Last NH debate

[M]

I think this debate was worthy of a thread, even though it was fairly dull. Who do you think were winners and losers tonight?

I think the following:

Winners

Kerry- nothing especially defining for good or evil. But he didn't hurt himself, and for a frontrunner that's good. He was consistent with his views, though I personally disagree with most of them he presented them well.

Edwards- acquitted himself fairly well despite flaws, especially messing up meaning of Defense of Marriage Act. Peter Jennings asked him a ridiculous and irrelevant question, asking him to share his knowledge about the teachings of Islam. Edwards sort of dodged the question, but I would have too. What was Jennings thinking? Was he just being PC, or trying to mess up Edwards?

Lieberman- surprise winner, was the best showing in the debate and his best yet. Lieby has distinct principles which, while to the center of most dems, he articulated clearly, intelligent, and even, at times, rather wittily (surprse surprise!).

Losers:

Howard Dean- didn't particularly hurt himself, but this was his chance t help himself bigtime. His lack of especial passion was probably unappealing to his core, and he apologized for the famous Hitlerian rally a little too much and too debasingly. It seemed like every time he opened his mouth he said something about excuse my hooting and hollering, until finally Sharpton made fun of him pretty well and he stopped.

Kucincih: you know, just the usual bu I mean, gimme a break already! Still the unintentional comic relief in Survivor: the Democrats.

Sharpton: the usual silliness, but also a big stumble on the Fed. He was asked who he would appoint to chair the federal reserve but seemed not to understand what that was. Finally he said something like "Uh... someone skilled in , uh, banking, who would help with the... uh, Federal (pause) Reserve". I think that shot his chance of taking any Southern states barring massive wierdness. (Who asks Al Sharpton serious presidential policy questions, anyway? Sheesh!)

Wes Clark: The evenings big loser. The gaffe over the Moore thing was avoidable and stupid. He could have used something like Edwards line on Terry McAuliffe's statement "I wouln't have said it like that, but yeah, I'm opposed to it." Instead, he said something like, "I don't know, and tell you the truth, I don't really care. This isn't about facts. It's about the future".

I'd like to here others' observations.

[M]

Overall a very interesting debate despite the fact it had few really memorable moments because of the current fluidity of NH. Edwards could have a shot at getting ahead of either Clark or Dean, possibly both, to become 3rd or 2nd.

Something Edwards is doing wrong: both in his website and his public appearances, he consistently refers to only SC and not the other Feb 3 primaries. While SC has been played up as the most important state tha day, partially because it is very different from the Northern states, he should at least try to get some delegates from other states that day.

Still, if he gets decent scores in NH, perhaps even a god 4th place finish, he should be able to defeat Fritz (no, not Comebackerry) in SC, then win the Feb. 10th primaries. After that things get fluid.

If Leiby can pick up a single Feb. 3 state (Delaware? Arizona?), he just might be able to score in NY, whwere his opponent had been Dean... fe could have delegates to throe to Edwards at the nomination. And a Lieberman/Edwards ticket, with those in either order, would be hard to stop even for Bush. I might even vote for it, especially if Joe heads it. They are the only candidates who consistently advocate a fairly aggressive and pro-democracy foreign poicy, compared to Kerry and Clark's James Baker policy of 'stability' over freedom, and Dean's incoherent mutterings. That scores with people like me.