To me the real story that should be covered out of this debate, the debate at Howard and the debate before Big Labor is that Democrats seem willing to go in front of a host of Americans whereas the Republicans ... won't. I think that says a great deal. But moving on to the specifics of this debate ...
The set-up and questions and moderating left a great deal to be desired, but I still learned some things, and it showed some stark differences between the candidates. As tends to be the case in all the debates both Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton did a very fine job, and I'd rate theirs the top 2 performances of the evening. Former Sen. Gravel had what was by far his best and most impressive performance yet. And actually Rep. Kucinich seemed surprisingly reasonable before that "text peace" side of him seemed to appear in his final minutes.
The less said about Gov. Richardson and Sen. Edwards the better. Edwards was basically completely nonresponsive when it came to the questions asked. I'm growing to dislike him quite a bit. As to Richardson ... it was typical Richardson - exuding the kind of competence of a man you'd trust to do your taxes, while also boring you to tears aside from when your ears prick up at one of his jaw-dropping gaffes. He really doesn't belong on a national ticket, given that style and tendency. So I'd rate the winners Obama, Clinton, Gravel, with Edwards and Richardson losing ground from how they began the evening. My buddy Luke thought Gravel was the best of the night. It's really quite a contrast in his style - a one-on-one thing like this, versus being part of a panel (which seems to make him insecure and combative).
Posted by armand at August 10, 2007 12:49 AM | TrackBack | Posted to PoliticsWell yes, Bill "Being gay is a choice" Richardson was the clear loser. To be honest though, I missed that because having TiVoed the debate, I become so bored with him after 2 minutes that I skipped to Hillary.