More raise your hand questions, please!

rather than "BSB grade"? 

Unless I missed something, you are speaking just for yourself when you post, right?

*this is not an attack*

I'm not speaking to the substance of your analysis---yet  :-)

...but agree with most of your other points.

Richardson was by far the poorest showing of the non-Kucinich/Gravel candidates. I was a borderline supporter and even though it's just the first debate (and eighteen months prior to the general election), he needs to turn things around quickly.

Hillary didn't do anything to hurt her chances, which is about what the front runner wants to do. Actually had some pretty good answers, including bailing Edwards out on the hedge fund question (BTW, hedge funds, really? I think they could have addressed the moderator could have addressed this issue better if he had asked about executive compensation. It would be nice to see who would through their big-money contributors under the bus).

Obama was a mixed bag. He was kind of bumbling around at the beginning, but I loved his response to the out of context Palestinian quote. I'm not sure why he's engaging in a fight with the lunatics.

I think Edwards got a surprisingly small amount of mike time. Had some good (the resteraunt story worked) and some odd (what was with the 15 second pause before answering the morality question? Was he trying to convey thoughtfulness or indecisiveness?). Overall, nothing damaging (although Richardson did take a nice swipe at him) but nothing great either.

Biden was a pleasant surprise. The verbosity answer was the best one liner of the night by far.

I'm kind of surprised Chris Dodd skipped the debate...oh wait, he was there?

Kucinich. Noted without comment.

Finally what is it with Alaska and crazy old man politicians. I would love to see a coot-off between Mike Gravel and Ted "tubes" Stevens. They could debate the issue of keeping you damn kids off my yard.

Quick hits: 

Although I'm not a fan of Chris Dodd and find him a bit douche-like, I honestly think he performed better than about half the field. He was clear, articulate, and well experienced in the format.

 I'm personally bumming after Richardson's showing and I keep telling myself that it was a function of the crappy format.

I will vote for Hillary if she ads the Tin Man to the ticket

I wil vote for Obama if he stops talking in unity cliches.

I will vote for Edwards if someone asks him a question about policy

I will vote for Kucinich if he promises to fire more people on the 6 O'Clock news.

I will vote for Gravel if he continues to refer to himself as a dicot.

I will vote for Dodd and Biden if they realize they're not running against Bush.

I think the winners last night were Gore supporters. I hope Al was watching last night and decides to start hitting the treadmill.

97X .  . . BAM

Remember:

1. We don't elect senators to the White House. Not since 1960, and rarely since then.

2. Edwards, Obama, and Clinton have a combined zero hours with real foreign policy experience. Reacting to Bush-Iraq policy doesn't count. Richardson has led multiple talks with North Korea, leading to an agreement to reduce their nuclear program.

3. He's hispanic, so you can still be proud of electing a minority.

4. He's from a red state. John Kerry didn't bring anything by being from Mass.

5. He surely isn't on pace to peak too early and burnout Iowa voters ala Howard Dean. He's just boring enough to appeal to corn farmers.

I know none of these faactors alone make one an ideal candidate. Combined, however, they are enough to keep him viable after a lackluster debate.

I assume. I didn't watch the thing.

BSB Analysis of Democrat Presidential Primary Debate

Edwards~

Any criticism of his "pause" is quite cynical~ He was asked "what one person influences your moral outlook", and I'd be hard-pressed to name just one person also. After he mentioned "my Lord" (I'm Buddhist and even I pray a lot too!), he said his wife is a big influence- anyone paying attention can see that they are a team and she is a great lady- and when he said his father, I felt that was a genuine emotional response and I could relate to that.

I thought he did well in emphasizing his "big-picture" thinking with regard to America's role in the world, and how we are seen, and how our leadership in the world has been undermined by this Administration, and what he'd do to remedy that going forward.

Dodd~

I thought Dodd's performance was good, though he's not my choice in this primary for a few reasons (I'm supporting Edwards, for what it's worth). I thought for a guy a lot of people don't know much about, he sounded informed and calm, and that would make a good impression, people will be willing to hear more from him.

Hillary~

I thought Hill's answer about Walmart was on target: "Well, it's a mixed blessing." She explained that it provided retail to rural areas and low prices, but over time, without government regulation protecting consumers, workers, our domestic industries etc, that they've become a problem in some ways~ I thought she sounded much more relaxed and "real" than I've seen her since that moment in Iowa when she made an unintentional funny joke about "bad men" :-) I thought she did well for herself, and she usually bugs me because she often sounds so scripted and inauthentic. I like her so much more when she is speaking without that campaign-trail cadence.

Mike Gravel~

If a person were to google or wiki about him they would learn that he is a man of great stature and courage. Go on, look for yourselves.

Mike Gravel is entirely correct in pointing out that when any candidate for President speaks of "all options being on the table" with regard to Iran, that this implies ALL options, including nuclear options. It is wrong for a supposedly civilized society to entertain the notion of a nuclear first strike. Period.

Personally I find it hard to be all scared of a nuclear Iran when our country has like thousands of nukes (is Iran thinking of committing suicide?) and Israel has hundreds of its own. It sounds to me like DickCheneyco ginning up a new enemy for some agenda other than the best interests of our country's people.

Kucinich is absolutely right to offer a resolution for impeachment, and I only wish he had more clearly explained to the audience the dot-connecting between Dick and the lies and War, rather than the more abstract notions of "ending War as a instrument of diplomacy". He did connect Dick Cheney and his apparent desire for war with Iran as one reason for his resolution of Impeachment.

I found Biden's arrogance grating when he spoke of "happy talk" regarding Kucinich or Gravel's words. He ought to have more humility seeing how he voted for the War and that he says now that his vote was a "mistake"--whoopsie!--this is from Meet the Press:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10154103/

RUSSERT: You concluded your statement by saying, "I think Saddam either has to be separated from his weapons or taken out of power." A month later you voted for a resolution authorizing just that. In hindsight, knowing everything you know now about the absence of weapons of mass destruction, was your vote a mistake?

SEN. BIDEN: It was a mistake. It was a mistake to assume the president would use the authority we gave him properly. And I brought along that whole quote. I knew you'd ask me this. I said, "We know he continues to attempt to gain access to additional capability, including nuclear capability. There's a real debate on how far off that is, whether it's a matter of years or it's a matter of less than that. We don't know enough now." That was the rest of my quote. So I never argued that there was an imminent threat...."

Biden continued: We didn't realize that--how discredited the sources were that were being quoted to us about the reconstitution of a nuclear capability. There was no evidence of that. Look, you had phrases like "mushroom cloud," "much graver threat than grave threat," "mortal threat," "the threat is urgent," "grave and gathering danger," "urgent threat," "immediate threat," "serious and growing threat," "real threat," "significant threat." These are all phrases these guys used.

So he voted to give this President power to attack Iraq and "We don't know enough now" at the time when he voted? Yeah, Senator, you voted your mistake, you admitted your mistake in judgment~ it's time to tone down your contempt for the people who were NOT fooled and who had the foresight to vote to deny the Administration their War based on lies. Cool it, smarty pants! And quit blaming the people who lied to you, its time to take responsibility and say that you didn't do enough! You blew it, now what'cha gonna do about it?

Even Hillary said, finally, that her vote was a "mistake". That is significant because she had stubbornly clung to the notion that she felt the President had a right to that kind of power but that Bush abused it; by calling her vote a mistake, she is saying that at least this President shouldn't have been trusted. Admitting you have a problem is the first step after all! ;-)

Obama~

I thought he did well when he answered how he'd respond to "simultaneous terrorist attacks" that he didn't say "retaliate", he said "respond"! Then to mention Katrina in that context was what made him stand out as a practical minded man.

Richardson~

He didn't handle the Gonzalez question very well, if I were to get a chance to offer advice it would be to not talk so much! He shoulda just said "yes I said that, but I just wanted to give the guy a chance to speak publicly before I condemned him". Instead, he rambled on and on. He made that too big an issue when each candidate only was getting a few minutes each in this debate to define their public first impressions as primary candidates for President.

I thought he did much better in his niche of diplomacy, though he should have nailed the Cuba question instead of answering a previous question about terrorism. That made him sound unfocused there for a minute.

There. That's my analysis. I speak for no one but myself.