The Blue State Opinion: John Edwards wins first debate

After a very intense discussion between members of our team, The Blue State will declare John Edwards as the winner of the first Democratic presidential debate.  He was clearly more prepared than anyone else, appeared the most sincere and positive as well.  Here are our rankings, from best to worst:

1. John Edwards - Most straight-forward in his answers.  Clearly came off the best.  He had a lot riding on this debate, and came up big.
2. Barack Obama - Being attacked by Kucinich and Gravel made him look more mainstream and more electable.  Strongest on foreign policy -- really shined on that issue.
3. Hillary Clinton - Very sharp answers, especially around the end.  Saying that she was from New York twice, while speaking in a non-New York accent, may have hurt her sincerity.  But overall she was surprisingly analytical.
4. Joe Biden - His infamous one-word answer contradicted criticism for his typically long-winded rhetoric.  Strongest tonight on the issue of non-Iraq foreign policy.
5. Bill Richardson - Stumbled a bit on the Gonzales question, but rebounded when he talked about North Korea and Iran -- since foreign policy is clearly his strength.
6. Chris Dodd - Exactly what we expected out of him.
7. Dennis Kucinich - Picking a fight with Obama just to pick a fight didn't help him at all.  Obama should have ignored him.  He actually should have spent more time talking about Cheney impeachment.
8. Mike Gravel - The "potted plant" comment was the most thoughtful insight he said all night.

We would love your comments.

Comments

[Matt]

Strongly disagree that Edwards won this debate. In fact, he looked like won of the weakest candidates on stage and was quite disappointing. I expect more. He dodged at least one question, and took him quite a while to answer others.

[sleeper414]

dissagree with edwards, but still is in the top 3, i think the msm over rated hillary, she looked very presidential nonetheless.

obama held his own, and did even better when kucinich attacked him. thus allowing his "magic" to continue.

other than that, not a whole lot happened, the debate shouldve been 3 hours. i thought everyone but gravel(not surprisingly) did well.

i could see joe biden as secretary of state. and richardson as VP or UN secretary.

there is still alot in there air, but the big winners were clinton and obama....once again.

[George]

Here are my rankings:
1. Edwards - I've never been an Edwards guy but he looked strong and honest here.
2. Gravel - He was classic. He stole Kucinich's niche and reflected the frustration of a large sect of the nation. I'm not sure why NBC basically turned his mic off for most of the debate.
3. Obama - seemed very nervous early on giving generic answers, but gave a great answer on abortion and closed strong, culminating with his handling of Gravel and Kucinich.
4. Biden - good job out of him. He's looked like a strong statesman.
5. Clinton - bah.
6. Richardson - disappointing for me. Looked like a fool on the Gonzalez question and on the gun question.
7. Kucinich - whatever.
8. Dodd - is it possible to get excited about him?

[Tony]

George,

My thought's on Gravel; he would be good to feed information to someone, and that someone would have to filter it. I agree with he voiced what the average person would say and feel. He kind of reminds me a little of me, unpolished but makes some good points in a rough way.

[Tony]

George,

My thought's on Gravel; he would be good to feed information to someone, and that someone would have to filter it. I agree with he voiced what the average person would say and feel. He kind of reminds me a little of me, unpolished but makes some good points in a rough way. Other than that I'm on board with what Todd laid out.

[Tony]

double comment post typo. that's what i get for stopping the comment and adding to it.

Joe Scarborough must have been surprised when he asked Hillary's camp "who do you think won" and was told "Hillary"

[Disillusioned]

Better late to the party than never I guess..but my take isn't far off from yours.

My impressions:

1. Edwards seemed a little tired, distracted, or both at the beginning. I got the feeling that this "debate" was a nuisance to get over with. However, with everything that man has on his plate right now between the campaign and Elizabeth, he came out strong. Best line of the night was the line about Americans having more to be patriotic about than war. His take on the "GWOT" won it for me personally.

2. Hillary. For as much as I truly, truly, hate the thought of her in the White House, she was probably the most polished candidate up there and held her own with ease. However, she came off as a bit too scripted at times, but this could just be me.

3. Obama. He didn't live up to his hype, which is a hard reputation to uphold 24/7. I got a sense that we saw more of the "real" Obama up there, and less of the rockstar performer than we're used to. He held his own for the most part, but took a serious step down on my ladder with his position on expanding the military.

4. Richardson. What can I say? This was his chance to TRY to move into the top tier, and he blew it. Repeatedly. His slim chance was lost tonight, and after hearing his views, I'm rather thankful for that.

As for the others, I'm not even going to get into them. They are not serious candidates, and they know it. It's fun in a way to have them out there shaking and moving the dialogue, but ranking them as if they stood a chance in hell would be as much of a waste of time as their campaigns for President. Heh!

Great analysis guys!!

[Chief Editor: Todd]

Great points, you guys. Matt, I can understand why you did not think a lot of Edwards tonight. He is definitely not my favorite candidate -- and the regulars to this site know that quite well. But is just seemed like he didn't hesitate as much as Obama, and he was not as dry as Hillary.

George, I thought Gravel's best part was after the debate, when he spoke with Chris Matthews. For awhile, I thought it was going to end up being a Zell Miller incident...but Gravel was a bit more subdued.

Interestingly, John King of CNN thought Biden won the debate. lol I don't know about that. But it Biden certainly did do the best, in my opinion, among the group of second-tier candidates.

Keep those comments coming. This is a great discussion.

[Ben Bang]

I agree. Edwards won. Though Dodd rose the most in my opinion, though that's only because he had nowhere to go but up. If anyone lost, it was Obama, who lacked focus and never could've lived up to all the hype anyway. It's early, but I think Edwards took the biggest step towards becoming America's next pres last night.

[Cap]

Sorry for being late. I just found this site. Generally, I think having eight candidates on a stage is a difficult format to pick winners and losers from.

These are just my impressions of the candidates, not an attempt to rank them.

Edwards: He didn't come across as sanctimonious or self-righteous as he has in some recent appearances. Some of his answers, like the one you quoted about having to leave the resturant as a kid, were clearly rehearsed beforehand in anticipation of the question, but delivered very smoothly. I've noticed that, unlike the last campaign, Edwards doesn't smile a lot. In terms of substance, he didn't really get a chance to get all of his vaunted bold specific proposals out there, which I think was his biggest miss. But then, just look at the first few questions he got: "Senator Edwards, I certainly don't care about your getting $400 haircuts, and yet, I'll bring it up anyways. *cough*faggot*cough* Your response?" "Senator Edwards, you claim to want to help poor people, and yet, after you left the Senate, you went out and earned some income. Doesn't this make you a big fat hypocrite?" "Senator Edwards, how about I just set you up to take a whack at Hillary Clinton and thinly disguise it as a question about Iraq?"

Obama: Obama excels giving a speech or talking to groups of voters. In a debate format, he's about average. Having listened to a debate from his crowded '04 Senate primary, I was expecting this. My worry was that others' expectations would be unrealisitically built up for him, and the big media story would be "Obama fails to walk on water." That doesn't seem to have happened though. He gave an average performance and the press didn't beat him up for it like I thought they would. So in that narrow tactical sense, you could call this debate a win for Obama. The argument with Kucinich and Gravel over military force was handled well, and probably helped him. He also responded to the health care question with some specific guidelines instead of talking about hope and whatnot.

Clinton: She clearly also had a lot of answers rehearsed beforehand. Unlike Edwards, they tend to come off as rehearsed. When she was asked the Wal-Mart question, you could see by the knowing smile on her face that her team had anticipated this question a mile away. Her answer, "It's both good and bad. Good back when it was smaller and just providing cheaper prices (i.e. when she was on the board of directors in the 1980s) and bad now that it's gotten too big and damaging communities (i.e. after she left)" was clearly designed to be on both sides without looking like switching positions. She's in the lead, so she doesn't need to wow anyone, just to look presidential and keep repeating her talking points. James Carville was quoted as saying in Our Brand is Crisis "Reporters are gonna ask all these distracting questions - 'When did you stop fucking sheep?' and blah blah blah - think of answering these questions like a game: How few words does it take you to shift the topic back to your core message?" Clinton was clearly following that advice.

Richardson: He's supposed to be the regular joe of the bunch, but he looked and sounded really tense. A missed opportunity, to be sure, but I don't agree that he blew his entire campaign as someone here suggested. It's two days later, and people have probably forgotten it already.

Dodd: Vanity candidate. He's an accomplished Senator and a domestic policy liberal on most issues. I especially like his pushing the Family and Medical Leave Act in the early '90s, and his current focus on curbing predatory lending practices as chair of the Senate Banking Committee. But still...vanity candidate. He should go back to his good work in the Senate.

Biden: Best one-liner (or one-worder, as the case may be) of the night. Definately a smooth talker. He didn't get asked a lot of serious questions, though.

Kucinich: Williams: "You say that most 'real' Democrats support your positions. So why aren't you doing better in the polls?" Kucinich: "This debate is about to turn that around." He used that line in an '04 debate in Iowa, in response to a similar question. It wasn't true then, it's not true now, he knows it's not true. That's not why he's running. I wonder if Dennis is going to be a permanent fixture every four years on the campaign trail.

Gravel: The court jester. Adds "gravitas" to Kucinich. Thinking ahead, the DNC usually lets all the losing candidates deliver speeches before the National Convention. I wonder how Gravel's speech is going to go over?

[A. Anderson]

My views on the debate on Thursday are as follows:

Hillary kicked butt! So her comments were rehearsed, she came prepared.
Obama just didn't do it for me.
Edwards was decent, but not great.
Richardson was annoying.
Biden was mediochre.
Dodd was forgettable.
Kucinich needs to get his head out of the clouds and come back to reality.
Gravel was etertaining.

[A. Anderson]

My views on the debate on Thursday are as follows:

Hillary kicked butt! So her comments were rehearsed, she came prepared.
Obama just didn't do it for me.
Edwards was decent, but not great.
Richardson was annoying.
Biden was mediochre.
Dodd was forgettable.
Kucinich needs to get his head out of the clouds and come back to reality.
Gravel was entertaining.

[A. Anderson]

I want to appoligize to anyone who had to read my post twice, I thought I stopped it before sending it with spelling mistakes, so I sent it two times....sorry again.

[Chief Editor: Todd]

A. Anderson, don't sweat it. Thanks for your comments. I agree with you about Kucinich. lol Definitely too ideological for my blood.

[Susan Nunes]

My opinion of the debates is this:

Edwards won the debate, no question, but then again, he won virtually all of the 2004 debates. He was strong, he was specific, and he handled some of the stupidest questions ever hurled at a candidate with finesse.

Biden did surprisingly well. He has a sense of humor (as shown by the "yes" remark), and he knows his stuff, just as one would expect from somebody who has spent nearly 35 years in the Senate. Edwards should watch out for him, for a lot of people like him, and this guy, if he can get the money, could very well turn this race around.

Clinton did well. She was poised, she was direct, and she knew her stuff. I put her right behind Biden.

Dodd--He did okay, but nothing out of the ordinary. He didn't screw up, either.

Richardson--He was off his game for some reason. I didn't care for some of his answers. I just don't know what was wrong with him, for I have seen him in person, and he is much more impressive.

Kucinich and Gravel are sideshow candidates, and they acted like they came out of one. They need to be off the stage, given the fact neither has a chance of winning the nomination.

Obama--He was a total disaster. A complete and total disaster. Despite the tons of hype about him being a "rock star," a "black JFK," and a "great orator," he can't debate his way out of a paper bag. I cannot believe anybody could possibly think he did well at all. There is simply no substance there, and it is clear to me he is in over his head running for president. Voters had better reject him or Democrats will face certain defeat in 2008.

A guy like this won't get any better. He is nothing more than the Howard Dean of 2008, but without Dean's lovable tendency of putting his foot in his mouth.