First thoughts

Posted: Friday, April 27, 2007 9:09 AM by Mark Murray
Filed Under: First Thoughts

From NBC's Chuck Todd and Mark Murray
*** One Down, About Twenty to Go: Well, that was fun, wasn’t it? Who looked good in last night’s debate? Who didn’t? Our thoughts are below. Listen carefully to the Democratic candidates’ stump speeches today for new additions that might signal what they liked and didn't. Also, be on the lookout for YouTube submissions of clips from the debate that opponents may want to highlight about one or more of the front-runners. One thing we do know for certain: The first debate is behind us, and there are many more to go -- including next week's GOP debate in L.A., moderated by MSNBC's Chris Matthews.

*** Clinton: Hillary was Hillary. You've got to admit, she doesn't make mistakes and didn't last night (but did get a little flustered on hedge funds). Of course, she didn't directly answer some questions, either (like on whether Iraq is "lost"). And the RNC pounced on her comment that she had been advocating withdrawal from Iraq "for a number of years now." But the Clinton people, by and large, were happy with her performance.

*** Obama: Or maybe the Clinton folks were happy that they didn't have the questions surrounding them that Obama did. Perhaps no one seemed more uncomfortable with the tight format. If there are future debates allowing for 90-second or 2-minute responses, he'd likely do better. His speaking style is more professorial than political, which goes hand in hand with the message that he’s trying to getting across: that he represents change.

*** Edwards: He acted like the most experienced debater on the stage, and he was. No one there has debated more times in the past four years than Edwards. He handled the haircut question well, but was mixed on the hedge fund one.

*** Richardson: Outside of Obama, the candidate many were waiting to see shine was Richardson, but he wasn't comfortable and it came across. His answer on the model Supreme Court justice might be a future problem. He picked Byron "Whizzer" White -- a Rhodes Scholar/football star from the West, who was appointed to the Supreme Court by JFK. The problem, especially for a Democrat? He dissented in Roe v. Wade.

*** Dodd: He was prepared and is a total pro. But he never owned a moment. And this raises one of the biggest questions of his candidacy: How does he separate himself from the front-runners? His support for legislation like Reid-Feingold (which he talked about last night) is one way he’s trying to do this, but it hasn’t yet forced the other candidates to take a position.

*** Biden: He may well have hit a homerun on the question about his verbosity and verbal gaffes with his simple "Yes" (and nothing more), which made everyone laugh. Overall, a solid performance. Still, at the end of the day, he faces the same problem Dodd does: How does he break from the pack?

*** Kucinich: He was the first and only true rule-breaker in last night’s debate by whipping out a copy of the Constitution. But he seemed like a legitimate front-runner on the stage compared with Gravel.

*** Gravel: Which brings us to… He was entertaining, even comical -- but was also rude to his fellow candidates. Does he get invited to any more debates?

EMAIL THIS

Comments

What the heck are you guys talking about?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? This is absolutely ridiculous. Edwards was like a balloon full of hot air. Whenever he talks about something other than health care, he has no substance to his opinion. Obama needs more time to speak and Clinton dodged the questions like a squirrel crossing a street. Kucinich and Gravel won the debate. Kucinich is the only person who actually keeps these idiots honest and Gravel is the only person not full of hot air. He speaks his mind. If anyone else on the stage spoke half as honest as he did, the democrats would have a president in the white house and Congress majority of 3 to 1.

John Smith, Greenville, Montana (Sent Friday, April 27, 2007 4:12 PM)

I feel a democrat will be president in '08. And I must say that whoever doesn't get the nomination will hopefully be included in the cabinet or another top position. They were all good. Joe Biden stood out because so many people had not given him much serious thought, but he showed intelligence and whit and a clear plan to get out of Iraq. Kucinich had a plan, and it wasn't exactly like Biden's, so credit for thinking must go to him also. The others who backed Biden's plan are johny-come-latelys, and I'm glad Biden got recognized for being the source. Edwards had specifics on his health plan. Edwards and Biden are my two favorites now. I appreciated Kucinich and Gravel for keeping it honest, though. What they said needed to be said.

Jane, Southern Mississippi (Sent Friday, April 27, 2007 4:22 PM)

Ed, Ohio: NEWS FLASH: George Bush IS NOT RUNNING FOR RE_ELECTION. His two term limit has been reached. There are OTHER Republicans running for the Republican nomination for President, and NONE OF THEM ARE GEORGE BUSH. The Deomcrat candidates WILL NOT BE RUNNING AGAINST GW in the Nov. '08 election. You'll have to come up with a better reason to vote for one of your candidates.

jtb (Sent Friday, April 27, 2007 4:26 PM)

BARACKOBAMA DOT COM

JAKE (Sent Friday, April 27, 2007 4:53 PM)

I was most impressed with Joe Biden - he answered the questions directly, then went into an explanation. Obama only answered one question directly, he spent the rest of the time dissembling offtopic. Hillary was Hillary. Dennis Kucinich is the most "Canadian" politician - his healthcare plan sounded like he lifted it directly from the Canadian model. Hillary was solid, no mistakes, nothing outstanding. This was less a debate, and more of a soundbite competition. Only Hillary really answered the national security question about 2 cities getting attacked.

Kevin Knoxville, TN (Sent Friday, April 27, 2007 4:58 PM)

I am an independent and here is my take of the debate mostly irrespective of political views. Hillary Clinton: Had the most to lose from this debate and did not. The winner by not losing and strategic angle of leaning to the right. For example even though I thought Gravel was the most powerful speaker it would have been strategically disastrous for Hillary’s image and position to mirror. As far as standard debating performance unimpressive by her over-rehearsed and mostly nonresponsive debating. Nevertheless a winner via damage control and strategically leaning to the right. Simply since she faired better than Obama she was the winner. Very well underplayed Hillary. Obama: Did not come off too well yet no major flubs. A loss but not a tragedy for Obama. Was more of a target and had harder questions to answer. Was on the defensive though the whole debate. Still a front runner but lost the most from this debate. Did much better than Richardson and Dodd but had more to lose thus the big loser of the debate. Edwards: His defensive debating was clean and almost to the point of Bill Clintoneqe. However was subdued and was unimpressive on the offensive or distinguishing himself. Substance was light, style was subtly very impressive. Overall good early campaign strategy. The big winner after Hillary. Richardson: Personally I was more impressed on his political position. However as far as the debate, big overall loser after Obama. A presentation that since Nixion... Dodd: As one of the backrunners had to make a move to distinguish himself. Failed to do this. Even as a backrunner he would have done better to not even show up. Biden: Impressive as far as having the best physical presence of all of the candidates and big hit with the simple and humorous "Yes" (and nothing more), answer to accusations of verbosity. Would have been a good play if he was a frontrunner. The substance of his performance was confusing and essentially undistinguishable. Thus a mix blessing of higher political and image clout yet written off as a presidential contender. Kucinich: Pretty good, distinguished himself and appeared sincere. Gravel was a mixed blessing by making Kucinich seem more amicable yet at the same time stole some of his thunder by splitting the harder left. Nevertheless showed some of his own moxy, a winner. Gravel: Entertaining and even powerful. The star of the show even though he had the least questions. Made the most from what he had. The total underdog of the pack with the more powerful bark than any of the front runners . The down side for him is that he has gained a lot more detractors. Small price to pay from becoming a nobody to a somebody overnight. It would be bad news for viewership to ban him from future debates. The big winner of the back runners and gained the most from the debate.

Harry Raymond, Santa Barbara, Calif. (Sent Friday, April 27, 2007 5:12 PM)

I am an independent and here is my take of the debate irrespective of political views. Hillary Clinton: Had the most to lose from this debate and did not. The winner by not losing and strategic angle of leaning to the right. For example even though I thought Gravel was the most powerful speaker it would have been strategically disastrous for Hillary’s image and position to mirror. As far as standard debating performance unimpressive by her over-rehearsed and mostly nonresponsive debating. Nevertheless a winner via damage control and strategically leaning to the right. Simply since she faired better than Obama she was the winner. Very well underplayed Hillary. Obama: Did not come off too well yet no major flubs. A loss but not a tragedy for Obama. Was more of a target and had harder questions to answer. Was on the defensive though the whole debate. Still a front runner but lost the most from this debate. Did much better than Richardson and Dodd but had more to lose thus the big loser of the debate. Edwards: His defensive debating was clean and almost to the point of Bill Clintoneqe. However was subdued and was unimpressive on the offensive or distinguishing himself. Substance was light, style was subtly very impressive. Overall good early campaign strategy. The big winner after Hillary. Richardson: Personally I was more impressed on his political position. However as far as the debate, big overall loser after Obama. A presentation that since Nixion... Dodd: As one of the backrunners had to make a move to distinguish himself. Failed to do this. Even as a backrunner he would have done better to not even show up. Biden: Impressive as far as having the best physical presence of all of the candidates and big hit with the simple and humorous "Yes" (and nothing more), answer to accusations of verbosity. Would have been a good play if he was a frontrunner. The substance of his performance was confusing and essentially undistinguishable. Thus a mix blessing of higher political and image clout yet written off as a presidential contender. Kucinich: Pretty good, distinguished himself and appeared sincere. Gravel was a mixed blessing by making Kucinich seem more amicable yet at the same time stole some of his thunder by splitting the harder left. Nevertheless showed some of his own moxy, a winner. Gravel: Entertaining and even powerful. The star of the show even though he had the least questions. Made the most from what he had. The total underdog of the pack with the more powerful bark than any of the front runners . The down side for him is that he has gained a lot more detractors. Small price to pay from becoming a nobody to a somebody overnight. It would be bad news for viewership to ban him from future debates. The big winner of the back runners and gained the most from the debate.

Harry Raymond, Santa Barbara, California (Sent Friday, April 27, 2007 5:17 PM)

wbcmbg.....and the FLIP SIDE of your question is; when was the last time you went into a negotiation involving the developement of nuclear weapons by a third world country that once held 53 Americans Hostage, who's religious leaders preach "jihad" against all Americans, and who just released 15 British Sailors from captivity three weeks ago....WITHOUT letting them know you're serious about not letting them develope or acquire those weapons? Nobody wants war, and I agree Iraq is total B.S. But, if Iran is allowed to develope and manufacture "nukes" it would make that region of the world even more unstable than it is already. The man didn't say he was going to bomb or kill anyone, he just "kept his options open" which is what you're supposed to do when you're negotiating for high stakes. By the way, I'm not even an Obama supporter. But, I can appreciate the sentiment the man was expressing.

J. Merle Stanley, Westchester, NY (Sent Friday, April 27, 2007 5:24 PM)

Obama, needs to learn how to give quick and direct answers. Ya, anyone can come up with a good answer, if your given the time. He does talked about his health plan but in reality he DOES NOT have one. Clinton did good! She was straight forward and professional.

Eunice, Nevada (Sent Friday, April 27, 2007 5:46 PM)

I think the debate would have been much better if it was only 3-4 candiates. More time and thought could have been put into answering questions - like many of you have already said. I, an Edwards supporter, was happy with his performance. I don't think he got any real good questions to be honest - they all seemed to me to be going to Clinton and Obama. For me, this race will be Edwards, Clinton, and Obama. Since it is still early that could definitely change but I think last night Richardson, Biden, and Dodd didn't stand out. I will give respect to Kucinich in attempting to be different but he doesn't impress me. However, if I had them and Gravel to chose from, I would say Gravel being there was a waste of debate time.

Kristin R. Lawton, OK (Sent Friday, April 27, 2007 5:56 PM)

All the candidates sang were singing the same song, which is at the top of the charts. And here it is ... BUSH’S BLUNDERLAND verse #1 SLAY-bells ring! Are ya list’nin’? Parents cry, eyes are glist’nin’. Iraq is a fight that’s really not right: Dying in George Bush’s blunderland. verse #2 Gone away is the true word, In its place is the “screw” word. We sing a sad song: “This war’s gone too long!” Dying in George Bush’s blunderland. chorus: Crimes committed do deserve indictment: Bush and cronies all have told us lies. Stop the war and feel some real excitement– and maybe we’ll recover some allies. verse #3 When they write Bush’s bio, He’ll be quoted, “Yippee-tie-yo! We knocked off Hussein, why do you complain?” Dying in George Bush’s blunderland. Sing chorus again: verse #4 Stop the war; stop the “killin'” killin’ poor people’s chil'en: “Let’s pull the troops back from oil-rich Iraq!” [backup] NO MORE Dying in George Bush’s blunderland. [backup] NO WAR!!! Dying in George Bush’s blunderland. [backup] WHAT FOR!!!??? Dying in George Bush’s blunderland.

Vince Williams (Sent Friday, April 27, 2007 10:54 PM)

As a simple observation, and not to signal my personal 'favorite' candidate from the debate, it simply amazes and disappoints me that many people characterize a few of the candidates as laughable, or hyper, or too passionate. Do we, as a nation, desire plastic candidates? Do we, as a nation, prefer to stereotype our candidates, rather than listen to the substance of their beliefs and intentions? My favorite going into the debates are not any of the 'third tier' candidates. But, in all fairness....has anyone else noticed Gravel's name and site link missing from the list of candidates to the left?

Sky Shroud Ft. Lauderdale (Sent Friday, April 27, 2007 11:39 PM)

Sierra--I've some good news: Per Brian Williams last night, the debate will be repeated at 3 PM ET today (Sat.) and at Noon ET Sun. Hope you can catch it at either time.

Olivia (Sent Saturday, April 28, 2007 11:58 AM)

Do you really think Hillary has a chance of being the dem’s next presidential choice? I am an independent who feels the right has gone so far to the right that a middle-of-the-road republican is still a radical right-winger. That means I am probably going to vote for a democrat in 2008 – preferably Edwards, but I would also vote for Obama. The only democrat I will not vote for is Hillary. I do not want Bill Clinton back in the Whitehouse. No matter how much influence he has, how good he is at negotiations etc… Bill Clinton lied to us. Even though he would not be the president, his status would be such that his character flaws can rebound on us. No matter if Hillary would make a good president or not, Bill is her albatross therefore she cannot be president.

Leonard in Central Texas (Sent Saturday, April 28, 2007 12:10 PM)

Sierra, with people on Bikes rampaging thru San Franscisco, terrorizing one woman with kids in the car and breaking her back window out of her SUV, I think they have more important things to do then watch the democrats debate. After all, isn't the catch phrase in San Francisco is" I'ts about us, Morons!". Watch and learn it Sierra, you will love Gravel. If there was one person that closely resembles the people of San Franscisco, it is gravel. His ideas come from Haight and Ashbury, he had to have been doing some serious mushrooms to come up with answers like those he gave thursday night. I liked the way Fox news called the bikers in San Franscisco terrorists, hit the word right on the number on that story.

jerry/corpus christi texas (Sent Sunday, April 29, 2007 6:56 AM)

Jerry in Corpulent Texas I found your comments hateful and divisive. Don't you know who our real enemies are? How can you possibly equate kids on bikes to terrorists who explode suicide bombs? I'm sick of Republicans making whole groups of Americans the "enemy"...Vermont has lost as many soldiers per capita as Texas, Blue States are not "enemy". Gravel is from Alaska and represents the anti-war sentiment of a lot of patriotic Americans. I think he is better grounded then you are.

Amy B Portand, Maine (Sent Sunday, April 29, 2007 8:51 PM)

Oh Amy Amy Amy! When you have a bunch of people riding bikes and they are doing things like bashing windows and keying cars, they are just as hurtful to people as suicide bombers. In fact all criminals are basically terrorists aren't they? When the mayor of San Franscisco does nothing to protect hard working hones people from a bunch of left wing idiots who have nothing better to do then tear up the streets of san franscisco, I have a major problem with that. Gravel is another idiot who did too much boonesfarm and dropped out and turned on, everyone knows he has about as much chance to be president as you and me, but I must admit, he does good comedy.

jerry/corpus christi texas (Sent Monday, April 30, 2007 12:08 AM)

Mike Gravel is the only one who has the balls to speak the TRUTH! It's very rude of your company to think that you can just exclude him from any further debates! THIS IS SUPPOSE TO BE A FREE COUNTRY AND HE HAS A RIGHT TO SPEAK! I WILL NEVER WATCH ANYTHING ON MSNBC or any affiliate AGAIN IF YOU EXCLUDE MIKE GRAVEL FROM ANY DEBATE!! And I will PASS IT ON! You should be ashamed of yourselves for even thinking that you have a right to censor who is invited to the debates. Who the hell do you think YOU are? This presidential election belongs to the PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES, NOT THE MEDIA! Mike better be at the next and all future debates, or you are going to see a distinctive decrease in your ratings.

Diana Crawford, South Bend, Indiana (Sent Monday, April 30, 2007 12:46 AM)

"When you have a bunch of people riding bikes and they are doing things like bashing windows and keying cars, they are just as hurtful to people as suicide bombers." You've had ony too much Schlitz Jerry in Corpulent Texas.

Amy B Portland, ME (Sent Monday, April 30, 2007 10:14 AM)

So, Texas doesn't have crime?

Desmond (Sent Monday, April 30, 2007 11:58 AM)

jerry--The bikers you mention who were keying cars, breaking windows, etc. are an exception to the rule. I've a good friend who's a biker and she and her boyfriend (also a biker) have been involved in all sorts of charitable causes.

Olivia (Sent Monday, April 30, 2007 1:53 PM)

"The Motorcycle Song"-Arlo Guthrie

Still Crazy After All These Years (Sent Monday, April 30, 2007 4:56 PM)

Amy and Olivia, know that jerry thinks we are the "others." Not fit to even exist. Isn't it odd that people like him consider themselves Americans?

Jane, Southern Mississippi (Sent Monday, April 30, 2007 11:46 PM)

"I don't want a pickle, Just wanna ride my motorcyle (rhyme it with pickle.) I don't want a dime, Just wanna ride my motorcy (long i) cle." For you, Still Crazy.

Jane, Southern Mississippi (Sent Monday, April 30, 2007 11:48 PM)

Reverse "pickle" and "nickel."

Jane, Southern Mississippi (Sent Tuesday, May 01, 2007 8:51 PM)

People, people, why are you letting the media control who you support?? Just because the networks tell us that Obama and Clinton are the front-runners doesn't mean you should write off the other candidates! I for one, throw my support behind Kucinich. He speaks the truth, and works for peace and compassion.

Susan (Sent Wednesday, June 13, 2007 5:49 PM)

haha u suck

joshperez (Sent Monday, September 24, 2007 9:07 AM)

<< Previous

SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

Your name, city and state (John Doe, Seattle, Wash.):

Your e-mail address (jdoe@msnbc.com):

Your website (it's okay if you don't have one):

Remember me? (We'll keep it private) Remember me?

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=171766