Clinton was my loser.  She made a fool of herself when she implied that campaign contributions mean nothing in politics.

Edwards was the clear winner.  Though, I think the no money from Washington lobbyists thing is silly because not all washington lobbyists do so for the bad guys.  The problem is that Edwards always seems to do well in these partisan settings but it doesn't seem to translate in the polls.

Just as you said, success depends on your goal. Based on this criteria, Clinton is the clear winner. She will never get the support of the netroots, however, she has reduced the hostility among bloggers. Her strategic goal is not to let bloggers rally behind a single candidate. She is succeeding on that front.

Obama is doing what he needs to do. As you said, he also does not need blogsphere because he has his own. So there's no gain, no loss.

I actually believe Edwards lost the most. I mean, his best hope is to be a Dean-like dailykos candidate, but he's not getting that. I don't feel he's converting anybody who's not already in his corner. His red-meat is sort of tiresome.

Based on some limited comments on dailykos, I have a gut feeling that many residual Gore/Clark uncommitted will likely fly to Clinton's corner.

Clinton lost a lot - it is all over the net have you been surfing or just writing pro Hillary mess?

Edwards has had comments near and far about being the clear winner, and I can tell you that several have just jumped completely on the JRE Express train.

And please stop with that whiny Edwards trying to be like Dean stuff.  Edwards is not trying to be like anyone - he very much is his own, and is leading on the issues, forcing the likes of Hillary to addresss them.

And, for the record that little sly slip in the Dean not - so you can try and get people thinking that he isn't going anywhere and will end like Dean did.  Try again, Edwards is still very underestimated and he must reall have many of the Hillary supporters upset and worried for all the nonsense posting I have seen today.

Edwards has been on the move in Iowa today again with a picket line!  What did Hillary do today?

Iowa -- Just south of the Steuben Street entrance to Standard Ready Mix Concrete Co., stands a shelter pieced together with corrugated boards and plastic wrap, with an American flag on the south end and a satellite dish feeding down to the television that's near two microwaves and a peanuts dispenser. That's the home away from home for members of the Teamsters Local Union 554, who have been striking since Oct. 16, 2006, alleging unfair labor practices.

There were many more smiles than normal around the shack just before noon Sunday, when Democratic Party presidential candidate John Edwards came to show solidarity for the mixers, yard employees and drivers who have been joined by union members from Vermillion, S.D.

Several hundred people gathered just outside as Edwards began his five-stop campaign swing through Sioux City, Orange City, Sheldon, Spirit Lake and Spencer. His theme on the day was to ensure that not just the upper class in America thrives, and that the middle class doesn't disappear.

I really like this part the best:

Jim Sheard, secretary of Teamsters Local Union 554, said he's known Edwards for five years, and "while none of the unions are making endorsements yet," he added, "I gotta tell you that John Edwards is the candidate who is not afraid of the word 'union.'"

http://www.qctimes.com/articles/2007/08/ 05/news/local/doc46b6546466cac056525271. txt

I'll be interested to see if my rankings are borne out at all in the next dailyKos straw poll.

That's a polite way of asking whether the next KOS poll will be even more out of touch with the mainstream Democratic Party voters!

Gravel also wants to blog regularly in the White House.  I don't want a President who has TIME to blog!  I do feel bad that he didn't get to answer a question until 40 minutes in though.  

Clinton did indeed stumble but I didn't expect this debate to go as well as it did for her. She actually used a similar argument in NY in 2000 when she said during one of the debates that being an Washington insider gave her an advantage over Lazio.

But how cool that we all have our own lobbyist?  She made them sound like guardian angels!

Dodd did particularly well, and I'm glad that the convention audience got to see the fire in his belly.  He really does deserve serious consideration.

I like Edwards a lot but much of what he had to say felt like pandering to me.  But at least he knew what issues to pander about.  Some of the other candidates didn't have a clue.  And Elizabeth as the first White House blogger?  I love it.

Obama made no impression whatsoever on me.  Same goes for Richardson and Kucinich.

Edwards, Obama, Kucinich, Clinton.

--donna darko

Here's one thing that Clinton did that impressed me: At one point candidates were asked if they were nominated would they campaign in all 50 states.  When Hil was asked she said she would not promise that, but that when she ran in NY she traveled upstate into some pretty red areas, and that running for President she would travel into rural and Republican areas in blue and purple states, and not just seek votes in the usual places (i.e. cities).  That impressed me because without pandering to the crowd she still managed to signal that she agreed with the general principle that as Dems we need to show our faces in Republican areas if we want to start the process of winning over those voters.

Personally I can't see why those subjects would be so radio-active for the people in the audience. I mean it's not as if the republicans even came close to those subjects let alone taint them with misuse.

I could see that the balanced budget amendment would be too restrictive. But the line-item veto? And the dislike against the balanced budget amendment seems more fueled by fear for the cost of the "balanced" part then dislike of the amendment form. More attention for a balanced budget from our side would only serve the progressive cause.

It's easier to defend our causes against budget problems if we're on the offensive. And lets be honest there are enough budgets that need to be slashed. outdated cold-war era military programs. funds for abstinance only programs. etc.

Dodd impressed me. I hadn't really considered him before, because he's obviously not in the top tier in terms of polls. But I liked what he had to say and wish some of the other candidates were as clear defenders of the Constitution.

I especially wish Clinton or Obama, who I believe are the most likely to win the nomination, would pick up that theme and articulate it even half as ardently as Dodd.

Edwards -- I like all his positions. He's a pretty good speaker....but...I don't know. It's that "presidential" thing.

I really don't know who I'm going to vote for in the primary, though I have been leaning toward Clinton.

If I were making my mind up only on the issues, it would be Edwards or Dodd. But I keep thinking, who would be able to get a) elected in a knockdown, dragout fight that 2008 will be and b) once elected who is going to be able to get their legislative agenda enacted.

I'm not sure Edwards could do either. Dodd has the Senate experience, which would help. I'm liking his pushback vs. O'Reilly...but...well, Clinton and Obama still seem more personable, more comfortable in their skins. Obama is young yet, and I think he needs more time. Although, he's one of the most politically talented people I've ever seen.

My impressions, using the order in which the candidates sat:
Gravel - incoherant.  Please go away.

Richardson - very impressive.  Built his narrative that he has accomplished the kinds of things we want our President to accomplish.  His breakout speech was superb.  He was still answering questions in breakout when the Edwards people were filing out.  He answered the questions well and respected us.

Dodd was very impressive.  He really broke down my overall negative impression of him.  He has some fire in his belly.  He answered the questions well, and that was appreciated.  

Edwards - avoided answering many of the questions that didn't fit cleanly into his narrative.  I thought it was insulting.  He kept twisting the questions and going into his stump speech.  Dodd was able to excite people while answering the questions, Edwards excited people by using his stump speech.  I lost respect for Edwards.

Clinton - Took the booing well, answered the questions well, even when she knew that we would boo her.  Though she's still near the bottom of my list (she probably fell further due to Dodd's performance), I felt that she treated us with the respect we should be accorded.

Obama - Took the time to answer the questions thoughtfully.  Didn't seem like he stumped at all.  It was a good performance.

Kucinich - stumped non-stop with the same stuff he always talks about.  Very insulting.

So, the big winners in my book are Richardson and Dodd.

Clinton and Obama held even.

Edwards, Gravel, and Kucinich dropped in my book.

I was there also.

Edwards was on fire.  I think he drove the agenda of the debate as he has been driving the campaign.

His breakout group also was great.  He was very straight with his answers and disagreed with some questioneers on issues such as capital punishment and impeachment now.  He called on the entire Democratic Party to reject taking money from lobbysts, not just presidential candidates.    

Afterward, he met with James Hoffa, the current head of the Teamsters, for a half hour.  Hoffa spoke very highly of Edwards at the barbecue. Hoffa challenged the other candidates to come up with a Labor Plan as Edwards has.

I also thought Dodd did well.  I like Dodd on issues, perhaps because he is close to Edwards' stands on some issues.

First, Gravel's signature issue is the national initiative for direct democracy, not the Fair Tax.  He's also done a pretty good job of pointing out that the Iraq war was initiated with Democratic blessing, and continues with Democratic acquiescence.

That being said, he's clearly not a viable candidate, so I would think that pro-peace Democrats would rally around the most viable candidate who actually wants to end the war in Iraq, without leaving tens of thousands of troops there -- Bill Richardson.

Not only does he have the best resume (by far), he also has the crossover appeal to independents and moderate Republicans that will be needed to win the election.  Democrats booed a balanced budget amendment?  Why?  The fiscal responsibility issue has been handed over on a silver platter by the Republicans -- take it and don't look back.

Federal spending has increased by 74% in the past ten years.  There is plenty of room to fund progressive priorities without raising taxes.  Ending the war in Iraq would be an awfully good way to start.

Seemed only about 40-50 people at most boo'd that, I thought about cheering.

Of all the candidates, I think Dodd made the most gains.  Very impressive.  I don't think he will be the nominee, but I want to see more of him in public life.

Edwards is also very good.  "How many people here have a lobbyist in Washington."  Great.

Obama is also good.  I wish Edwards and Obama would get together, flip a coin for president and vice president, and work together against Clinton.  

Clinton was very bad.  I want someone who will tell the health insurance companies to go F*ck themselves, rather then be the number 1 recipient on the left of their money.

Gravel and Kucinich should go to alaska in an adult family home, get the 4 oz of marijuana they can legally have at home there, and talk about their ridiculous ideas to each other while under the supervision of qualified nurses.  If their supporters pooled their money, they could maybe afford a Macbook and make YouTube videos for VH-1 or something.  That way, we could not be distracted from the conversation by the people who might win, and we know they would be safe from hurting themselves.  I have a strange feeling that if either of these people were put in charge of the food supply, we would all starve within a couple years.

Bill Richardson has a very good resume.  The only problem is, he is completely out of touch with reality on a number of issues.  F*ck Balanced Budgets, let's build universal healthcare and a green energy infrastructure instead.  If we balance the budgets, the republicans will just come along and plunder the savings with another pointless war in a few years.  We might as well spend the money instead.  I wish that he would take sec of state or some diplomacy post (where he excels) and leave the real presidential candidates alone.

Dodd and Edwards are the real winners at Kos.

Clinton loses big time, I think.

They should keep Gravel in these debates because even though he sounds like a loon, he confronts the other candidates on corruption, the Constitution, Iraq and other things.

I like Edwards but I am a little puzzled by the amount of enthusiasm he has generated here and on Daily Kos. The reason being, that I don't remember his senate record being stellar (in terms of accomplishments) or very liberal. I intend to do some more research on this but I thought I'd post this comment to see if anyone else has done it already. In fact, one of the first links that I came across is from media matters and I'm including an extract here.

As Media Matters for America previously noted, although National Journal's 2003 vote ratings of senators placed Edwards fourth, that rating was based on only 40 of Edwards's Senate votes during 2003 and is not representative of his more moderate lifetime Senate voting record. In fact, as National Journal congressional reporter Richard E. Cohen pointed out in a July 9 article, Edwards's average National Journal "liberal score" during his five years in the Senate (1999-2003) is 75.7 percent, "a number that puts him in the moderate wing of his party," and is almost 20 points lower than the 2003 rating that Republicans are touting with the help of the conservative media. National Journal's Cohen also noted that in 1999, Edwards's National Journal "liberal score" placed him as the 31st most liberal senator, in 2000, Edwards ranked 19th, in 2001, he ranked 35th, and in 2002, he ranked as the 40th most liberal among all senators -- 15 to 36 spots lower than "the fourth most liberal senator" label that Republicans and the conservative media are pushing. As Cohen wrote, "From 1999 to 2002, Edwards had ranked among the more conservative Democratic senators. In 2002, only 11 of the 50 Senate Democrats voted more conservatively."

Maybe it is because he was representing NC? I don't know. Any thoughts?

URL for the extract: http://mediamatters.org/items/2004071200 04

Interesting comments.  In my mind, Edwards won the forum.  Hillary was good and made some good points.  I was disappointed in Obama.  He ducked the question about whether the U.S. policies in the middle east had any bearing on the 9/11 attacks, but that question is radioactive.  He and Edwards put Hillary in a box on the lobbying question and Obama had a good comeback on Hedge fund operators.

I thought Dodd was very good in the forum and he was terrific in his breakout. I will send him a check based on his performance.

The general election will get tough and nasty.  The ones who I think can handle it the best are Hillary, Dodd and probably Edwards.  Richardson has the experience and is a good guy, but not in the league of the others.  He's the most genuine of them, who, in my mind, passes the test for whom I would like to have a beer with.

In the breakout, Dodd was asked about impeaching Gonzales.  He is against it.  He said that it would tie up the Congress for 18 months and nothing would get done.  He said that we MUST win the presidency in 08, implying that if we go after Gonzo and the others through impeachment, that it would be a loser for us.  I think he is right.  He also likened getting the Democrats in the Senate to work together was like "pushing a wheelbarrow of frogs."  A good metaphor.

It's too bad Biden skipped it.  He is the real loser.

I booed and I would do it again.  The BBA is stacked in favor of conservative goals -- coming in with a deficit leads to across the board cuts in social programs, infrastructure, etc., not in the defense budget.  And the Line-Item Veto is an enormous expansion of Presidential power -- which we don't need, eh? -- that allows an unscrupulous President to toss out everything that helps the other party and keep everything that helps his supporters.  It strengthens the President by allowing legal blackmail.  Richardson has now dropped below even Clinton in my book.