The NY Times’ take.

There were a lot of winners at tonight’s Democratic debate. And this one matters.

Being a liberal activist, one of the risks I encounter is being too focused on spin and nuance and polls to hear what the larger audience is hearing, the men and women who will ultimately choose. Most of them watch snippets from the news or read a daily paper, and gradually come to decisions. They have issues that matter to them, to their families and neighbors. They hear about issues that are way down on their personal scale of importance, but they listen more and look for differences more when their big issues get discussed.

In some of the earliest primary states, more voters have been paying closer attention for some time because they know the country will be looking to them, looking to see what they think, and they take the responsibility seriously, to deliver the best answers they can. But most of the people in other states haven’t been as closely focused. They haven’t been watching the debates, haven’t been getting emails from candidates or listening to YouTube speeches. And tonight, that’s changed.

How do I know? Ratings? No, it’s because I talk to and question people around the country. Most of them have opinions on half a dozen issues and vague impressions of the leading candidates. But now, the holidays approach, followed quickly by the primaries. Next week, families will be sitting down for turkey and family discussions and maybe some football. And inevitably, as happens when families gather, economic issues and political issues will come up for discussion. As well, there’s a writer’s strike in Hollywood, and the TV fare is lagging a bit. Based on previous election cycles, and things I’m hearing in phone conversations, I feel certain this debate will have been seen by more Americans than all of the previous ones. So this is the first, I believe, that matters to the 46 states that follow the first four.

Now, finally, I’ll start taking the polls more seriously, starting next week. And if I’m right, that this one will help form lasting impressions, that leads to the obvious questions: how did they all do? Did one or more win this one?

First impression: despite an occasional awkward moment, I think most of the candidates demonstrated a solid command of the issues. Most were pretty adept at thinking on their feet, at snapping off sharp answers that drew good responses from the audience. Occasionally, some reached into their bag of canned responses and the muted or disapproving audience responses usually reflected how well that sort of answer played out.

Second: some of the candidates were good at drawing the cameras back to them via interjections, especially in the early going. But that was driven because the moderators were provoking confrontation, then allowing rebuttals. In addition to the moderators provoking that, they also were not fair in spreading around the questions. It was evident to me because I was tracking it, but it was subtle enough that most people likely missed it.

Despite that, every candidate was solid enough that I think most Americans would believe that each of these candidates could do an adequate job as President, even if they came away with a negative impression or two.

.

One of the two granted the least attention was Christopher Dodd. He got half the opportunities to reply as the top candidates did. While his answers were solid when he did speak, little was said that drew the visceral gut-level response from the audience. His best two answers were on education, which he indicated was the major issue underlying all other problems, which many Americans might dispute, and when asked if securiity or human rights was important, he was quick to say security. But the topics most Americans came to hear about were directed elsewhere. Because of the bias of the moderators, he never stood a chance. Most voters likely rated his performance as a C-.

Dennis Kucinich was treated worse. He was given the same few opportunities overall, but didn’t get to speak once in the first half hour. Then, when four distinct questions got asked of all seven, one time, they excluded only Dennis. At one point, when he started to interject sarcastically, they cut him off, unlike anyone else, too. Yet he proved a pleasant surprise because he got off a few great lines that drew positive visceral responses. his best came when it was mentioned he was the only one to vote against the Patriot Act and he said “That’s because I read it.” He then pointed out that the others had been wrong on the patriot Act, on the military authorization for Iraq, on China Trade and on other issues, then asked the audience to imagine what it’d be like to have a President who got it right the first time. he stretched it to say Bush and Cheney should be impeached NOW, which drew one of the best audience responses of the debate.

On the other hand, a couple of times, when he started mentioning his record, the answers seemed prepared and lacked spontaneity. As unfortunate as his treatment was by the moderators, another thing worked against him: the physical impression. It’s not just that he’s short. He also has a slight unkemptness about him. His haircut simply looks poorly done, giving him the look of a history professor, slightly rumpled and fashion adverse. While I avoid distinctions like that in my judgments, I think most Americans don’t. So I expect they rated hima C, or maybe a B-.

All the other candidates got treated fairly evenly beyond these two. Some got more air time because they had more to say and were good at blocking off moderators trying to cut them off. Some, because they drew more criticism, were granted extra time to rebut. But they were roughly equal in the number of questions they got asked.

Though polls indicate Joe Biden has pretty marginal chances, he was treated far better by the moderators. He also displayed more brevity in his answers. He was good with humor, too. Unlike others, who tended to sarcasm, his one liners weren’t directed at his peers. And some were self-deprecating, so he came across as an affable man. The one time he actually did get more directly critical, he reversed himself midway to make it clear he wasn’t criticizing Hillary. I didn’t assume, as some have, that he was gunning for the VP slot. More likely, it’s just that he’s more ideologically aligned with her positions and enjoys partying with the Clintons. But that’s my activist attention to detail. Most Americans probably noticed little beyond the affability.

Still, many of his responses almost seemed like Points of Order as he tried to redirect from what others said, where he claimed they had the premise wrong. It had the impact of drawing attention to perfectly good points, but they lacked the followthrough that that keeps an audience in hand to register more points. It’s hard to find a defining moment in his responses, because of that. His points were valid but they didn’t stick. Brevity may be the soul of wit, but it doesn’t make for the best soul of a campaign. As a result, most would likely rank him about the same as Kucinich, which means no higher than a B-.

.

Bill Richardson got a hair less attention from the moderators than Biden did, yet he capitalized better. He’s come a long way from his first debate. On some issues he gave better answers than his peers, and he was better than previously at forcing his way into the debate.A couple of times he was a little less smooth than the best off-the-cuff speakers , but he never left the impression he was less than Presidential.

Several impressions stuck well. He was good on education and when he added college loans to the equation, he set himself a step above the other answers given. When asked about troop versus contractor compensation, he was quick to say he’d shut down the contractors completely, all troops out in a year, with a new GI Bill, better VA options and his advocacy for better mental health care really had the audience approving. His principal mistake was mishandling the question about whether human rights or security mattered more in Pakistan. He should have rejected the either/or premise and describe how human rights is a necessary complement.

His best moment was his command over the immigrant issue. It’s clear he’d provide unyielding leadership on that, even if there’s political risks in doing so. And leading in to that, he was right to chastise Kucinich for lumping him in with the votes made by the others on stage, followed by a dig at Congressional approval ratings.

It’s hard to guess how others react to his immigration stance, but his mention of his experience and his visible leadership couldn’t fail to impress. I’m guessing they’d rate him about an A-. (Like Huckabee on the other side, he keeps on coming and he’s clearly become a contender.

Which leaves the media designated Top Three.

John Edwards was set up, but not just by the moderators. They provided the bait but he clearly came in prepared mainly for that bait, and his performance clearly suffered as a result. The media narrative had him and Obama hurting Hillary last time out, and he wanted to pour on more of the same. Which undid him. Early on, there was some back and forth between Obama and Clinton. And when they went to Edwards, he was quick to decry the powerful monied interests ruling government, to call it corrupt and make it clear he was hanging that on Clinton’s back.

The second time he did that, it sounded like a few Hillary supporters booed, but by the third time, more of the audience joined in. Clinton countered by accusing him of using the Republican playbook.

At that point, I found myself asking “Senator, is that all you brought to the game?” Which is not good, since I recently endorsed him. Fortunately, he took the hint and stopped the David vs. evil Goliath schtick there. When the questioning came from undecided voters and was asked by a Marine’s Mom how to counter the push for another war, he said Bush, Cheney and the neocons had to be fought every step of the way and called on Congress to display some backbone. His strongest response would follow when asked about post-9/11 racial profiling.

He said the Patriot Act was abused, that racial profiling had to be stopped, then decried illegal spying on Americans, called for Gitmo’s closure, and an end to secret prisons, rendition and torture. He redeemed his night’s performance with that, yet overall, he was outdone by Clinton, Obama and Richardson. He’s going to slip if he doesn’t do better in the next debate. I’d say most would rate him a B this time.

.

The media’s determination to make this a two way race continued, as Obama and Clinton got more questions asked and were permitted more rebuttals than anyone else in the debate. Not by much, but both capitalized well on the opportunity. Early on, Hillary Clinton was asked about playing the gender card and she was clearly ready. Her prepared answer came across very spontaneously, and mentioning the 95 year voter who witnessed women first getting the vote (and eager to see a woman president) added a nice touch that was designed to appeal to senior women voters. It worked. She did it while dispelling the idea that she was attacked for being ‘the girl’, saying she was only attacked because she was ahead. Which also worked, even though it was not improv. Her first effort - saying she’d brought her asbestos pantsuit - had fallen flat.

On all the issues questions, she came across competent, cheerful, unflappable and in command, though handling the gender question was where she shone best. I may continue to fault her based on her record, but last night, her only weakness came near the end. I’ll cover that next, but in the eyes of most viewers, she probably rated an A, and certainly no lower than A-.

On to Barack Obama. People use the term ‘rock star’ and he was clearly one of the two who had full command of the stage. Even where his answers waffled some, he seemed poised, confident, and never came across as mean, even when clearly attacking. He was strong while denouncing weaknesses in trade with China, and was solid on immigration and education. After some initial sparring, he waited till late in the debate to start making clear some distinctions between him and Clinton.

On the question about a potential new war with Iran, he made it clear that not only was diplomacy required but said he’d lead the diplomacy, distinguishing himself not just from Bush, but from Hillary, too. And the clincher came on the issues I didn’t even want in the debate: Social Security and Medicare.

However, he didn’t make the discredited claim that the system was in crisis. Instead he indicated he’d stop the raids on the trust fund that Bush had made, that privatization was unacceptable, and said he saw no reason to raise the retirement age. But he would raise the payroll cap on contributions above the current first $98,000 in income. Clinton followed by saying she’d seat a bipartisan commission to figure out the details but she was opposed to the raised cap because she felt that would hut the middle class and seniors.

Obama countered by saying that was the top 6% of income earners, not the middle class, but the rich. Though Hillary tried to rebut that, her answer was tepid and it was clear he’d indirectly made his point: she’s out of touch with what the middle class is. Though Edwards had been booed earlier for tying her to well-heeled corporate interests, Obama cashed in without seeming shrill or repetitive.

As a result, I think most viewers would rate him as a solid A.

I can’t be sufficiently objective to determine if he outperformed Clinton. Instead, I think the winners and losers are as follows:

1) Democratic voters were likely to find most of the candidates acceptable and pleasing, so they had to feel confident that the White House can return to sane hands.

2) Hillary and Obama edged out the others, but not by a whole lot over Richardson.

3) Edwards likely took a small hit so if he slides 3 or 4 points next week, I won’t be surprised.

4) The only truly week performance of the night was the work of the moderators, particularly Blitzer. And particularly in spreading out the questions better.

As I said earlier, none of these candidates embarrassed themselves to a point where most viewers would automatically reject them. But I’ll add there’s a reason why Clinton, Obama, Edwards and Richardson have established themselves as the four most electable. As a result, at this late stage in the campaign, I’ll accept the critiques of my liberal peers, but I feel it’s time to say, flat out: only this group of four is likely to produce the eventual nominee.

That means in my future ratings while I’ll acknowledge things the others add to the national debate or how well they put the top four on the defensive and make them address the issues, most of my ratings efforts will focus on the top four. It’s just too late for the media bias to be knocked aside for any of the others to mount a last minute rally.

Similarly, on the GOP side, there’s only 5 contenders now, and McCain’s slippage nearly has him out as well. Based on funding, polls and momentum, I’d say the edge there slightly favors Romney over Giuliani, something I predicted many months ago when I heard Jeb Bush was backing him. Thompson may be in third place but he has zero momentum. Huckabee could emerge to challenge the leaders, despite the dirty laundry he carries that the media studiously ignores.

As I cover the top eight from here on out, I’ll also be wayyyyyy briefer after this. Because nobody really cares if a blogger can outpredict anyone else, so why bother making your eyes glaze over?

.

Other views: Michael Scherer at Salon gives a fair amount of the blow-by-blow, while being fairly bored.

Robert Naiman at HuffPo derides Hillary’s answer about Iran (a point I forgot to make).

Ari Melber’s two winners sounds more like he’s a DLC Democrat than an objective rater.

Mustang Bobby said much of what I said, only better and briefer. Marc Ambinder at The Atlantic was similar, too.

Stephen Cassidy at MyDD gives the edge to Richardson, with some good quotes to support that.

Scarecrow, at FDL says Hillary, plus Dodd, Biden and Kucinich. Huh? Not one mention of Richardson. And the media sucked.

Chris Bowers at OpenLeft thrashes the postdebate media narrative while bemoaning its influence.

Garance Franke-Ruta at Tapped is all about Hillary. So is Taylor Marsh.

Susan Davis at Washington Wire, more restrained, also gives Hillary the nod.

Jeralyn Merritt says Hillary, Dodd and Richardson won.

Jill at Brilliant for Breakfast adds some different points, but it’s clear she’s still rooting for Edwards.

Prairie Weather, well, just wasn’t thrilled.

Andrew Sullivan can’t stand Hillary, or Democratic debates. Roxanne can’t stand Andy.

Kevin Drum just reports, with few assessments.

Presumably a Libertarian, David Weigel at Hit & Run dishes out a fair amount of funny, though i don’t quite get his thumbs down on Richardson.

Scrappleface has TEH funny.

And the Republican responses? They think Bush’s heiny tasted wonderful last night, again. But the Dems just taste like poo.