Debate Thumbnails

It must be difficult for candidates to answer complex questions in under a minute (and most took liberties with the time limit in spite of the annoying bell). But, since candidates are expected to keep their answers short, I think I should try to offer my assessment of their performance in quick bursts as well. So, working left to right as they appeared on the stage:

Howard Dean: Dean had the most to lose, and frankly the most to gain by the debate. Going in there was a lot of attention on his post-Iowa wolf howl, and he needed to show that he had not broken loose from his moorings. In short, Dean needed decorum. And, he did a good job. He handled the questions and discussion of his Iowa roar reasonably well, and with humor, and in general seemed under crontrol, and on message. Dean was especially skillful in handling the question from Brit Hume about his passionate leadership, "leading with his heart."

Wesley Clark: Clark may be the candidate who risked (and maybe lost) the most here. The questions were not always friendly, and they seemed to put Clark on the spot. He seemed stiff and flat, did not always handle the tougher questions well, but kept a phoney smile on even while he was being hammered. He fumbled when asked about Michael Moore's criticism of George Bush, and was unconvincing in trying to explain what he said about preventing 9-11. The questions also seemed to reinforce a perception of Clark as something of a political opportunist. Several times he was asked to clarify contradictions in his position, and was put on the spot by Brit Hume who wanted to know "when did you first notice you were a Democrat?" Clark devotees won't be disuaded, but I don't think the General earned many new enthusiasts.

Al Sharpton: It's good to have Al Sharpton in the debate to provide some comic relief, and an occasional eloquent summary of the main issues. Sharpton is especially good with the broad themes and in reminding Democrats why they are different from Republicans. He made up for jumping on Dean in the Iowa debate by helping to humorously frame Dean's Iowa outburst. But, he also gave what may have been the sharpest attack of the debate, going after John Edwards on "states' rights," suggesting that Edwards was something of a latter-day John C. Calhoun. But, Sharpton was also clearly outclassed on some of the tough policy questions. He had no clue on the Federal Reserve, and was entirely confounded by the question on Iranian elections.

John Kerry: Apart from being good, Kerry was lucky. He drew the center podium where his position and stature emphasized visually that the other candidates simply didn't "measure up." He also drew the last question (and was tipped to that effect by Peter Jennings) which enabled him to offer what amounted to the closing statement for the whole cohort of candidates. He summarized the challenge for all the Democrats, and assumed, if only for a moment, the role of presumptive nominee. Kerry's challenge in the debate was to do nothing stupid, and don't screw up. He succeeded, and did more, giving some very effective answers on questions--including the toughest to him about throwing his medals over the White House fence.

John Edwards All the candidates tried hard to turn their answers back to their basic message, but Edwards was best at this. The substance of many of his replies came directly from his stump speech. This is a good strategy for attracting those voters who haven't paid attention until now. It is also a safe strategy. The message is working, and if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Edwards stumbled, however, on a couple of questions. The question about Islam obviously caught him off guard, and he wasn't crisp in explaining his view of the Defense of Marriage Act. He was forceful in defending his vote against the $87 billion funding for Iraq, and had his best moment trying to turn the debate toward the issue of poverty, and the moral necessity of addressing it.

Joe Lieberman: In my other posts, you will see I have not been impressed by Lieberman on the campaign trail. However, he had a very good performance in the debate. His answers were sharp and clear, and he showed a command of the issues. His retort to Peter Jennings, refusing to go negative on other candidates, was both humorous and effective. He also did a good job of distinguishing himself ideologically from the other candidates (which may or may not translate into voter support). Lieberman had to perform well if he wanted any chance to survive New Hampshire. Whether this debate was too little, too late, will be answered on Tuesday.

Dennis Kucinich If he accomplished nothing else, Kucinich showed New Hampshire voters he is his own man. And, while his presentations may not be as polished as those of the others, nobody will accuse him of being insincere or uninformed. Kucinich is hurt most by the ridiculous time constraints on answers. It is obvious that if given more time, he would have offered extended thoughtful answers to many of the questions. Sometimes, although he attempted to engage others, and offer a rebuttal to certain views, he was ignored by the moderators. Kucinich had the only visual aids of the debate, two graphs that were impossible to read on TV. But, his having them suggested he'd done his homework, and could prove the points he was making. Kucinich also distinguished himself from the others, but in the opposite direction from Joe Lieberman. I also found it curious that Tom Griffin, the WMUR anchor, addressed most or all of his "email" questions to Kucinich, and not to any of the other candidates.

In general, a safe debate. No major blunders. A reasonably good job by all the candidates who aimed to show voters, especially undecideds and late arrivers, who they were, and what they stood for.