

Apparently the big organisations that represent America's doctors and retired people do not agree.

The president greeted their backing for the bill with some relief. He said of one of them, the AARP:

"They're endorsing this bill because they know it will strengthen Medicare, not jeopardize it. They know it will protect the benefits our seniors receive, not cut them. So I want everybody to remember that the next time you hear the same tired arguments to the contrary from the insurance companies and their lobbyists."

It wouldn't cut much ice with the thousands of demonstrators outside chanting "kill the bill, kill the bill" and carrying placards with pictures of a red hand with the legend "Hands off my health care".

One man told the BBC that it was "terrible". "They just want to take over everything. They want everyone to join the public option."

A woman said it was "abominable" and "unconstitutional", because the bill was too difficult to understand and people had not had time to read it. She said it was the responsibility of the churches and communities to look after those who couldn't afford healthcare, not the state.

The House of Representatives expects to have a bill passed by Saturday, which would be nowhere near the end of the affair, but the end game is that much nearer.

Number one was: our new neighbour is cool. It had a picture of Barack Obama in red shorts.

He and the first lady are still cool. The walls of the White House are adorned with some serious art, bubba rock isn't banned, but the White House now hosts poetry slams and R&B and Latin bands.

Michelle grows her own veg and persuades kids it's hip to go organic.

For millions of Americans, particularly black Americans, they are an inspiration.

But as far as the media and political classes are concerned, he's the man who fell to earth. And even to many supporters the answer to "can we do it?" is "well, we certainly hope so".

He's a curious mixture. On the one hand, coolly, even coldly intellectual, trying not to show exasperation with the childish demand of voters for results now, this instant.

On the other, he loves the limelight of campaigning. You see a different, more relaxed Obama when he is in front of a crowd shouting "we love you" and he answers, "I love you, too" - doing his little shuffle and slipping into folksy idiom.

It's probably because it's easier than governing. And he has made mistakes. The biggest over health care.

Bill Clinton tried to write the bill while he was in the White House and it got shot to pieces.

He has let the politicians on Capitol Hill have their protracted say. The result is a confusion of competing plans with different price tags.

He will get a lot of advice following last night's elections, and some of it, like this article by Robert Creamer, pretty sound.

But if I was a presidential adviser, I would be more worried about reports that the health care bill may slip into next year.

I've talked to lots of voters who are anxious about what will happen to their health care.

They don't know. No one knows. No one can know.

Those who want to brand any outcome as costly big government interference easily fill the vacuum.

Pictures of Obama, hand on chin, in the White House situation room listening to four-star generals and CIA chiefs and ambassadors, show him looking thoughtful.

He's done 20 hours of thoughtful, and there still isn't an Afghan strategy.

Now we are being told not to expect a decision until the end of the month.

It's a rare example of government at the very highest level looking very seriously at a complex issue from all the angles.

It's also an example of why it doesn't happen very often. It looks like dithering in a world that values action over reflection.

His team talk constantly about the need to rise above the 24-hour media. Their frustration with voters who want a microwave government - it's not as good, but at least it's quick - and their anger at the media, who they say are stuck in a narrative arc of decline and fall is understandable.

But like any contact sport, politics is more about blocking the blows and making feints than practicing perfect punches.

To paraphrase Enoch Powell, it's a bit like a sailor wanting to rise above the sea. And the days when Obama could walk on water are over.

It's an unhappy anniversary present for Barack Obama, who took Virginia in the election a year ago today.

Some say these elections don't matter. And they are right that this is not a straightforward referendum on the president. But they do point to the mood in the United States. The president's allies in the liberal wing of the Democrat party think he's moving too slowly. Conservatives are furious he's gone too far. Many of both parties are reserving judgment. But of course voters can't do that, they have to make a choice.

The huntsmen I met in Virginia are a patient lot, waiting for deer or turkey that seem understandably reluctant to turn up. Sometimes they will spend all night sitting in a tree, or lying in the long grass. I don't quite go to those lengths, but sometime I feel like I, too, am hunting a rare, or perhaps even mythic, beast.

The people I want to hear from are those who voted for President Obama but have lost faith, even changed sides. After all, they will be the key to next year's mid-term elections and - looking further ahead - to whether Obama gets a second term.

Jenny, who lives in a trailer home with her husband and two little children on the outskirt of Roanoke, is one of them. Thirteen months ago, my colleague and predecessor Justin Webb interviewed them.

They said they had always been Republicans, but because of the economy, they were going to vote for Obama. They're still living in the trailer, but have scrimped and saved and are excited about moving into a house just around the corner very soon.

Jenny told me she not only voted for Obama last November, she also lost her job. And she's disillusioned with the president.

"He made everything sound good like he was just going to make everything great. And it's just not, the economy has become way worse and I would just like him to walk in my shoes for 24 hours and see how he does it."

She described what he's doing as "horrible" and thinks his plans for "equal health care" are wrong.

It's notoriously unwise to make judgements on a series of random vox pops, but whenever I am out and about, I try to ask people about this - often without a microphone or camera stuck under their nose. And I think the switcher is a pretty rare beast, if a very important one.

Exit polling in both New Jersey and Virginia indicates that a majority of those who voted thought the president is doing a good job. But asking my questions I do get a sense that they are holding the faith, rather than applauding achievements. Turnout is really important: the people at the heart of last year's Obama surge, blacks and those under 30, stayed away from the polls in droves.

These results will give Republicans a sense of enthusiasm, of momentum and may demoralise some Democrats. It may make some, up for election next year, nervous about supporting bold policies, like the public option in healthcare.

To use a New Labour phrase, Obama is in that tricky post-euphoria, pre-delivery phase.

It's even trickier if people feel deliverance never comes.

It's a beautiful day to be sitting underneath the trees in the hot autumn sunshine of the Roanoke valley in Virginia. Even if no shots are fired, and no turkeys answer the call, staring out at the woods turning gold, red and orange is reward enough.

Aubrey and his cousin Leon have already voted by post in the election to choose a new governor for the state of Virginia. They knew they would be out in the woods on election day. But they are confident that their man, the Republican candidate, Bob McDonnell, will get the job. They're probably right: it's certainly what the polls suggest.

Virginia went Democratic - voted Obama - last year but, on the anniversary of that victory, looks set to return to the Republicans. The Newman cousins insist that it's the start of a Republican revival. Neither of them voted for Obama but they both tell me they are disappointed with the president.

Leon says: "I don't think he's done anything for me and I don't think he's done much for the country. This health care package, it's certainly not going to do anything for the retired people, it's certainly going to cost us money."

Aubrey is even more forthright: "I don't like some of the things our president has proposed. I have never believed in socialism and it looks like we're going into socialism."

This is not the only test for the president today. There is another governor's race in New Jersey and a congressional election in New York. The results will be taken by some as a referendum on President Obama's first nine months in office.

It is certainly a good opportunity to look at how he is seen, a year after that momentous election - and if his party does badly in some or all of the contests, it will be taken as a portent by many.

But a number of words of caution. Virginia is contrary, and since the 1970s has elected a governor of a different political hue to the one in the White House.

Not even Reagan at his most popular bucked this tendency. Much will depend on turnout, at a time when the Democrats have had a big victory and are exhausted.

Then, these are not British by-elections. People are not choosing representatives but rulers, who can raise or lower their taxes. So the candidates and local issues really do matter. And one candidate seems way ahead.

"Go Bob, Go Bob, GO!" Supporters shout with enthusiasm as the dapper and neatly coiffured figure of Republican contender Bob McDonnell emerges from Roanoke airport to a small but enthusiastic crowd. Commentators are pretty much united that he's the better candidate with a better campaign. The Democrat Creigh Deeds started negative and never really took off.

But if this is about how to run Virginia, it is striking how much McDonnell talks about national issues. It's true someone in his campaign team mentions the need to re-open restrooms along a certain highway, and he praises the virtues of education and off-shore drilling. But his main message is:

"We know Virginians are hurting and there's an economic down but we don't believe the answer is more big government taxes and programmes. That's not the secret to turning this economy round, it's more limited government and free enterprise and private sector solutions to allow people to use their God-given talents to pursue the American dream. That's how we turn this economy around."

That he mentions he is the National Rifle Association-endorsed candidate probably doesn't do any harm with the men in camouflage turning up for a coffee or coke at the Old Mill Country Store, after a hard morning's turkey or deer hunting. Most are planning to vote Republican.

But Shirley Naday, filling up her car at the store, voted for Obama last year and she shares their worries about the president. She tells me: "In the beginning I was for him and I thought he was going to do a great job. But I don't know now, don't know if he's going to do anything. He's kind of disappointed me."

I, of course, find some who are enthusiastic about the president even in this very conservative part of the state but here are some of my general thoughts. Many just don't know what is going on over healthcare, and what it will mean. Many worry about government spending, particularly if they are are not seeing results. Republicans have their tails up while some of Obama's supporters are waiting nervously for things to get better and so may stay at home rather than vote.

But more when we know the results tomorrow.

What President Obama needs to make a decision on future strategy is clarity, what he's got is a mess.

This breaks down into two parts - perceptions and practicalities.

Everybody in the administration from Obama downwards has put emphasis on the need for any government to be legitimate in the eyes of the Afghan people. No doubt they do want that. But what they really mean is that it must be legitimate in the eyes of the American people, if they are going to be asked to make further commitments to the country. Today's muddle hardly helps any eventual victor look more legitimate.

That's the perception. The practicality is even tougher. Those in the administration who argue against sending many more troops are not dong it because they have some super-effective alternative strategy. They just worry that the Afghan government isn't up to it. "It" being the necessary components of a counter-insurgency strategy: fighting corruption, providing people with effective services and building up a strong and effective military.

To some that means a government where President Karzai has the support of at least some of his rivals, a government of all the talents.

If not, can they somehow circumvent Kabul? Can they do deals on a regional basis? Can they get more people they trust in the administration. Not easy.

The other day President Obama sounded personally frustrated when he told an election rally in Virginia that he was busy mopping up a mess others had left. All they could do, he said, was criticise the way he was holding the broom.

Someone's just tipped another pile of muck on the floor.

Sixty-two people who would otherwise be homeless live here but anyone can come in and get the free evening meal. Last night a hundred people came off the streets of this very affluent area, a stylish suburb of New York, to take advantage of the free food.

It's predicted that figures due out later today will show modest growth in the American economy.

Madge and Rosemary handing out a vast quantity of home-baked brownies and brightly-coloured cupcakes, tell a different story to the statistics. They say they are serving twice as many people as this time last year.

The manager of the shelter Mary Sunden says there has been a dramatic change. It's not just the increase in the number of people turning up, it's who they are. Many homeless people have mental health or drug problems. But Mary says they are now seeing a different type of person as well, people who have lost their job and suddenly find they can't keep up payments on their home and a car. She says these people don't know anyone who uses the welfare system but suddenly find themselves in it. They are, she says, "lost, confused and frightened".

None of these adjectives describe Elizabeth Russo. A quietly-spoken but very self-possessed woman in her 60s, she has a resilience that is awe-inspiring. She has been living in the shelter for a year. She lost her home. But never her job. She works in a supermarket and when the economy turned down her hours were cut. Then they were cut some more. Eventually she wasn't earning enough to keep her home.

But she surprises me by telling me she agrees with the official figures. Her hours have gone up again recently, and she can tell that people are spending more, just a little bit more. It's not enough to make a huge difference, but it's there. Tonight she is happy. She has just heard that she can get on a voucher scheme that will mean she can get out of the shelter and into an apartment. She has nothing but praise for the commitment of the staff of the shelter and the stimulus money that made this possible.

Tonight she is happy.

The director to the centre Julia Orlando says that the stimulus money has made all the difference for them, meaning they can extend programmes, helping people get into somewhere they can again call home.

Just before we leave, Julia turns away but fails to hide the tears in her eyes. One man she has worked with is very ill. He lost his job because he was sick. Then he lost his home paying the medical bills. He's been living in shelters for quite a while, but hasn't seen his grown up children because he's too ashamed to let them know what has happened. Now Julia has helped him get an apartment. He shows her the keys and gives her a big hug.

Some will find little comfort in today's cold statistics, and they will question the stimulus package. Doubtless it is right to point out any sign of recovery is fragile and the reason for optimistic statistics should be examined closely. But down at rock bottom, when hope is all that is left, every little victory is sweet.

Many of James Kurth's recommendations are pretty mainstream, suggesting that America's dominance has been built on military power which itself is dependent on economic power. He points out that this has been based not so much on industrial strength as constant innovation. He says that to continue this into the future, America has to emphasise research into green and bio tech, and new medical and health treatments.

This emphasis on the future of technology pretty much mirrors the priority of the Obama administration which also stresses medical research. I am hearing that some executives of medical companies are arguing the administration is undermining its own objectives by taxing just such products.

But that's a digression. Kurth's most striking argument is that it's time for America to grow up. He directly challenges the idea that America benefits from "soft power" - the worldwide appeal of its ideals and culture. He says the projected culture is adolescent and damaging:

"It is usually forgotten that this popular culture is chiefly popular with the young - particularly those young who are still irresponsible, rebellious and feckless...If American leaders want to lead the leaders of other countries, they will have to act like mature adults, not like the attention-seeking celebrities of American popular culture."

Perhaps he's just spotted the difference between the heartland and TV-land. In my short time here, I've been struck by the tightly-buttoned, exaggerated deference, politeness and conformity of much of American society compared to its rather more free-flowing image abroad. But is Prof Kurth right that it is time for America to put away childish things?

You might think that the NATO defence ministers' meeting today in Slovakia might be a good place to give America's allies a clue. But US defence secretary Robert Gates won't be giving any secrets away. On his way there, he said: "I am moving into my personal decision phase" about troop numbers. He added with a heavy dose of sarcasm:

"I will probably share with the president and my colleagues in the American government where I come out on this issue before I share it with 27 defence ministers."

Fair enough, but his words will add to the growing sense of frustration in European capitals. Europe's military and political class has never been so ready and keen for American leadership. But there is a growing sense of frustration that they are not getting it.

The longer the White House deliberations go on, the more and more difficult it is to sell to their public the commitment to a mission that isn't being defined. It is much easier to show enthusiasm for a definite plan than to sell a determination to back whatever it may be that President Obama comes up with in the end. The countries which would send more troops are jittery about what they will do if Obama doesn't show the commitment they expect.

Britain will march in lock-step with whatever America requires. The British government believes that an Afghanistan that offers no safe havens makes British streets safer. But it is much more than this, part of a broader policy that sees respect for American leadership and engagement, and loyalty to the world's only superpower, as one of the key elements of British foreign policy.

This may be a mistake. Some claim that the Obama administration deeply distrusts the British government precisely because of this loyalty. Some say Obama's advisers blame Britain for what they believe was a disastrous war in Iraq.

The argument I have heard goes like this: the one man in the entire world who could have stopped the war by withdrawing his support was former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair. Although he is no longer in power, the ministers and advisers who could have stopped him are still in positions of great responsibility. So the more eagerly Britain marches in lock-step, the more the administration discounts its advice.

But as we wait for the sixth meeting of Obama's war cabinet,he is offered some relief by the vice-president. No, not Joe Biden, but Dick Cheney - who in a blistering attack on the president's foreign policy has said that Obama "seems afraid to make a decision". At least some European allies will conclude that they prefer the uncertainty produced by a few weeks' careful reflection to the decisiveness of the previous administration.

"While this election could have remained unresolved to the detriment of the country, President Karzai's constructive actions established an important precedent for Afghanistan's new democracy."

Hillary Clinton weighs in with: "The leadership shown by the president, Dr Abdullah and all of the other candidates has strengthened Afghanistan and kept faith with the best interests of the Afghan people."

Senator John Kerry, who is in Kabul, had his say, too: "Today, President Karzai showed statesmanship by deciding to move forward, and to strengthen the country by embracing the Constitution and the rule of law."

The announcement of a run-off on 7 November must complicate the decision about when the president should make a statement on future strategy.

The White House sticks to "in the coming weeks", which some report will mean a delay, but the defence secretary suggests that there is little point in waiting for a result .

But I am still not convinced that the election will happen. The British and Americans still want a broadly based unity government.

So why am I writing again about Afghanistan? Has it featured too much and is it too "inside the beltway"?

Some of the criticism below yesterday's piece does sting a little.

After all, I have made it a priority to get out of DC and report the rest of America, and I always knew striking the right balance would be very difficult.

I am a great believer in explaining editorial dilemmas openly, so here's the "but". You knew there would be a "but".

The president's decision on Afghanistan and Pakistan is of critical importance for the UK and the rest of the world.

It's not just that British troops are fighting there, it is that both the president and the British prime minister, along with hosts of advisers and commentators, make it clear that they believe what happens there has an impact on the security and safety of the US and Europe.

For a really interesting take, arguing there is no middle way, check this article in the New Republic.

It is also critically important for Obama's presidency: many Democrats are strongly opposed to sending more troops, and believe it will force him to abandon domestic reforms they are very keen on.

Then there are the nuts and bolts of how we take such decisions, and they are nearly always more important than outsiders' esoteric theories about editorial priorities.

I travelled very widely across the EU and beyond when I was based in Europe but there would always be someone asking why such and such a story hadn't been covered.

It's the old problem of not being able to be in two places at once. This blog is very important to me, but the bread and butter of the job is TV and radio reporting.

At the end of last week, we knew that the news of the Afghan vote would break within a few days. But not when or how.

So it makes it very difficult to leave town. The same is true when we know Obama will announce his decision in "the coming weeks". Do I dare make a foray outside the beltway at this critical time? Yes, absolutely, but it has to be done judiciously.

In the short time I have been here, I have reported on healthcare policy from West Virginia, public opinion on Afghanistan from New York and Jimmy Carter's comments on race from South Carolina. I am not going to stop getting out and about, and need to get a better feel for what the US thinks and feels about a whole range of issues, but sometimes what happens within the beltway will dominate..

The one senior figure who has explicitly called for a second round is the Swedish foreign minister, Carl Bildt: "If these results point towards the need for a second round, a second round must be held."

Is a difference of opinion emerging? Probably not. Western diplomats say that any pressure for a second round doesn't necessarily mean that one will happen or that it is their preferred solution. While a second vote would give the victor more legitimacy, the United States and the United Kingdom both really want Hamid Karzai to establish a more broadly based government, by including his rival Abdullah Abdullah.

What no-one can answer at the moment is what happens if Mr Karzai refuses to play ball. The hope in Washington is that he simply needs America too much to ignore its wishes. But if he does refuse a run-off vote, refuses a coalition, no-one can tell me what would happen next.

Second favourite: an interesting article in Newsweek on Biden prompts a splenetic retort from the Telegraph's blogger in Washington.

But those who purport to worry that Biden is carrying the day shouldn't fret too much. Obama's chief of staff has confirmed that what is foremost in the minds of those undertaking the lengthy policy review is the political turmoil in Afghanistan. Rahm Emanuel told CNN it would be "reckless to make a decision on US troop levels if, in fact, you haven't done a thorough analysis of whether, in fact, there's an Afghan partner ready to fill that space that the US troops would create".

But it seems pretty obvious that while any announcement of troop numbers and so on has to come the other side of a decision about a second round - or not - in Afghanistan's presidential elections, its outcome cannot in reality hang on this thread.

Instead, it seems to me, the threat of following the alleged Biden strategy of muddling along with current troop levels is being used to pressure Karzai. This could be either to accept that a second round would give him great legitimacy or, more likely, to include his rivals in his government, broadening its appeal, so that it can "fill that space" Emanuel clearly regards as currently vacant. A policy for clangorous times, indeed.

The United States economy is about to pose an interesting political problem. As the Dow Jones industrial average hits 10,000 for the first time for over a year, unemployment hovers on the edge of the 10% mark.

As Goldman Sachs makes quarterly profits of more than $3bn, and ponders paying bonuses, for the first time in 34 years social security payments to Americans will not increase automatically next year. It is because inflation is so low, but it may not feel like justice to those not getting their expected annual increase while watching bankers get big bonuses.

One writer calls the planned payouts to bank executives "unseemly corporate welfare". Is he right?