MY TAKE ON LAST NIGHT'S DEMOCRAT DEBATE

Moderators/Questioners (DOWN) This was one of the worst groups I've ever seen. Brit Hume was a questioner/co-moderator, but I think they should have had a journalist in this position instead of a RNC PR mouthpiece with a stack full of Drudge Report printouts. But at least he could form a sentence in English, which is better than I can say for the New Hampshire "local talent".

[Today's Howler goes after Peter Jennings's "deserter" questions for Clark. -MoF]

Edwards (DOWN) Except for his shaming Brit Hume for baiting him on the gay marriage (non) issue for the third time in the evening, I found him particularly spineless and car-salesmanlike. I got the impression that he can think and talk fast, spouting rhetoric without actually taking a stand on an issue.

Dean (UP) I can't exactly say why, but he did a lot to inspire my confidence this time around. He did not appear to dodge questions or weasel-word his way out of taking stands on devisive issues, nor do I think he provided his opponents (or the Republicans) with any ammunition.

Clark (DOWN) I really want to like this guy, but he's looked like an amateur, albeit a gifted one. His evasion of questions read too loudly, and he did not distinguish himself other than to refer (too many times) to his military background. I may be swung the other way, but right now he's looking like veep timber.

Lieberman (UP) I'm beginning to really regret the fact that he doesn't have a chance. His biggest liability in the primaries is his support for the Iraq war, but I can't fault him for sticking to his (and what used to be my) position.

Kerry (EVEN) Not a great debate performance. Gave very wordy, unparsable evasions. Still, came off well in the second half.

[A good evaluation-

Kerry's understandably playing the game conservatively here (keep in mind NH primary voters include independents) but while I was disappointed with his attacks on Dean I've been impressed by his, for lack of a better term, professional growth: he seems to be matching his record with a much more open and more passionate campaign (rather than debate) style that bodes well nationally.

Dean alternately impresses and worries me- he has that rare and necessary fire to defeat the Unclean One, and gaffes don't push you out - (shit, look at the Unclean One) how you handle them, or allow them to be handled, can. This media BS about the "rant" is titanically vapid and unfair, the naked values of a TV producer, but I am still looking for a consistent, mature, excellent response; politically, I actually think Kerry has a better record on progressive values.

In Lieberman's case his biggest weakness for me is on constutional rights generally, and the Patriot Act in particular; as far as I know this is his strongest questioning of it; it follows his foreign policy ideas, but he has a record of pressuring and humoring civil liberties; which is puts me in a choice between Dean and Kerry, and thinking of the possibly comparable difference between Bush and McCain in "electability." McCain looked great, but some missteps, underestimating Bush's despicable and hideously huge campaign, and lack of strong old-fashioned political networking sounds familiar. PWP]