Bill Richardson:

He is a governor. Ok, we got that now ;-)

He was obviously overbriefed, had memorized answers ready for questions that didnt quite fit them. He isnt a good debater by the look of it. He looked grim at times and was visibly angry at Blitzer for not giving him any question before even longshots Gravel and Kucinich had their turn. Later Blitzer cut him off many times before he could gracefully finish his answers, which was kind of rude. Still, he should not make the impression that he feels put back.

In an live interview with Anderson Cooper shortly after the debate he was sooooo much better. He gor across what he wanted to say and looked less scripted. He seems to excel when he is really in touch and up close with a person/an interviewer. I guess he will excel in a real town hall format event where there can be true interaction with voters.

He made news (although the MSM decided otherwise) by saying he would use the US participation in the 2008 Bejing Olympics as leverage to get the Chinese to help end the genocide in Darfur. I think Dodd looked petty for saying that would be a disproportionate measure. Disproportionate to end a genocide? Really?

Richardson had a good answer on immigration reform, again hampered by a moderator trying to put the label "amnesty proponent" on a democrat.

Joe Biden:

He was witty, he was surprisingly brief and on topic with his answers, he showed passion, he looked likable and presidential and he threw Democrats lots of red meat (public financing of elections, "this is Bushs war", "while you keep talking, 50.000 more people will be dead in Darfur"). He got across, that he has lots of foreign policy experience and he did it well.

He was the one who probably most exceeded expectations. A real time survey of debate watchers by WMUR saw him actually rising to first place!

Mike Gravel:

Attacked the other democrats on stage relentlessly. Said, that democrats now own the war too. Made Barack Obama look pretty bad by asking him why he didnt know about the desastrous conditions at Walter Reed, although the senator is on the senate VA subcommittee. Obamas wonky policy answer didnt really explain it. Enough said.

Dennis Kucinich:

Had his new agey leanings under control this night. No talk of a department of peace or any such thing. He gave Obama the perfect opening when he declined to bomb Osama bin Laden if any civilian casualties would be necessary. Said he doesnt believe in assassination policy, which would come back and haunt America and might open up our leaders for similar things. Good answer, but makes him totally unelectable in this time and universe. Maybe in another one, where the Vulcans were enslaved by mankind...

Barack Obama:

This is the third live event where I saw him talk and the second debate. I simply cant see what others see in that guy. He looks very young, he gives very wonky and longwinded policy answers. And sometimes he even stuttered when answering questions. He looks very serious and scored some points when he said that it wouldnt be an assassination to kill Osama bin Laden, since he - under international law - is a military combatant. In his back and forth with Edwards he conceded that his Universal healthcare plan isnt really universal and replied that Edwards plan isnt truly universal either. As if that makes his plan any better.

He pointed out that he was against the Iraq war from the beginning and in his best oneliner of the evening he accused Edwards of being "4 and a half years late" on leadership on this issue.

Hillary Clinton:

Did well, very well. Didnt really stumble, even looked likable. She had big applause lines when she announced that she would "use" ex-president Clinton (who is by coincidence her husband) as a roving ambassador and send him all around the world. She had the best oneliner of the evening when she quoted Barry Goldwater in response to a "Don't ask, don't tell"-question: "You dont have to be straight, to shoot straight".

Now the bad: She is clearly running as a hawk, repudiating John Edwards, who said that the GWOT is just a political bumper sticker used by the Bush administartion to justify Iraq, Guantanamo, retraction of Habes corpus and domestic spying. She actually said, that Bush made us safer (just not safe enough), thus reinforcing several republican stereotypes.

She also used the memory of 9/11 to justify her hawkish position.

Most worrisome for me was that she still cant bring herself to admit, that her Iraq vore was a mistake. She also couldnt admit, that her husbands "Don't ask, don't tell"-policy was a mistake. She seems to be genuinely unable to admit mistakes. This is a dealbreaker for me, after 6 years of a president who is too stubborn to admit mistakes and correct them.

John Edwards:

He went on the attack, in his trademark way of attacking without looking mean. He scored points on honesty in politics (admitting his bad judgement on Iraq, saying upfront that democrats will need to raise taxes for universal healthcare, although the latter position migh actually harm him in NH!). He portrayed himself as a leader while depicting Hillary and Obama as opportunists who only decided how to vote on the Iraq supplemental at the last minute.

He had a very good, very detailed, diplomacy centric answer on how he will deal with Iran, surprisingly the best and least hawkish answer this night. He effectivly countered the impression that he is a light-weight on foreign policy.

He didnt connect to voters in the audience as well as I expected. Neither he, nor any other candidate, adressed one of the questioning voters directly by name, which I found VERY surprising, since it would be the obvious choice, to really connect. Especially the first women who was almost in tears cause her husbands unit in Iraq had just lost two comrades would have been perfect to show empathy. But neither Edwards nor any other candidate got out much more than platitudes about being "thankful that you serve". Bill Clinton would have won the debate on this question alone. But there was no BILL Clinton on stage.

Edwards looked a little bit tired to me. And he couldnt replicate his first rate speech at the DNC winter meeting where he got the crowd on its feet repeatedly. Edwards therefore probably didnt meet expectations which was also measured by WMUR.

Although he won the first half of the debate, he kind of dissipated in the second half, professionally ignored by the moderator and havinf to beg for 15 more seconds.

Christopher Dodd:

A solid debate appearance. He looked presidential, he was knowledgable, but he also gave typical Washington DC insider senatorialesque answers (not as bad as Obama, but bad nonetheless). He might be the John Kerry of this election cycle if Joe Biden doesnt take this role. He animated the audience to give our servicemen in Iraq a hearty round of applause. Whether he could score a point by this, I simply dont know. He made a reference to John F. Kennedy, which cant be a bad thing in a democratic primary debate, by speaking about his participation in the Peace corps. He also scored some point by admitting his mistake in initially voting for the war but showing leadership now to end it ASAP.