Winners:

Biden
Gravel
Kucinich
Clinton
Obama

Losers:

Dodd
Richardson
Edwards

Gravel was a winner for the shear nonsense he brought to the debate.

Without it I may have fallen asleep.

Did anyone else catch Richardson's comment to the tune of "Americans want candor, not fancy haircuts"? Maybe I caught it wrong but I was surprised to see Richardson taking shots at Edwards. In general he seemed very aggressive for someone who I THOUGHT was running for VP.

As posted in Post Thread 1: Edwards DID NOT raise his hand, and Obama DID NOT look around before raising his.

Richardson looked nervous, unprepared, and not in tune with the democratic party. I was quite disappointed with his performance, as I thought he may be a surprise tonight.

1. Edwards

2. Dodd
   
3. Clinton
   
4. Obama
   
5. Richardson

I thought Obama and Richardson were trying to sound hawkish.

Best Line, IMHO, goes to Obama:

We are one signature away from ending the war in Iraq

Great way to frame it, after his poor answer last month.  

1. Edwards
   
2. Dodd
   
3. Clinton
   
4. Obama
   
5. Kucinich
   
6. Richardson
   
7. Gravel

Edwards gave the best answers--"we need weapons other than bombs"--but his delivery could have been sharper, more energetic. He needs to bring some of his stump energy into the debates. And I'm pretty sure he didn't raise his hand when asked if he believed there's a global war on terror--that shocked and pleased me.

Obama looked like a president, had a good delivery that made his answers seem deeper than they were. He'll be unfairly beat up for not mentioning Israel as a top ally.

Richardson lost.

No, I missed the haircut thing.  I really wanted Hillary to be shorter and more forceful on the  question of the GOP being stronger on national security than Democrats.  She said all the right things, but I wanted something snippier than the,"It's more myth than reality" line, which was buried in her other statements.

I must also add that Biden gave a big support to Obama when he mentioned the bill the cosponsored.

Mike Gravel for vice-president!!

Well, not really, but given the two pussy performances we've seen from the Democratic standard-bearers in the last two elections in vice-presidential debates, I'd like second place on the ticket to be taken up by someone with a more Agnew-esque attack dog personality.

Richardson clearly lost, any idea of him getting traction in the blogesphere war really shot down I thought.

I posted this in the other thread that is probably over now, so I'll post it here too.

--------------------------------------
Well I guess I"m the odd man out here on how Edwards did on the last question and how Obama did on the repsonse to Kucinich.

I actually appreciated Edwards's long pause because it meant he was actually thinking about the question. That's a pretty deep question and it was nice he didn't have a pat response (like just saying Jesus or Gandhi or something). Because the original question was who was the one person. And he couldn't think of just one person.

As far as Obama. I really didn't like his response about Iran. To me it felt like September 2002 all over again when he said we know that Iran is trying to build a nuclear weapon. Do we really know that or are we being fed a line again because a bunch of hawks want to go to war?

Did anybody else have the same impression?

Winner is Gravel.  Winning for him is relative, of course, since he is struggling to break into the third tier.  He might have been able to do so tonite.  We'll see if he breaks out of the 0% margin of error.

Loser is Clinton.  She appeared to be just one of many candidates, and did not bring the awe of inevitability to the debate.  This was expected, but as these fora increase through the season, her lead will continue to drop.  

I am interested to know how many people actually watched the debate.  Next state or national poll of likely primary voters should include the question "Did you watch the candidate debate" and I would like to see crosstabs for just this group of likely voters.  

Wow, is there anything more ridiculous than these interviews on MSNBC with Wolfson, Axelrod, et al.?  

I wish Edwards had been stronger, but perhaps his strategy is to stay right where he is while the bottom tier drops out and it becomes a three-way race with the top two doggin each other.  He better watch out for Dennis, though -- betcha lotsa Democrats liked what they heard from him today.

Who watched this debate, anyway?

Tweety needs to stop with the sexist talk about Hill's voice, tone, and modulation.  It's really stupid.

I was surprised: Clinton was sharp, crisp, clear, loud voice, prepared, calm. Dodd was forceful, confident, consistent, an old hand at it. Obama's voice shook a little at first but then he got more comfortable and was smooth and forceful, complete answers.

Edwards voice was slow and soft southern and he didn't look as keyed up as the others, not loud and forceful. Good answers, but very abreviated, but more interesting than last campaigns.  

Richardson was better, so was Biden, in the post-show.

60-second sound bytes are good for senators. The senators were all loud, crisp, points one-two-three. It felt like a spelling bee.

That cranky old man was exactly on point.  I never realized that I needed a pissed off old man who doesn't give a fuck to voice my opinion on MSNBC... but I love him now.

If Gore doesn't hop in, and he's still around when primaries are here, Gravel won my primary vote tonight.

Plus, he's down for single-payer universal healthcare...

I posted this on the thread at Michigan Liberal. These are just the impressions I got.

___
This is by no means how I rate the candidates overall-- right now, I'm undecided between Obama and Edwards, with the outside chance that Richardson could win me over. But here's how I thought they performed in the debate (Note-- I'm not commenting on the substance so much as the style):

Winners:

Chris Dodd, Joe Biden -- Both of them managed to show why they were in the race. They made good, solid points, didn't say anything too stupid (a problem for Biden), and showed themselves to be skillful senators and politicians. Neither of them were overly-verbose, which seems to be a problem for some folks.

No Change:

Barack Obama, John Edwards, Hillary Clinton -- The three leaders seemed to play it safe, and very rarely said anything to "rock the boat" or ruffle any feathers. None of them had to be noticed. Instead, they seemed to go in showing that they could hold their own in a debate setting, and each seemed to speak with the general election in mind. That doesn't mean they didn't take solid, progressive stances or have good lines. It means no break-away performances, and no catastrophes either.

Losers:

Bill Richardson, Dennis Kucinich -- Kucinich, first: whenever he gets attention, it seems like he loses. I really do agree with some of the things he says, but half the game is framing, and he can't present himself as a serious contender. He might drive the field to the left a little. More likely, he'll end up attacking Edwards and Clinton on their Iraq votes while stressing the importance of having someone that was right from the start... and inadvertently helping Barack Obama.

Bill Richardson disappointed me tonight. I still like him a lot, and he's got the best resume in America. But with his experience and his knowledge, I honestly expected him to run circles around everyone else with policy questions. Maybe it was the format, maybe it was my unreasonable expectations, but I didn't see anything there tonight. At some point, he'll need to have a really good night to move into the top tier. This wasn't it.

Other:

Mike Gravel -- He needed to get noticed, and he did. But, while I agreed with a lot of what he said, he came across as a progressive Zell Miller. I think he'll get a little bit of a boost, especially in terms of free media (whether he intended it or not, he provided some instant soundbites for tomorrow morning's news broadcasts). But for calling himself an "elder statesman," he came across more like the old lady that writes long, rambling letters to the editor every day.

Biggest Loser:

Brian Williams and MSNBC. Brian Williams was whining about time way too much, and I hated the format. Concise is one thing, but 20 seconds? Ga! Like one commenter on DKos or MyDD said, when did presidential debates become gameshows? That's how it felt to me.

The msnbc panel is declaring Clinton as a knockout winner.  Did they see something that I didn't see?  My most vivid memory is seeing Clinton fidgeting and twisting in the wind in the background while others were speaking.

Chris Matthews, from what I heard, thought Obama did very well...sophisticated was his word.

MSNBC'S MATTHEWS - HILLARY 'DID VERY WELL.HER PRESENTATION WAS VERY SOLID.VERY IMPRESSIVE': -- "I thought Hillary Clinton did really well tonight. As a frontrunner, I think she held her place. I think her voice, her manner, her presentation was very solid.I thought she held herself as a frontrunner and kept her status.I think that she kept her voice, and she was very controlled, and very professional and very impressive." [Chris Matthews, MSNBC, 4/26/07]

MSNBC'S SCARBOROUGH - HILLARY 'SOLID.HER ANSWERS.WERE STRONG.': "Hillary Clinton.Not flashy but solid. Her answers on health care and government competence were strong." [Joe Scarborough, MSNBC.com, 4/26/07]

BOB SHRUM - HILLARY WAS 'SUPERB': "Clinton was superb.Winner: Hillary Clinton." [MSNBC.com, 4/26/07]

WASHINGTON POST'S CHRIS CILLIZZA - HILLARY 'CRISP AND CONCISE,' 'HELPED HER CAUSE BY FLASHING HER EXPERIENCE AND THE BREADTH OF HER KNOWLEDGE': "[I]n Clinton's case, she may well have helped her cause by flashing her experience and the breadth of her knowledge on the issues. Clinton was crisp and concise, rarely going over her allotted time and keeping to her message of experience and leadership." [Chris Cillizza, The Fix, 4/26/07]

MICHAEL CROWLEY - HILLARY 'SMOOTH AND STEADY': "Smooth and steady--she's disciplined and it shows." [TNR.com, 4/26/07]

TUCKER CARLSON - HILLARY 'RELATES TO THE CROWD,' SHOWED 'NOBODY IS BETTER IN THIS FORM THAN SHE IS': "Clinton came out and immediately got specific and earthy. There is a gospel band, voices of Christ up on the stage. She comes out and immediately says the music here world-renowned, terrific, I love South Carolina, your ROTC program has boosted all these generals, details about the school itself, the crowd loved her.Hillary Clinton always goes for the specifics, and always goes for the specifics that relates to the crowd that she is speaking to. Nobody is better in this form than she is."  [Tucker Carlson, MSNBC, 4/26/07]

Such stupid and obvious questions that elicited what? Anything profound? controversial? Sincere?

Who I'd rather have making & asking the questions:

Bill Clinton
Howard Dean
Helen Thomas
Chair of local Dem party
Chair of local Republican party!
Markos
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
Al Gore
Howard Zinn
Rachael Maddow
Alec Baldwin

wow the political establishment pushing Clinton----couldn't help Obama more.

I can't rate any of the candidates as harshly as I rate the vacuous b.s. commentary of the hardbloggers.  Am I hallucintating, or did one of them compare Hillary to Ronald Reagan in a positive fashion??

I thought most of the candidates did, well, normally.  This shows me though, that there was room for Al Gore & Wes Clark, especially on national defense issues--that would have truly been a treat.  I really wish that somebody used the opportunity to respond to Rudy Giuliani's comment much more harshly.  A draft-dodging chickenhawk who would dare aspire to the highest office in our country deserves the worst.

Richardson was the net loser because he was positioned to gain and did not. Had been picking up in the polls, in a tier of his own above the 1%ers.

But tonight he seemed flustered. Not composed and presidential. The short answer format was handled poorly. He should have taken my advice and linked each answer to one simple story about his experience. Instead he tried to cram too much in to the confined space and appeared frustrated.

Obama and Hillary solidified existing support.

Through no fault of his own, Edwards was lost in the shuffle.

Will be lots more in the coming days at my site and will welcome your calls on blogtalkradio tonight at midnight EDT.

Good job on the "radio" by the MyDDers tonight!

Richardson really hurt himself tonight otherwise nothing really happened.

Buchanon
Carlson
and Shrum attacking Obama

any questions?

0 for 6 Shrum is really the best person to judge a democrats electablity along with Buchanon and Carlson, I think this hurts Hillary among the base.

I think this widened the gap between Hillary and Obama - she beat expectations and he didn't meet his. She was clear and he skirted his questions. Edwards had a good showing, wish I'd been able to hear mord of Chris Dodd, because I thought he nailed what few questions he was asked. Hopefully Richardson and Gravel (any maybe Biden) will throw in the towel (kucinich never will) and we'll be able to see a good debate with a more managable number of participants. This was way too many.

As usual, the media driven by the political correctness that plagues the US culture presented again a weak show of the same polished rhetoric that does not promote any significant engagement from the voting public.

The losers, as expected, were all candidates with a lot to lose. Edwards was unnoticeable. Obama and Hillary were dodging the chance to really make a difference. Too early for risky moves perhaps.

The winners were the Joe Biden and Chris Dodd. Both relaxed and clearly articulating their position with less regard to excelling in political correctness.

Mike Gravel did a good job replacing Al Sharpton, doing an even better job. He was a good contrast and really made evident the others are just representatives of the political establishment.

Governor Bill Richardson and Representative Dennis Kucinich pretty poorly tried to present their resumes as their platforms.

By the way, that thing about Bill Richardson giving Alberto Gonzales a little more time because he is also Hispanic did not fit well. This is not a "good old boy" election for a club president. Favoring someone just because of ethnicity affinity is not a positive political record for a president. I wonder what Bill Richardson would say if Bush were to think a little more about firing someone because he/she was white (very hypothetical situation to make my point :-)).

Senator Edwards is the most electable candidate and tonight showed that he is the leader we need to put a Democrat in the White House and to bring about real change.  Democrats cannot afford to lose the next election - there is too much at stake for our country and the world.  

Posted this on the last thread before seeing this one.  

No winners.  Edwards was strong in a number of places, but the long pause was definitely weird if not necessarily "bad."  Obama didn't do anything amazing, but I thought he was fine.  I liked him best during the argument with Kucinich.  

I thought Biden was pretty good, actually.  Dodd was fine, though I honestly can't remember anything in particular he said.  And Gravel was just a distraction - how is it productive or interesting for him to be involved?

If there was a loser, it was Richardson, which is a shame because I do like him, but he just looked awkward and had a few weird answers.  Unlike some people I thought his answer on the Gonzales/Hispanic issue was totally fine and his interjection about a military response was fine, too.  I don't mean that I agree with him, I just thought it was a perfectly good way of describing his role and stance, communicated well, and potentially helpful to his campaign.  

Not really relevant to winning and losing, but kind of funny - he did trip himself up a couple times "noose lukes" and "a post-democratic Cuba."

It also drives me nuts that the only person anyone ever makes any comment about in terms of their voice is Clinton.  We get it.  She's a woman. Women sound different than men.  We're not used to them being in power so the way they talk sounds wrong.  It just makes me crazy that this is considered a viable subject for discussion.  If you find her voice annoying, frankly, I think it's a problem that you need to deal with, not something worthy of broadcasting to the rest of the world.

I don't mean that it's off-grounds to talk about mannerisms, presentation, etc.  Obviously, that's a huge part of the discussion.  But there's a difference between that and the simple "her voice is grating" type of comments I've heard over and over (not here, but out in the "real world" mostly) which could equally be applied to any woman in the world.

Edwards is not electable.  He is too pretty and does not have enough substance.  Too bad when he could not bring a tear to his eye when he told the story about his father leaving the resturaunt... because they couldn't pay for the meal.  In my world that's called Tuesday.  He shouldn't be getting $400 haircuts.  The Democrats will lose if they are foolish enough to nominate him.  Richardson on the other hand is down to earth and electable.  The best of all worlds.

MADAME PRESIDENT!

I have no idea who won, but certainly love the spin, spin spin

Missed all but about 5-10 minutes, had evening office hours after soccer practice.  Is the video anywhere?

i am copy pasting from kos..

NEW! SurveyUsa Poll... Obama won the debate!
by manqilla
Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 08:56:03 PM PDT

31% of debate watchers say Obama won

   * manqilla's diary :: ::
*

U.S. Senator Barack Obama emerged a clear winner in Thursday night's debate among 8 Democratic candidates for President of the United States, according to a SurveyUSA poll of 403 South Carolina debate watchers.

1,250 SC adults were interviewed by SurveyUSA immediately following tonight's 04/26/07 Presidential Debate among 8 candidates for the Democratic nomination. Of the 1,250 SC adults interviewed, 403 said they had listened to the debate and were included in this survey. Margin of sampling error among the 403 debate watchers is + / - 5.0%

31% of debate watchers say Obama won. Obama, the only black candidate, was the overwhelming favorite of black debate watchers.

U.S. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton finished in 2nd place........24% of viewers.

Former U.S. Senator John Edwards finished 3rd.........14%.

Obama did three times better than Clinton and twice as well as Edwards among South Carolina's Independents. Obama and Clinton tied among Democrats. Edwards and Obama tied among Republicans. Clinton won among white viewers. 60% of debate viewers were white. 36% of debate viewers were black.

MSNBC needs to get NEW and more DIVERSE commentators.  They were all Hillary supporters, their commentary of the debate was absolutely horrible.

   I don't care who "won" the debate.  That's not why I watched.  I wanted to see how the candidates would perform when given the chance to speak.  I look forward to a debate which would actually give the candidates such an opportunity.  Raise your hand?!  

Pre-debate pick:   Edwards, Richardson, Biden, Dodd, Kucinich, Clinton, Gravel.

Post-debate winners:  Clinton, Biden, Gravel, Kucinich.

Losers:  Edwards, Obama.  Edwards looked tired & Obama was nervous & hyper.

i have a strange feeling Clinton is not sincere when she says she will bring the troops home if elected president.

Ignore my signature line and clear pro-Edwards-ness...

Edwards missed an opportunity to really bust out.  I still think (objectively) that he did the best tonight and presented himself as authentic, someone with a real set of core values that drive him, and able to communicate a progressive vision in a way that people understand.

But there was no winner tonight.  Nothing even approaching that.  We won't see a 'winner' until the field is narrowed.  Howard Dean needs to have a sit-down with Dodd, Biden, and Kucinich.  The former 2 might be able to be persuaded to drop out and save face.  The latter will not, but someone needs to try.  

I think Hillary was the big loser because the inevitability sheen has now completely worn off.  She had to come out very strongly to prove that she is indeed the superior candidate that everyone has made her out to be.  She was maybe among the top three performers tonight.  Not good enough for the person who was the presumed nominee for the past two years.

I thought Obama was supposed to be such an amazing rhetorician, but he was flat-footed, rambling, and unable to communicate anything resembling a unified vision.  I've seen him before, and I have been impressed at times, underwhelmed at times.  I could live with him being the nominee and he's still my second choice (a distant #2 at that though) - but he did nothing to impress me at all tonight.  Again, like Hillary, I think he took a net loss not only for the content of what he said, but also how he said it.

Edwards missed a golden opportunity in some ways, but in others, I think he has clearly staked out a place in the field of the Top Three and his continued driving of the campaign narrative by setting the standards and frames of conversation means he's in a good place to continue to capitalize upon a great grassroots operation and truly resonant message and campaign style.

Most memorable line:  John Edwards answering the question about his biggest mistake.  He said it was Iraq and not listening to his instinct (or something to that effect).  It looks like that story about a high $$$ consultant telling Edwards to vote for the war to give him future capital in foreign affairs was right on.

Ranking the candidates ....my humble opinion.

1. Biden - increased his likability with me and was knowledgeable. I agree with his plan for Iraq, dividing the country. Yugoslavia Redux.

2. Hillary - came across as strong even though she  was trigulating too much. Weak on Wal Mart question. Overall did what she had to do.

3. Gravel - even though he came across as unhinged he probably doubled his base of support, the Lyndon LaRouche crowd. He probably did more for his campaign from this one debate than any of the others.

4. Edwards - came across as genuine. Seemed honest in his answers. Handled the haircut question well, but overall was low key tonight. My guy was a little tentative tonight. Maybe that was because of all the "gotcha" questions thrown at him.

5. Obama - came across as presidential, but it felt like I was watching John Kerry debate. The expectations were way too high for him. People were expecting magic. He didn't deliver ...tonight...maybe next time, since he has got one under his belt.

6. Kucinich - the only guy with the balls to hold others accountable, though I think he has got a little Napoleon complex.

7. Richardson - I like his stance about Iraq, but overall he didn't impress me much. Didn't really like his answer to the "biggest mistake" question. Ran over his time too much. Seemed more long winded than Biden usually is. I've liked him in other venues.

8. Dodd - somebody had to be last. Dodd really made no impression on me at all.

Edwards reminded me of Bush in the Bush-Kerry debates. He took about 25 secs. to answer "who is your moral leader" when the political answer is obvious. If that was a presidential debate, he would have walked out of it down 15%. God is the answer the Indies have to hear in about 2.5 sec. and if you have to think for 18 sec., you are not to be taken seriously.

HRC and Biden were the clear winners, with Obama and Richardson coming on at the end. Obama made a few gramatical errors that I would make fun of Bushg for making so Barrack doesn't get a pass.

ND1979,

Amen about Clinton.

I can't believe that Hillary isn't being called on the carpet by every liberal blogger for attempting to wrap herself in the false garb of someone who has been calling for legislation to end the war for "years" as she said last night.

MSNBC had a reality check portion of the show which clearly pointed out that she supported the war and when she finally started moving against the war, she opposed legislation with any timetables until just recently.

If we let her go on this, what next?  Are we going to let her claim that she actually opposed the war right after she voted for it.  Oh, hold it, she has already claimed that she never voted for war, just for the President to be able to go to war.

A few knocks on MSNBC:

Why was the debate limited to 90 minutes with 8 candidates?  They had three and a half hours of spin/analysis afterward -- couldn't the debate have been 2 hours?  3 hours?

Instead of talking about what just happened all night, how about showing it again in its entirety, for people who were still at work (it was over by 5:30 on the west coast.)  Political junkies like us probably recorded it, but most people probably forgot it was today until it was already over.

Why so much coverage of the top 3 candidates in the post-game?  This was the first real chance for the other 5 to be seen and heard, and MSNBC (and the other networks) made sure they weren't seen again afterward.  In all the hours of post-debate coverage, I saw zero clips of Biden, Dodd, Kucinich, or Gravel, and only a few of Richardson.

There is some really fascinating feedback on some clips from the debate at www.messagejury.com, they used dial testing with votes in IA, and came up with some great stuff. Check it out.