I couldn't see it at all. Will someone put up something on youtube or suchlike, please?

It was too general of a debate , but the three top did fine.

Obama won the before and after poll.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18300340/

One thing that stood out: both Clinton and Obama rose their hand when said that they believed in a GWOT. Edwards didn't. He gets major props for that.

That being said, I was not terribly impressed by anyone. Edwards seemed a bit lethargic. Obama needs a little more work, as well as answering some questions a little more directly. Still don't like Clinton.

My wife's thoughts - Clinton and Edwards did really well, Obama disappointed, Richardson was absolutely horrible.

I liked Gravel. He's like that crazy uncle that gets mad in restraunts cause the waitress gave him soup instead of salad.

Edwards was very specific on health care, energy, how he would respond to terrorism. I think he won the debate.

Damn. Who's the hottie Kucinich was hanging onto?

My wife - not very engaged in politics - saw Gravel and yelled out to me in the kitchen, "There's some crazy guy out there!" Made me laugh.

Live Vote Right Now! How Did They Do?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18335732/

I thought the questions were horrible. Name the top 3 allies? Top 3 enemies? Model Supreme Court Justice, THAT IS LIVING? Moral Leader? Just stupid...

I would say that Obama and Clinton won just by the fact that none of the second tier candidates did all that well. I would say Obama got an extra boost for not looking inexperienced.

I think Edwards didn't do great just because he didn't get much time. The moral leader question should have been very easy (his wife) and he took way too long to get there.

I think this hurt Richardson the most. Took shots at Democrats, bad body language, not much charisma.

Biden did well, for getting a laugh, and will definitely be run on all of the news shows.

Obama looked lackluster until Kucinich pissed him off and really crushed him.  Clinton was bleah.  Edwards could have been more forceful.  Richardson wasn't that bad, he was just slow.  Dodd was pretty awesome.  Biden was Biden (the same could be said for Kucinich, who learned the hard way not to mess with the big boys).  Gravel was kooky, but made his points.  Hell, Gravel was everything that Kucinich should have been -- though even he didn't support the impeachment of Cheney.

Richardson was great talking about the foreign policy stuff, but he sucked big time on domestic issues.

Clinton, was, not terrible. She didn't win me over by any stretch, but I can't bring myself to hate her.

Gravel, I wish he would challenge Ted Stevens instead of running for President, but maybe every campaign needs a guy like Gravel to keep the rest on edge. Who knows?

Kucinich shouldn't be allowed to dog catcher, much less President.

Obama did great...I don't think the average viewer would think he's less specific in terms of policy than anyone else.

Edwards stumbled a couple of times, but did quite well. I really like the guy, just not as my #1.

Dodd is, well, boring, but he knows his stuff and his values are in-line.

Biden is a gasbag, but I didn't find him unlikable, and I definitely believe there should be a cabinet-level position for him in the next administration.

I'm not sure I see what the big deal is with the 'global war on terror'. Its just a war against talking points, maybe.

My favorite line...

"We are one signature away from ending the war in Iraq"

Good line from Obama

C'mon! Richardson clearly out did everyone.  Maybe, just maybe the Democrats should nominate someone that the average person can relate to... No, that would mean a legitmate chance at winnning the election and maybe some states not on the coast.  We wouldn't be smart enough to do that... Or Would we?  

The top three performed about to what I was expecting. Maybe if there were some voters checking them out for the first time, those folks might have had higher expectations for Obama, but that's probably not a whole lot of people - I think the high-information people who already had a horse are the ones who watched today. The big surprises for me were how shaky Richardson looked, and how hopped up Gravel was. Kinda reminiscent of Alan Schlesinger's first CT-Sen debate last year - he wanted to make a splash and get some name recognition by going big.

I am right now leaning Edwards, but was thinking about Richardson.  Richardson is not good at shooting from the hip.  He said Byron White(dissent in Roe, vote to overturn Roe in Casey, vote to criminalize homosexuality in Bowers v. Hardwick) was his favorite justice.  

That is a bad answer in a Democratic debate.

Is it just my bias sneaking in, or were the candidates deliberately getting questions not tied to the way they're running their campaigns?

Edwards appeared to get a lot of narrative stuff and little on his message - Clinton got the best lines in about standing up for the little guy right at the end of the debate, whilst Edwards was saddled with a question on role-models which might fit into Obama's campaign but not his. On the flipside, Obama didn't really get the opportunity to talk about his narrative - he didn't do badly on policy, but it's not where he shines.

I wasn't terribly impressed by anybody except Gravel when it came to standing up for themselves - most of the questions had an implicit right-wing or just downright moronic frame embedded in them, barely any of the questions got attack. The questions putting forward a horrifically simplistic Manichaean view of foreign policy weren't treated with the contempt they deserved - I'm not demanding an hour long lecture, but at least noting that the premise of the question was oversimplistic and answers in abstract might not reflect the real-world reality would have been nice.

And Biden should really have attacked the question and the Republican Party rather than Gravel and Kucinich in his final question. He won't get voters off them, but everybody could pick up floating voters if he pointed out that after 2006 it's the Republicans who are vulnearable and laid out the reasons why.

Richardson seems like a good diplomat, yet in terms of creating rather than carrying out foreign policy, I'm unconvinced. His declaration as to what he would do in the event of an attack was both a blatant piece of pandering to appear tough and a load of hot air. The planner of such a terrorist attack would be in hiding, vast multi-national coalitions wouldn't matter much. He seemed to be going for the atavistic revenge mentality that's more appropriate to Sicilian organised crime than a presidential candidate. I wasn't generally impressed by Edwards' performance, but in this case I think he was right - first you work out how you were attacked and prevent any other attacks in the pipeline, then you work out how to strike back. Don't get mad, get even, if you will.

In a crowded debate with sound bites, plagiarism (It was Bill Clinton who first said abortion should be safe, legal, and rare) and not ready for prime time but sure to be imitated on Saturday Night Live, John Edwards was long on substance and gave answers that were thoughtful and articulate. He gave the best answer on health care, perhaps in part because he is the only candidate with a detailed plan(Clinton promised to learn from her experiences and Obama was general in his goals but short on specifics) and the only one who said how he would pay for it-repeal the Bush tax cuts for those making more than $200,000 a year. I give Richardson points for his honesty on guns and making mistakes. Obama said nothing memorable, Hillary was a little stiff, but John Edwards was consistent-strong and articulate and detailed answers, all connnected to reaching out to those Americans who Bush has left behind over the past six years.

I think Edwards did the best of the top 3. Obama hurt himself with his position on  Israel. He sounded like he's trying to appeal to certain demographics, but I think he came off as looking like a rookie, making a rookie mistake.

Edwards/Feingold 08

Reposted from other thread:

Tentative conclusions: this debate changed little. Nobody won, everyone who mattered did OK, and nobody lost.

Richardson and Biden got some positive visibility, but nothing immense. Edwards did quite well, and if we go by the whole debate I would have to say he did the best. However he messed up his last answer a bit with the pause. Obama seemed a little uncomfortable throughout, almost a little Kerry-like, but he knocked his last answer out of the park. If we go by last impressions, then Obama did the best purely because of how well he crushed Kucinich. I though Clinton was totally unmemorable, as was Dodd to a somewhat-surprising extent. Kuchinich and Gravel were, obviously, the spoilers.  

Most memorable moment was the Kuchinich-Obama-Gravel three way exchange, followed by Biden's one-word "yes" answer, followed by everything Mike Gravel said generally.

Brian Williams was absolutely awful!  He was fearmongering the whole time, and not interested in discussing issues other than perceived terrorist threats.

"What three countries pose the biggest threat to the U.S.?"  In other words "What is YOUR axis of evil?"

"What if two American cities were attacked simultaneously...uh, God forbid..."

This guy is a complete tool.  NBC could have done a lot better.  Brokaw?

winner Obama

loser Richardson and Brian Williams.

Not that I;m going to hop on his bandwagon or anything, but I was impressed with Dodd's command of his answers.  I got the sense that he is a very clear thinker.  Conversely, Richardson was not impressive, although I have never found him to be very good (I thought his speech at the 2004 Convention was bad).  

Of the top three, I think Clinton was solid, as was Obama, but Edwards (who I supported in '04) was too vague in his policy-oriented questions.

Biden is always good for a laugh.  

I think the debate format wasn't good. 60 seconds to respond to a complex question just isn't enough.

I know that Edwards has very detailed plans on some of the issues that he was asked about. He did a great job of summarizing those in a very short time, but he could have gone on for a long time and been very informative.

He answered questions with specifics. The others gave politicians' answers.  

Gore really needs to get into the race.

All the current contenders need to go back to school to learn about the roots of terrorism and the nonviolent ways stop terrorism.

Clinton and Obama embarrassed themselves with their feigned tough talk on dealing with terrorists and militarily retaliating against a terrorist attack in the U.S. The use of force only makes things worse, as the Bush administration has amply demonstrated in Iraq.

Yes, we need good international intelligence cooperation to prevent attacks. But the main thing is to put U.S. ingenuity and entrepreneurship to work abroad helping build small and medium size businesses and livelihoods that prevent would-be terrorists from being recruited to terrorist networks out of desperation.

We need to dismantle the World Bank and the policies that impoverish people through unfair trade policies and privatization schemes. Few if any of the candidates seemed to have any notion of what a U.S. president could and should do in the way of trade and economic development policies that curb the predatory influence of large corporations that wreck indigenous economies and create failed states that incubate terrorists. I felt I was listening to a bunch of high school students who have yet to learn the essentials of how the world outside U.S. borders actually works.

At least Edwards was able to talk about microcredit, which was just about the only enlightened thing that was said on the subject of our non-Iraqi foreign policies.

Kucinich reflected nearly universal public opinion abroad that the U.S. intervenes abroad mainly to secure foreign assets like oil. Why so many Americans refuse to acknowledge the dominant role of economic interests in U.S. foreign policy puzzles me. At least Kucinich tells it like it is.

What would be better? This format obviously sucks. Single topic debates? A specific amount of support (like signatures) to participate? One on one, Round Robin debates? Mixed party debates?

As an Edwards supporter, I think he started off a little weakly and the earlier questions were not friendly for him.  It almost seemed that he was the first to be "picked on".  He did not respond well to the haircut issue, and i think that it is the fault of the press for keeping this triviality alive.  How much does Hillary or Obama spend for haircuts, I wonder?  As the debate wore on, i saw the thoughtful and articulate John Edwards I know and I think he came in second place in the appearance game.

Clearly, I think Obama came off as a tremendous orator.  The man does have a gift for words and he is very quick/improvisational on his feet.  However, in some areas...such as health care, he does not seem to offer the specifics that Edwards does.  I could be happy with a leader like Obama, but I would like to hear more of his specific plans and not a generalized oratory.

Hillary seemed to be thoughtful, and yet scripted.  In a weird way, she knows she is the underdog...because of her negatives.  She did not help her cause tonight, but she cannot be ruled out yet.  Her response to the Walmart issue was weak indeed.  But then again, there were no other questions that would have begged a response in addressing the globalization issue.  If there were, Edwards would have been the one to hit it out of the park.

Both Dodd and Kucinich helped themselves tonight.

Bill Richardson and the lunatic grandfatherly type from Alaska did not help themselves.    

Obama-Unlike a lot of the people commenting, I thought his demeanor was good.  True he wasnt very specific in his answers, but that has nothinhg to do with demeanor.

Edwards-I thought he won on "content."  There were a few answers I wish he did a little differently, but I thought he did well.

Clinton-I actually thought she did pretty well, though I honestly find her voice pretty grating.  Still, she was the only one that made a quick pitch for the broader "things are very tough for the middle class and working poor" platform that Edwards should own.  She is right that most people have health care but it is getting more expensive.  I also liked that she basically, finally, admitted that she made a mistake on Iraq.  She was actually weakest on health care.  It is an extremely dishonest position to pretend we can cover more people without raising taxes.

Biden-Great one word answer.  I agree that this will get a lot of air time.  Still, Biden is Biden.

Dodd-He was fine.  Whatever.

Richardson-I dont think he does the mechanics of the debate well yet.  I admit that I am biased because his "no new taxes" idea, which I also mentioned above, is a pet peeve of mine.  You cant fix health care without spending money and that means taxes for the wealthy have to increase.  He has not guts.

Kucinich-I really wish the world was as sweet as he is.  Truly a nice man.  Yet, I dont want him for my President.

Gravel-He was kind of annoying to me.  Every "quip" he made was actually an old joke that has been around for a long time that he just used without attribution.

That's curious -- I don't think that Obama delivered.  He seemed a bit uncomfortable and his speech pattern seemed jerky/broken.  I think Obama performs better in front of large crowds/at rallies, in the debate setting, where it can seem a bit more intimate, I think that he comes across as too stilted and halting.

How would you respond to a two city attack?
Richardson: militarily - really? against who? Blame Canada.
Clinton: yes, I agree we would have to have a muscular military response.

Jeez.  Just slow learners?

None of the candidates impressed me with their healthcare-related answers.  To be sure, it is a very complicated question that requires more than a 60 second quip, but fundamental issues were not clearly communicated.  Also, there was not a single candidate who brought any sort of market-based thinking to the debate, but instead proposed hugely expensive programs, either by requiring the government or employers to jsut pay for it all.

When Biden flat-out lied about his record on the Bork nomination.

Wow... Kucinich's wife... Wow... Beauty and the Beast on that one...

I totally agree that Williams was terrible as host.  The questions were so trivial and forced the candidates into very limited areas.  If the format was so restrictive, then he should have asked more general questions, such as: What is #1 threat to the economy.  #1 threat to security.  What is the biggest problem and the solutions to our health care ect.  For the way in which Williams speaks, it seems he is all fluff and no substance.  His recent live coverage of Iraq was pathetic and he looked like a high school debater at times.

I thought the format and the questions asked in this debate were pretty horrible. The "lighting round", "show of hands", "limit this to one sentenance"; what's next, make it like the old kids game show Double Dare where you can either answer the question or take the physical challenge? And then there were the questions themselves "three biggest threats", "who is you moral leader". Just awful.

As for the candidates, I have to say that unlike the majority here, I found Gravel to be more embarassing than amusing/cool/something positive. It reminded me of an old Daily Show where they showed a clip of one of the older senators (Stevens or Byrd, I think) on a tirade about something, and either Jon Stewart or Lewis Black followed it with the comment "Looks like grandpa forgot his medication again." Gravel reminds of me of Kucinich in 2004, I might like some of what he says, but I can't support him because I don't think he is a good spokesman for his points.

Then there is Kucinich this time around. I thought that he had really improved; all his answers to the questions were reasonable and well presented, and I actually appluaded (in my living room) after his impeachment part. Then he had to go rebutt Obama. And it was back to 2004 Kucinich, who always seemed like a guy with good poisitions but put them forward in a shrill or flakey sounding way.

Of course, the fact that I'm starting with Kucinich and Gravel shows how little of an impression the others made on me. Despite being the first debate, I felt that I'd seen and heard it all before. Obama did a solid job, but I still can't see why everyone finds him so exciting. I still like Edwards the most of the top tier but for some reason I can't put myself all the way in his camp. This is the first time I watched a lot of Hillary and I thought she was really good in some moments (talking about Colombine and guns) and fairly boring (and therefore not very distinctive) in others.

I like Richardson's experience, but after watching this debate I have a hard time liking his style (seems uncomfortable) or substance (Guns, Whizzer White, Democrats want to raise taxes too much). Biden handled that question about his gaffes well, but otherwise wasn't distinctive to me. Dodd had his moments, but just seemed awkward at times ("If my daughters grew up, and I found out they were gay, I'd want them to have equal rights...")

So, I went into this debate as one of the rare Democrats who's not particularly excited about this field, and ended it the same way, but with slightly more negative feelings about Richardson and Gravel. Oh well. I hope the next debate considers the Double Dare format I mentioned. Having the candidates go through an obstacle course of green slime looking for an orange flag would teach me as much about them as this debate, and would be a lot more fun to watch.
 

Edwards: Don't know why, but he flubbed the moral leader question. What he ended up saying was fine, I just don't see why the long pause. Great at getting his frames and message out there. Explained his universal health care plan simply and in few words. Hit some good points on the choice question.

Obama: Also hit some good points on the choice question when he started talking about reducing teen pregnancy, but (and I'll have to listen to this part again) he concerns me when he said that people's concerns about the particular abortion procedure that was upheld by the supreme court was 'justified.'

Richardson: Great on the foreign policy side, awful on the domestic issues stuff. Yet again gave voice to the right-wing meme that democrats always raise taxes and that doing so is a bad thing EVEN when the taxes that were being talked about immediately before he spoke were the Bush tax cuts for those making over 200k a year. Said that he supported the AG because he is hispanic. Combine this with my previous issues with him (NAFTA, federal balanced budget amendment, TABOR, etc) and it's clear that he's very much the DLC centrist.

Gravel made me laugh hard a few times.

Winners:

Biden
Gravel
Kucinich
Clinton
Obama

Losers:

Dodd
Richardson
Edwards

Best part for me: Edwards asked about his moral leader and takes an eternity in onair time to answer, finally, "No, i oculdn't say I have a moral leader" (Then talked about My Lord, My Wife, Dad). Why should he have one? - he's a grown up.

I think we've got great Democrats. I wish each had more time to speak - and not so many speakers. maybe divide them by lot into 4 on stage at once for 1 hour each group. Break between groups.

Have Howard Dean ask the questions, or a local Dem Party Chair.

They all did well. I miss Al Sharpton, though.

Clinton - Better than I expected (which was very little).

Edwards - I agree with someone above who said Edwards seemed lethargic tonight. He wasn't by any means 'bad' - just not as good as he is capable of being.

Obama - he seemed nervous at first but grew stronger. Did just okay, not as good as he is capable of being.

Richardson - Too busy trying to make himself look experienced and tough. I would like a thoughtful president, not someone who needs to reassure us about his aggressiveness.

Dodd - not horrible; seemed scripted.

Biden - we'll all remember his one word answer.

Kucinich - mostly answered the questions. Honest.

Gravel - made me laugh.

I don't see a clear winner or a clear loser.

Senator Edwards went beyond rhetoric and got to the real substance of the issues.  He laid out his specific, detailed plans to address the issues and transform America - his plans to provide universal health care, halt global warming and restore America's moral leadership in the world, among others.

I think that Obama probably won the debate even though he said nothing that really moved me. I think that Hillary had a very good performance though she did sound a little scripted. Edwards was unfortunately subdued and Richardson was a disappointment. Kucinich was a rising star. Dodd is very intelligent and important but relies too much on his credentials. Gravel was hilarious. And Biden was much better than many expected.

took the question about his wealth, and house and hit that one out of the park. Telling the story of his family having to leave the restaurant was great.

Thought Hillary probably shaded it because she came across better than I was expecting. Same with Biden. Edwards and Obama were up and down but neither hurt themselves. Richardson was poor. Gravel was entertaining. Dodd and Kucinich are just cluttering the stage.