I'll second the emergent CW that Hillary took this one, and took it easily. The best performances of the night were actually delivered by Biden, but Hillary didn't need to be the best -- merely the most commanding, and at ease. Obama, after a halting, nervous start, also delivered, proving fluent on policy, capable of hard rejoinders (as when he responded to Edwards' "legislating or leadership" formula by reminding Edwards, "John, I think the fact is I opposed this war from the start, so you're about four-and-a-half years late on leadership on this issue"), and willing to stand against Blitzer's absurd "raise your hand if English should be the official language" question.
The contentious performance of the night was Edwards. David Yepsen of the Des Moines Register said “Edwards probably did himself the most good,” and a survey of a handful of New Hampshire voters backed Yepsen up. The survey taken in my living room wasn't quite so positive. I thought Edwards did terribly -- though possibly while doing exactly what he needed to do. There was a clear difference on the stage between Hillary, Obama, and Biden -- who were acting like they were going to be president -- and the others, who were acting like they were running for president. Edwards' every answer was an attack, an attempt to wrest position and score points. His early assaults on the spending bill were particularly flat; since Clinton and Obama both voted as he wished, he was reduced to criticizing them for voting late in the roll call. And since Edwards showed very little leadership on this as a legislator, his sharp complaints easily set up Obama's riposte.
Now, Edwards is running for president, and he needs to solidify his role as challenger. In that, his performance may well have been effective. But even if he landed some punches -- and my sense was that far more of his blows fell short or flew wide -- they didn't simultaneously build him as a viable alternative. This is, in part, because his avenues of attack just weren't very good. He made a poor case against Obama's health plan, and tried to sharpen it by attacking Obama for leaving children out -- a factually incorrect approach because, as Obama helpfully informed him, the plan mandates coverage for children. He went for the throat on the spending bill, but not on the actual issue of Iraq, or use of force. In general, he attacked, rather than contrasted. In the past, I've always respected Edwards' ability to wrap his critique in a positive vision -- to diminish the other candidates by highlighting his own strengths. That skill was not in evidence last night.
As for the others, Richardson is easily the most grating of the set. His casual buy-in to Republican attacks ("I'm a pro-growth Democrat") is a true disappointment, and I'd love to see someone ask him which Democrats are pro-shrinkage. Dodd did a good job, and his final statement -- that his first move as president would be to restore civil liberties -- usefully highlighted an oft-overlooked issue. Kucinich and Gravel were both well used in this forum as voices willing to say what others wouldn't. Kucinich particularly took to the role, and helpfully responded to Wolf's "yes or no" question of whether you'd kill civilians to eliminate bin Laden by asking "how many civilians are we talking about?" Yes, Wolf, how many indeed?
