Winners
- John Edwards: Stayed strong and on message. Sided with Obama as a candidate for change, and put Clinton on the spot as the status quo candidate. He came off as articulate, clear, and as the viable alternative to a non-confrontational unity politician like Barack Obama.
- Bill Richardson: Didn’t do anything good, didn’t do anything bad. His one big flop was calling Russia the Soviet Union. But he’s tired, just like the rest of the candidates. He’s not going to be the nominee, but he isn’t going to be left out of the race. He’s clearly making the case as an experienced vice presidential candidate.
- The people of New Hampshire: Compared to the Republican debate, the second half of the Democratic debate was quite engaging on the issues, on the race, and on substance. Clearly, there is a push for new policies and ideas in the Democratic party. We want real leaders who will talk clearly and our Democratic candidates are willing to do that. While looking exhausted when not answering, they were engaged when the camera was on them. New Hampshire has a tough choice ahead of them.
- Barack Obama: He didn’t shine like he could’ve as the front-runner, but Gibson made sure he got the first and last word. He seemed more tired and lackluster than he is on the stump, but that seems to have been the case for most of the debates he has been in.
Losers
- Hillary Clinton: Her angry moment sure didn’t help her (though it is quite clear she has the energy and is quite committed to the race) and Edwards’ double-team with Obama against definitely portrayed her as the third wheel of a two-person race. She’s falling fast in New Hampshire and needs to dump Mark Penn.
- The Republicans: After watching most of their debate, I can’t see how American or folks in New Hampshire would want their old grumpy grandpa or their sleazy corporate boss as president. Huckabee’s the only one who looked presidential but his policy offerings have largely been substance-less. Bill Clinton had the advantage of being an intellectual and Rhodes Scholar to overcome the fact that he was really only the governor of Arkansas. Huckabee doesn’t have that advantage.
- Charlie Gibson (And his NH counterpart): Maybe it was just me, but his cynicism towards the Democrats in general seemed to make him look just as grumpy and frumpy as most of the Republicans in the hour and a half before the Democrats. I’m glad they challenged the Democrats but it seemed a bit harsh and a bit more than needed.
Feel free to call me out on these and offer your own thoughts and reactions. We all know I can be wrong from time to time. And if you’re curious, Time’s Mark Halperin offers his grades of the candidates here.
5 Comments
Obama looked strong
I did not watch the entire debate, but from what I saw Obama approached the debate successfully. He stuck to his arguments and was strong, as usual, on his message. He parsed the differences between him and Hillary without saying more than he needed and defended well against Hillary’s attacks. He even got Edwards to come to his side. I think overall he did well. He is an ace on the stump and it has been noted that he does not approach the debates the same way he does the stump. It may appear different to an Edwards supporter because Edwards tends to approach the debate the same way he does the stump, like a trial lawyer. Some people like that. However, Obama’s approach seems to have been successful given the results in Iowa.
drinksgreentea Sun 6 Jan 1:06 AM
My feeling exactly
Halperin says exactly what is on my mind when I hear Edwards speak: “His habit of recounting moving stories about anonymous (and, sorry, random) people sometimes makes him sound like a mayoral candidate in a small Southern hamlet.” Sometimes it just sounds odd when he breaks into his anecdotal tangents. It sounds borderline phony and amateurish even though the stories are probably quite honest and accurate. This is a patented part of his stump speech and unfortunately they are more of a distraction than supportive evidence of his claims.
drinksgreentea Sun 6 Jan 1:14 AM
I didn't watch the debate
but I absolutely agree that Hillary needs to dump Mark Penn. He is a toxic influence. If she surrounded herself with different people, I would look much more favorably on her potential to lead this country.
desmoinesdem Sun 6 Jan 1:05 PM
Third wheel?
I don’t quite get your reasoning that Hillary is now the third wheel in an Edwards-Obama race.
From what I saw last night and the poll numbers I’m seeing, it’s Edwards who’s becoming the third wheel to an Obama-Clinton race. To me, he seemed to be doing everything he could to position himself as somehow a part of Obama’s victory and grab some of that momentum for himself. Not to mention that the polls seem to be showing this as a Clinton-Obama race, with Edwards sort of hanging out in the 20% range. Until the polls show Edwards pulling up to Obama or there’s the kind of in-fighting between Edwards and Obama like between Obama and Hillary last night, I think Edwards is unfortunately the third wheel.
Which I guess makes Bill Richardson the spare tire?
american007 Sun 6 Jan 4:26 PM
I tend to agree with Big Tent Democrat
who wrote over at MyDD that Edwards’ strategy in the debate last night doesn’t give him much of a chance.
Edwards clearly calculated that nothing can stop Obama from winning NH, and the best thing to try would be to overtake Clinton. However, by not laying a glove on Obama, he may have allowed Obama to win NH by too big a margin.
desmoinesdem Sun 6 Jan 5:09 PM