Maybe Edwards has been saying these sorts of things in speeches lately, but this passage,

"Do you believe that compromise, triangulation will bring about big change? I don't. I think the people who are powerful in Washington -- big insurance companies, big drug companies, big oil companies -- they are not going to negotiate. They are not going to give away their power! The only way that they are going to give away their power is if we take it away from them!"

has not been seen in the debates before. Hell, when was the last time you heard ANY major Democratic candidate say something as forceful and direct as that.

We've heard before vague denunciations of the insurance and drug lobbies etc. But here was a candidate actually coming right out and saying the truth. That we're in a war with the plutocracy and they aren't going to stand around and let us take their power away from them. So we need someone in the white house who will fight against them tooth and nail.

That is new and quite amazing to hear. So give Edwards the props he deserves. Maybe you need to watch his response again to really appreciate the shift here.

I was impressed with Biden, too.  A couple of months ago, I thought he should just drop out.  But what he is saying is relevant, even if it's not what everyone wants to hear.  He is definitely adding to the debate.  I hope he stays in.

Tonight's debate was assuredly entertaining, but I think some of the questions chosen were a substantial waste of time.  My sense was that the CNN producers decided that they would choose a number questions that their own correspondents would feel uncomfortable asking the candidates on national TV.  

So...we got questions that probed the huge issue of...is Obama black enough?  Please enough of that baloney!  And has Hillary Clinton done enough for women?  Please!  Is John Edwards' religion completely responsible for his discomfort with gay marriage, and will he repudiate one or both?  Ugh.  Will Islamic sexism handicap the United States if Hillary is president?  Ugh.  A lot of the questions were actually borderline racist and sexist. The Obama question in particular had Cooper insisting...hey, I am not asking the question!

IMHO, because this debate was all over the place, there was not a clear winner tonight.  Partisans and the predisposed, of course, are going to claim their candidate won, but I just did not see it.  Everyone got attacked and embarrassed, and everyone made mistakes, including Hillary Clinton when she said she was "agnostic" (what?) on whether to build more nuclear power plants.  That is not going to work with the environmental community.

Somewhat sadly, I thought that one candidate, Richardson perhaps lost the debate.  I know that is harsh, but he just didn't have it tonight.  He has actually failed to perform well in every single debate.  

Surprisingly, Biden really laid into Richardson tonight.  IMHO, Richardson should have demanded more time to respond because those attacks were forceful and sustained.  Tonight showed us Biden v. Richardson.  I guess Biden is trying to replace Richardson in the number four position.  I think Richardson needs to counter within the next 24 hours, and I think he will.

I thought Hillary was great.  Check out the Survey/USA poll taken just after the debate. It really goes into specifics about how deep her support is in every age group.  It also shows how her support among women has grown in the last few weeks. The poll also gives the statiscal data for the other Democratic presidential candidates as well.  Watching all of these thoughtful people speak about issues we all care about makes me long for 09 and a new beginning.

I've got to say that I was impressed with Biden.  His off the cuff comment concerning that gun nut was a real moment of candour, and I think he said what a lot of people were thinking.  I think comments like that can help you to get to know a candidate far better than a dozen candidate profiles.

Heck, I'd probably vote for him just for that comment.

I thought the debate was the best so far. The questions were pointed and I thought that the differences between the candidates were clear. I thought the format worked well and should be continued in more intimate formats in the future (can you imagine Mitt Romney vs. any of our candidates answering questions from real voters submitting questions through youtube!).

The one thing that really bothers me about the spin that's going on is the media consensus that Hillary Clinton got the best of Barack Obama on the question of whether or not the president of the United States should meet with leaders of foreign countries. The media spin has been that Hillary's response detailing the need to ensure that the meeting would be productive and not used for propoganda purposes showed her experience and made Obama look like a rookie. I had a completely different take on that exchange. I thought Obama's willingness to answer the question directly and promise diplomacy at a time when diplomacy has been shunned as a tool of foreign policy and Hillary's two-bit attempt to look presidential ended in Obama's favor. I don't think any democratic primary or caucus goer really believes that meetings would be held without a plan and a purpose or without the necessary precautions. If Hillary's 'experience' leads her to that, in the media's words, intelligent and far-sighted discernment, then I think her experience is overrated. Conversely, I thought Obama's answer showed leadership on the issue of discourse with our enemies and not endless equivocation (a la George Bush's take on the issue).

Overall I thought the debate's winner depends on your policy preference (for pragnatists-joe biden, for voters who want change-Obama, democratic die hards- Clinton, liberals-Edwards), but I definitely don't believe Hillary stole the show with that response.

It was not a question during the debate...however after the debate Edwards answers more youtube questions....He believes Bush should censured..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2sqwfYBz q0&NR=1

All the front runners did well.  Edwards may have edged clear by a wee bit if you want to call out a "winner."

Obama has to hate when Hillary follows him on a commander-in-chief type question.

In an earlier debate she made him look weak and indecisive when she talked about how she would respond to a terrorist attack, after he had failed to say he'd attack.

She did it to him again last night when she followed him by saying that she would not meet with certain dictators and bad actors around the globe.

No big deal, its early and not many people are watching.  But as the campaign continues Obama is going to have  to think about these moments and make sure they don't keep occuring.  

The format was OK. The questions were great. However, Anderson Cooper as the moderator was sickening. His little comments and the question, "turn to your left", what just dumb. In addition, I did not like the fact that he directed a lot of the meaty questions to the second tier candidates. Despite the fact Hillary got only about 12 minutes of talk time, almost 16 minutes of talk time for Obama and only about 10 minutes of talk time for Edwards, she still come out on top and raised the bar.  I thought Obama did a better job of expressing himself in 60 seconds than past debates. He has a lot of good sound bites.  Also, I noticed more fire in Edwards, which is a good thing.  All of the top tier candidates did great. Biden is very knowledgeable. He's great. I agree with Taylor Marsh that he would make a great Secretary of State. Gravel should not be asked to next debate. He brings nothing of value. Kucinich offered an alternative to my pick for POTUS (Hillary). I thought he did a good job, which was a surprise.

I don't see where anything Edwards did or said moves him up in the polls.  To me at least, his canned answers and use of props (the "guest" with Elizabeth) were pretty transparent and did not flow contextually.  The triangulation answer also reeked of political calculation, especially given how he ran for US Senate as the conservative/moderate choice in the Dem primary, and as a "new" Democrat in the general election.  I was in UNC Law School at the time, and can attest to how furious the liberal activist base (students and professors) were with Edwards' tactics.

Edwards knows that's what a substantial faction of the Dem base wants to hear, and he sees that as his only path to the nomination (becoming the "red meat" candidate).  I would like to see somebody ask Edwards where the "leadership" he demands and says that only he has shown were during his undistinguished tenure in the Senate.  I thought Hillary's best moment was her indirect shot at Edwards about being in the Senate to actually cast votes to impact policy.  Her voice inflection (along with the fact Edwards had just spoken) made it clear what she meant.  As I've said before, his clear ambition and poor constituent service emboldened the GOP's preferred candidate (Burr) to declare for the race early, and he got a huge head start lining up money and support while Bowles had to wait while Edwards vacillated on re-election plans.  Edwards is a big reason why we don't have a Lieberman-proof majority in the Senate.

Obama did better, not great - but good.  I like that he thinks before he speaks, although debate is not his best format.  He also needs to get better at pre-empting criticism (i.e., explain that he has enough confidence in his ability to control the situation to not be worried about being used for propoganda by Iran, mention Europe's relatively "green" reputation despite using nuclear in their energy portfolio, etc.).

Clinton is very polished, and an excellent debater.  Still don't see her entrenched  negatives coming down, which is why I simply can't support her.  We don't need our own possible 50.1 percent candidate, we need a map changer.

Biden comes across as very genuine and passionate.  Agree that he'd be an excellent Secretary of State.  Also gave an excellent answer about Hagel and Lugar, especially the part about hurting their reputations.  That's a GOP frame we need to point out and reinforce heavily.  THEY are the wingnuts, WE are the party of responsible grown-ups.

Dodd is a very generic Northeastern Democrat.  The Senate is where he belongs.

Richardson was awful early, found his footing somewhat as the debate went on.

Kucinich kept plugging his "text peace" schtick, and Gravel was even less substantive.  Somebody needs to have the balls to say he should spend the time he gets giving substantive answers rather than bitching about his airtime incessantly.

I know this is silly and not issues related, but did the closeups of Clinton make her look old and tired?  Maybe it's just me but I think she looked worse last night compared to the other debates.  The other debates she looked more polished, appearance-wise.

Clinton, her voice rising, replied, "I will not promise to meet with leaders of these countries during my first year ... I don't want to be used for propaganda purposes ... We're not going to just have our president meet with Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez and, you know, the president of North Korea, Iran and Syria until we know better what the way forward would be."