Opinion: Richardson wins New Hampshire debate

For those of you whose eyes were glued to the television for two hours, you witnessed a much more aggressive, combative and up-front debate than the first one two months ago.  In our live chat during the debate, our visitors had a wide variety of views about who won.  But we did reach a consensus about a few things.

• Chris Dodd did not help himself out at all.
• Dennis Kucinich was predictable, but did not tell us anything new.
• Hillary was Hillary.
• Mike Gravel thought outside the box, but didn't establish himself as presidential material.
• Wolf Blitzer's questions were much more entertaining than Chris Dodd's answers.

Overall, even though some of you may disagree, we thought that the upper second-tier candidates stood out -- particularly Bill Richardson and Joe Biden.

Biden, the U.S. Senator from Delaware, explained his unpopular decision to support the President's Iraq funding bill that did not include a timetable.  He did it by stating that practically speaking, the Senate needs 67 votes.  Until we get those 67 votes, when non-legislators like John Edwards tell you that the Senate isn't doing its job, they are spinning the truth.  Agree with what Biden said or not, he did come across as extremely practical on foreign policy issues.  That will give his campaign more life as we head into the summer months.

Richardson started off very slow.  But as the Brody File agrees, he grew stronger as the debate went on.  He took a principled stance on the Darfur issue -- saying that we should boycott the Summer Olympics in 2008 if China refused to get involved and pressure the Sudanese government.  He was strong on energy and all other foreign policy-related matters.  By the end of the debate, it was clear that Richardson was the most experienced.  The fact that Clinton kept applauding Richardson's work in her husband's administration really added legitimacy to his excellent resume.  On paper, he is clearly the most qualified to be president.  Tonight, he told us why.  He was very effective.  He won the debate.

John Edwards came in a close third.  On the issue of Iraq, he held Clinton and Obama's feet to the fire:

"Others were quiet. They went quietly to the floor of the Senate, castthe right vote. But there is a difference between leadership andlegislating," Edwards said.

Both Clinton and Obama voted against the bill - which passed - but without making a strong case against the legislation.

"I think it's obvious who I'm talking about," Edwards said.

That was one of the many excerpts where Edwards blamed people like Clinton and Biden for not condemning their own war vote in 2002.

As this column is being written immediately after the debate, this is less thorough.  Expect more columns about the debate in the coming days.

Our editorial board has put together rankings for how each candidate did tonight:

1. Bill Richardson
2. Joe Biden
3. John Edwards
4. Barack Obama
5. Hillary Clinton
6. Dennis Kucinich
7. Mike Gravel
8. Chris Dodd

Feel free to put in your ten cents in the comment box.

Comments

[Tony]

Todd,

I mostly agree with your assessment. We still have a long way to go and I hope that our "team" pulls together and does the best they can to straighten out this mess (all the major issues) that we have gotten ourselves in to.

To all that participated in the live chat/blog, we thank you. I think the chat format was great, real time discussion (and very civil if I do say so)

The Blue State live blogs most of the debates, and from here forward will do so with the live chat as well.

Thanks,
Tony

[BB]

Well, I think Biden did well.

I thought Richardson was maybe Fourth.

I had Hillary and Edwards ahead of him.

[Chad]

While I appreciate Richardson as a candidate, I thought Edwards came out on top of this debate.

I personally support Obama, but right now I am fearing he is going to come off to the public as a stiff "Al Gore-ish" candidate that Gore was in 2000.

Funny now that in 2007/8 Gore would be a fresh face.

I appreciated the live chat and hope that you will do it again for the following debates, maybe with more notice this time as to bring in a larger crowd ;)

Thanks Todd and all of thebluestate.com staff!

[George]

They didnt discuss the environment adequately. They don't offer serious, innovative solutions to countering terrorism. Barely a mention of energy independence. Was there even one mention? I admit fast forwarding about 30% of it because i dont care about gays in the military and i cant listen to the hunt for bin laden answers anymore.

Biden did ok? Well, certainly yelled the most. I disagree with his 67 vote nonsense. While that may be true, it doesnt mean that he has to give his vote, right? I thought he was a total joke there. He can yell all he wants - his vote was weak.

Again, I find myself thinking Edwards won.

Obama did ok - nothing special. Not meeting the hype really.

[George]

By the way, I loved the way Obama dissected the validity of the English as the official language question. It's refreshing to see him point out how the media's one liners lead to confusion.

And again I'm totally pissed about the lack of discussion about energy independence. This is serious stuff.

Just give me Al Gore please.

[Adam]

Edwards did come out strong, but I thought the substance of his criticism was weak. They voted the right way, but they didn't talk enough about it? Huh? Only an Edwards supporter would buy that nonsense.
Obama's comeback was pretty devastating to Edwards and led him to offer concilatory remarks later on.

I think Obama won it overall. Biden came in 2nd. Richardson was very disappointing. His "boycott China" idea is not an example of good diplomacy. Clinton did well enough to stay the frontrunner. Edwards seemed way too desperate, like a 2nd tier guy instead of the 1st tier candidate he was supposed to be.
I'd rank it
1. Obama
2. Biden
3. Clinton
4. Edwards
5. Dodd
6. Richardson
7. Kucinich
8. Gravel

[Kevin Lammers]

I don't think anybody "won" and there were no clear "losers". Gavel was the most honest. I particulary enjoyed how he rippped into the big spenders and said they raided the social security fund! We was the ONLY candidate on the stand to go and listen to the Comptroller who has said the US is heading towards bankruptcy. This is the biggest issue facing the country and not a word from any candidate..........

[The Mexican]

Richardson came off very mechanical. He skirted entire questions, only to come in at the last minute, after being re-asked a few times, to clarify his convoluted ideas. I love the guy, but he wasn't good tonight.

[melissa]

i like gravel honesty, kucinich intregrity, obama charmeds, hillary brains, richardson experiences, edwards attractiness, dodd eyebrows, and biden ability to sell a use car.

[melissa]

now, my ideas of the perfect canidate have to be able to appeal to female/male who votes soley on looks, have a experiences, is smart/intelligent, have great eyebrows, fill with honesty and intregrity.

[Chief Editor: Todd]

lol "Dodd eyebrows." nice.

The traditional media is trying to spin that this is a win for Hillary. Yes, there were some instances when she appeared presidential. But the same was the case with Obama. Yet, neither of them won...at least I don't think.

Richardson really improved from the first debate, as did Biden. Yeah, Biden might be completely wrong about supporting the President's Iraq bill. But he clearly explained his positions by using practical language.

[The Mexican]

Edwards dismissed the idea of reading the NIE report, in a classical Politics 101 way, by sidestepping the issue, and talked about his sincere idea of redemption through apologization.
Clinton tried to gain some credibility about having sought out dissenting opinions and doing exclusive debriefing with purported military and foreign diplomacy major-thinkers, but yet, she couldn't go read the bill with the other six people; when one doesn't have time to read the evidence for or against, then the credibility and validity of opinion is run rough-shod.
Obama is still buying into the framed argument that Iran is developing nuclear weapon, which isn't entirely supported by basis of fact, and Biden kept them in line to reason.
Biden is a straight-talker that deals so much in reality and pragmatism that he's an absolute with hardly any proclivity towards hopefulness in optimism, making him stiff but needed--good for high-level position, not president.
Dodd seemed more forthcoming than Richardson, and he seemed incapacitated in thought.
Richardson should be boycotting the central institutions that rest in the autocratic state of captialism taking advantage of his illegal brethren, not worrying about boycotting China. As a socialist, I yearn to help those in Africa, but after Iraq, I'm becoming more about isolationist and non-interventionist policies than policing in force. Like Edwards says, they need universal education, industrialized medical facilities, and huge strides of diplomacy, which Richardson skimmed but didn't extrapolate.
Dennis Kucinich is my point of reference for the human condition's state of primitive and archaic evolution in mentality. All he says is for peace, helping others, and securing all our problems in the States, yet he won't ever be elected. While a perfect state isn't possible, attempting to reach the state by all means should be priority to evolve from benighted ideals of death penalty, eye-for-an-eye, and other revenge sacrifices that send opposite messages to an enlightened state of being, of which, not during my lifetime, we will ever attain--and sadly so, not in any lifetime beyond that. The medical terminology of Circling the Drain has never been more true for such an idea. And so it goes.
Gravel was keeping it honest, until he raised his hand for making English the official language. This immense country is built on the bones of previous owners like the Native Americans. I'd only agree to have English as the national language under an absolute mandatory foreign language requirement. Other countries do it to an extent that some learn between 2-5 languages. It shouldn't be just a req into college, but as complementing our groundwork as students in elementary through high school.

I'm disappointed by the debate. I don't feel there is enough being said by any one politician. I don't even agree with most Ron Paul's notions about libertarianism and conservativism, but he's the only one making the debates exciting for me, other than Gravel. I want to see the freakshow how it is, not polished for cover pages on magazines. I'm so disenchanted after this debate.

[The Mexican]

Oh, and as for Clinton, she tried to defend the debunked idea that "we only gave the president authorization to diplomatic solutions", and while that may very be reasoned, it was blatantly clear that Bush was not going to exercise patience and came out in many interviews and live press to indicate he will engage in military action. Clinton knew this, as do some of them that defend their complicity and capitulation, but that's where prescience evades even the highly intelligent.

[Frederick]

Hillary won. She answered each question honestly and methodically. So what if she does not see the world as good/bad votes as right/wrong? Bush was clear on what is goo/bad and right/wrong. Look where that got us!

Edwards was too negative. He looked too much like a boy waaaahing because he isnt getting enough attention. Obama needed to be more coherent, but I still like him above all.

[The Mexican]

I attempted to bring back some optimism in a previous blog post, but the debate knocked me on my ass. I realized that optimism is a wellspring for the underdetermined, and there is a cognitive dissonance in the deconstruction inherent in this realization. And I believe this is a source of my constant moral conundrums in my rumination process. But, what keeps me sane and determined is this belief in hopefulness, because if that's not there, like Prv. "FatBody" Pyle, I'm in a world of shit. The unfortunate reality is that this belief for common good goes against the world of politics' ideal of objectivism that Ayn Rand postulated; and while it should complement the good-thought that if I enlighten others, others will make enlighten decisions--made by Socrates--but it isn't the case.

One more thing, Richardson wanted Line Item Veto. That's a horrible power to give any president, and the fact he doesn't want to give it to Bush, but would take it for himself, seems to be inconsistent. People with that power might use it righteously for some justice, but given that power, it becomes corrupted, which recedes all righteousness.

Can you not tell I'm frustrated beyond belief? Someone divine me positive meaning in this debate. I need it, honestly.

[granny]

The thing is, we bring our personal baggage, as well as experience, with us when we sit down to listen to these debates, and in the end, sometimes I'm not sure how I come up with my own reactions. And I hasten to say, ranking one over another for the debate, is not the same as feeling they'd be the best in the White House.

My sentiment:

Edwards/Obama share # 1 in their answers.

Clinton:Toughest
Biden: Next
(...but I'm in kind of a "whacking" mood, and they're both clearly into "whacking, so I liked that. I don't trust either of them) so that would make

Richardson my #3: I thought he gave solutions. I liked his answers. I think he's pretty solid.

I think Edward's answer to the first 100 days question was a disaster. It really bothered me.And if I were rating just this debate he would be at about #5.

Dodd & Gravel each gave some great retorts and answers.

I love Dennis Kucinich. He keeps the crowd more honest.

That's the thumbnail sketch for me.

I'll end with Al Gore, who wasn't even there, but had he been, would he have done well? I'm not sure he would have.

There's such a fine balance between having "right"/good answers, moral authority, and handeling the quick response give and take in a way that comes out well over all. That's a strong factor in how we come up with our conclusions.

[granny]

Hey there, if the Mexican has got it right and Richardson is for line item veto, he goes off my list at #3. Nope, can't support line item veto.

So where do I end up? I want them all to add to the dialogue, and I wouldn't vote for any of them but Edwards or Obama, at this point.

[The Mexican]

Oh, and for Dodd, he really screwed up. When the woman asked about vetoing pork-barrel spending, he tacitly said no--"rigid straight-jacket." This blog defended the pork added to the Iraq spending bills, and I thought that was very unacceptable. Liberals and other Dems scream blasphemy to the conservatives about pork spending, but when they did it, it was defended? Sorry, there needs to be consistency. Peanut silos and all seems important, but whether or not the Repubs finished spending bills to overload the Dems, it only helps the Repubs send a message of Dem hypocrisy to their base when the Dems engage in pork spending. And sorry, but the Iraq funding bill isn't the bill to pork. That was nauseating. In my moral and ethics classes, when this debate came up, I didn't defend the liberals. I let the liberal classmates get devoured for defending that notion. And I don't apologize one bit for it.

[The Mexican]

Oh yeah, Gravel's response to mandatory service or some service to the public realm is much-needed. Plato said democracy was one of the lowest forms of government, because it turns into popularity contests. And look at 2000 and 2004. A step in that direction is very suited for getting people involved in politics and the global community, and that's very valuable. I know most love American Idol--(Dolittle should have won, hands-down)--and The Sopranos(Tony!), but they do distract the public that choose not to be involved or remain uninvolved when they believe they are not being affected by the policy-makers. People would be more involved, and hell, Gravel said for every year in service, he'd give four years of education pay. Fuck yeah, excuse my language (to those offended). I'm nearing poverty-level as a college student, and would be if not for scholarships, so I'm very supportive of encouraging spending towards education. Besides, the amount we spend of defense should go more towards social services and education. Mighty deities, what good that can create.

[Beth]

I only caught about half of the debate last night. Overall, I was NOT impressed at all. Richardson obviously is a diplomat, but probably is not testosterone-filled enough for many Americans. Biden came off all right, but maybe a little too hot-headed at times. Kucinich and Gravel are important for bringing up things the mainstream refuses to talk about, but neither is electable.Now if you had Jim Webb saying pretty much the same thing, people would jump on the bandwagon, particularly if he took the same positions on trade. No, he is not as articulate as Hillary and Obama, but he comes across as solid. Why isn't he there? Why isn't Feingold there?

[granny]

Education, foreign language skills for all children beginning in elementary school (kindergarten is a perfect age to start), and Election reform, are all absolutely essential to begin diggin our way out of our present dilemmas; And which candidates mentioned them at all?

Biden was on Election Reform. Was he the only one? And his emphasis was not overkill. Until we stop being able to "buy" the presidency, and Congressional offices we're going nowhere new.Bought and sold is bought and sold: it's still thievery to the unwealthy.

Gravel, elaborated most on the language and education issue.

In retrospect, 2 hours of debate, and 3 or so of aftermath, that's kind of pathetic.

I wonder if election reform is even possible at this point. Where's it going to come from with every single elected official in debt to a donor?

And by the way I saw reference somewhere in the last day or so to Bush's election in 2000 and 2004. Bush was never elected. That is a piece of history that needs to be kept in plain sight 24/7, and relentlessly persued. Those elections were both stolen ... the first in plain sight of the whole country. A televised event. And the second with somewhat more planning and a little better hidden, but Ohio would be glad to tell us about it.

[Erick]

From your contributing partner who wasn't here after the debate, but is now!

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

It's not what you say, it's what people hear. Edwards was the only one who was jargon-free, down-to-earth, humble (about being wrong), uniting (complimenting others' decisions) but honest (condemning those who didn't show leadership), passionate (about health care and security), optimistic and realistic. All the candidates showed one or more of these elements, only Edwards embodied them all. He out-Clintoned a Clinton. He was the Bill Clinton of this debate.

Richardson has experience, but he lacks the figurehead characteristic of a President to connect and relate to the American public.

[Jan]

Although I usually agree with Blue State on everything, I have to disagree on Richardson.
I loved the Heroes' Health Care Card, but otherwise, I disagreed with most everything. I'm a teacher and even disagreed that education and teacher's salaries should be the most important issue in the first 100 days.
I also completely disagree with Kucinich that Democrats have any responsibilty whatsoever for the failed policies in Iraq.

I'm calling the following people in for a third interview: Biden, Clinton, Edwards, Obama.
(Oh, and Al Gore or Howard Dean any day they want to walk through the door.)

[bkapca]

Who won? Well, the person who has the most experience, knowledge and leadership qualities. Of the eight participants only Obama, Clinton, Edwards and Biden qualify.

Richardson, Kuncinich, Dodd and Gravel will have at the most, minimum impact on the race.

Edwards comes across as hostile, arrogant and strident. Dodd is very likable and knowledgeable but lacks the fire. Kuncinich is in la la land with his totally socialistic and unrealistic views. Mike Gravel is a cartoon.

In the final anaylsis, Senator Clinton carries the day. Not that the other front runners had a poor showing, it is just that Clinton is the full package. Her health care knowledge and experience, years in the White House, her somewhat hawkish views and her humor carried the day. And of course, Opra admitted that it takes a village.

[Erick]

JAN -
You aren't disagreeing with The Blue State - I work here too and I didn't think Richardson won the debate at all. Richardson spent the entire night reading his resume to the world. While he's very experienced in the past, it represents almost a rite-of-passage attitude that I'm growing more and more to resent. We have a President who was elected with absolutely NO resume, so the need to express one from Richardson seems over-the-top and certainly isn't a motivating factor for voters around the country. I know he's pushing to expose himself as the most credible (that, he may be) but he's certainly not Presidential.

President's don't talk about what they have done, they talk about what they WILL do. President's don't lead in past-tense. Edwards all the way.

--Erick