Post-Debate Reactions

I watched both the Republican and Democratic debates last night in New Hampshire. Let me first state that I try to be as unbiased as possible, but am a registered Democrat, just for fair warning.

Mitt Romney of Massachusetts had the most to play (speak) for going into the debate and I have to say, he was the big loser of the evening. Romney spent a lot of money toward the Iowa Caucus, only to finish second, behind Mike Huckabee of Arkansas by 9 percentage points. If he doesn't win in New Hampshire, he's going to be in a great deal of trouble. He'll be on the outside looking in toward Huckabee and John McCain of Arizona. All throughout the debate, Romney was vicious with his attacks of both McCain and Huckabee and the attacks bounced off the victims right back unto the perpetrator. McCain, Huckabee, and even Rudy Giuliani of New York got into the act of exploiting Romney's falsehood attacks unto potentially the two front-runners for the party. There was even one occasion when McCain jokingly said, "I'll give this to him (Romney). He's the candidate of change."

Huckabee chimed in, saying, "Which time was that?", as Romney has been rather notorious for flip-flopping.

With the porous performance on Saturday night, I have a very difficult time believing Romney will come through with a first place finish in New Hampshire. He may not throw in the cards afterward, as he should place second, but he'll have an even tougher hill to climb than what was perceived before New Hampshire.

McCain was tested, especially in regard to his take on illegal immigration. Some claim that McCain, in a way, supports amnesty and his position on the subject has hindered his poll numbers in the past, especially amongst Republicans. But, as Huckabee and Giuliani struck back at Romney's attacks and inconsistencies, I don't believe McCain's awkward moment in regard to his illegal immigration beliefs hindered him as much this time as it has in the past. He's been riding a boost in the state of New Hampshire for a while now and I don't believe that his performance on Saturday aided or hindered that momentum at all. I do believe, however, due to Romney's lackluster performance, it will, in the end, aid McCain and potentially some of the other Republican candidates. The most recent polls suggest this was the case and unless they (the polls) are drastically off the mark, expect a victory for McCain on Tuesday in New Hampshire.

Mike Huckabee was kind of quiet, but defended himself nicely when need be and was even gracious at a time when asked, "If Barack Obama is the Democratic nominee, why should we vote for you over him?" Huckabee was the only one on the set who praised Obama for his enthusiasm, charisma, and character. I can't say that I agree much with Huckabee on policy, but I can understand why some people like the guy. He's personable, has a good sense of humor, and as George W. Bush lied to the American people about being a "compassionate" conservative, I see Huckabee fitting that label perfectly.

Giuliani mentioned 9/11 on a couple of occasions (surprise, surprise), and wasn't as outspoken as the three before-mentioned candidates, but overall, I'd say he gave an average performance that would neither help nor hinder him in the New Hampshire primary. He did come to McCain's aid in regard to illegal immigration, stating something along the lines of, "Ronald Reagan, the father figure of the Republican Party, supported amnesty. I could see Reagan being depicted negatively in one of Romney's ads because of it."

Fred Thompson of Tennessee (and Law & Order) seemed better spoken in this debate than previous ones, but still seemed like a back-drop to the four candidates I already mentioned.

Finally, there was Ron Paul of Texas. Thank God for Ron Paul. It was amazing to listen to the other four candidates answer a question and then to hear how drastically different Paul's views were. On some issues, it'd be like hearing a chorus sing in unison without this guy there to stir things up a bit.

Overall, here's how I'd rate the candidates performance, from 1 to 6, on a typical A+ to F grading scale.
1. John McCain: A-
2. Mike Huckabee: B+
3. Ron Paul: B
4. Rudy Giuliani: B-
5. Fred Thompson: C
6. Mitt Romney: F

Now, here's a list of the Republican candiates, from 1 to 6, on their electibility, in my opinion:

1. Ron Paul: It's not going to happen, I know. But, he definitely brings something different to the Republican Party that I haven't seen for a while. His base and foundation is conservative, but the guy has been against the Iraq War from the start, is against the Patriot Act, and is about as consistent on his postions as I've seen. Charles Gibson even jokingly said last night, after pointing to each candidate and flip-flops on their record, he mentioned Paul, hesitated, and said, "Well, I honestly don't know of any time that you've changed positions, except for your switch to the Republican Party (formerly of the Libertarian Party)."

2. John McCain: I was a supporter of McCain a while back, but felt like he lost his maverick ways and altered his persona completely in an attempt to appeal to the more conservative Republicans. Well, he's starting to go back to the John McCain I knew before the transformation.

3. Mike Huckabee: The Baptist pastor from Arkansas, Huckabee seems to be, in the truest sense, a "compassionate conservative." I constantly have to shake my head from side to side when he starts talking policy, but can't help but like the guy at the same time. He reminds me of some uber-conservative friends of mine, whom I love, yet can't stand to talk politics with.

4. Rudy Giuliani: There's a big drop-off for me between Huckabee and Giuliani in this list. While I think I could tolerate Huckabee being elected president, I'm not sure I feel the same way about Rudy. Some like to make the claim that Barack Obama lacks the experience necessary to run this country. What about Giuliani? If it weren't for 9/11, this guy wouldn't be running right now. I can about guarantee that. In a shocking and tragic moment in our country's history, Giuliani (along with Bush) was one of the faces we remember in regard to leadership and security. He doesn't hold back either. I wonder if there's been an official tally on how many times he's brought 9/11 up since announcing he was going to run for president.

5. Mitt Romney: Overall, I actually agree with Romney on more issues than Huckabee, but I cannot stand the guy. I could care less that he's a devout Mormon. He just comes across as a cold-hearted jerk, with the constant attacks. That didn't work in Iowa, won't work in New Hampshire, and if he continues this game plan, he's not going to be the Republican nominee.

6. Fred Thompson: While I tend to dislike Romney's attitude and overall persona, I dislike Thompson's even more. Even though President Bush has atrocious approval ratings and has for sometime, Vice President Dick Cheney's approval ratings have been even worse. Cheney comes across as his first name would signify. Who wants to listen to and support a president like Cheney, or like Thompson, in this case? A president's actions are extremely important, but as much as some may not want to admit it, so is their personality and attitude.

As Romney had the most to play (speak) for in the Republican debate, Hillary Clinton had similar stakes at hand in the Democratic one. After the 9 point loss to Barack Obama and finishing third overall in the Iowa Caucus a few days earlier, Clinton needs New Hampshire to put a halt to Obama's momentum. Overall, I'd say she had an average evening. While I do believe some of the best moments or lines of the night belonged to her, I also believe some of the worst moments or lines of the night also belonged to her. She actually came across as personable when she was asked about her likability and how poll results indicate Obama being far more likable than she. She kind of looked down and said, "Well, that kind of hurts my feelings. But, I can go on. Am I really not likable?" It was one of her better moments and one of the best moments of the evening. But, she also went on the attack far too often against Obama and I don't know if she realizes this, but not many voters take kindly to such attacks. After John Edwards defended Obama, Clinton responded with her voice raised and about shouted back at the audience and other candidates. A minority of people may feel that's a sign of passion and may like that type of response, but the majority probably will not. Overall, I'd say her performance didn't do much in terms of Tuesday's primary, but we'll have to wait and see.

Obama, who won the Iowa Caucus in an impressive fashion, did a pretty good job in the debate. He was very serious and as I felt he needed to do, he was a bit more specific on policy ideas than he was previously. He also didn't get into any heated debates with Hillary Clinton, based on her numerous attacks toward him. He just answered the questions, defended himself in regard to the attacks, and cracked a joke here and there. Of all the candidates, I'd have to say that he appeared to be the most presidential. He had a calm demeanor throughout the debate, didn't allow the negativity spewed from Clinton's lips affect him any, and answered each and every question as straight-forward as anyone else.

John Edwards of North Carolina had the best evening of the four candidates, in my opinion. While Obama, Bill Richardson, and Clinton appeared a little fatigued at times (and rightly so), Edwards appeared to have just drank a few Red Bulls before going on the set. He was full of energy and emotion, which helped him stand out from the rest on this evening. While Clinton was extremely specific with her attacks, Edwards went about it in a more subtle manner, which made me laugh some, because I knew exactly what he was referring to and who he was poking at.

Bill Richardson of New Mexico had some good one-liners throughout the evening, but for the most part, it felt as if Richardson was applying for a job. I guess he is, in a way, but still, in a debate, who wants to hear a complete run down of a person's work history and experience? We can look that up for ourselves, thank you.

As I did with the Republicans, in grading their performances, I'll do with the Democrats:
1. John Edwards: A
2. Barack Obama: B+
3. Hillary Clinton: B-
4. Bill Richardson: C+

Also, as I did with the Republicans, I'll list the candidates in the order that I would vote for them:
1. Barack Obama: People can attempt to insult his "inexperience" all they'd like, but this guy is no stranger to politics. Experience means a lot, but depending on the time and place, it may not be the #1 thing sought. As Bush divided the nation more than I've seen in my lifetime, Obama seems to be the guy who can fulfill Bush's pre-election claim of being a uniter as opposed to a divider. Obama brings with him a charisma and optimism rarely seen and right now, it seems as though people are feeding off that.

2. John Edwards: I actually hope Edwards is Obama's running mate if Barack should happen to be the Democratic nominee. While they (Edwards and Obama) may disagree on how to accomplish a certain task, they, more times than not, agree on what the end result should be. Edwards is a passionate individual, with a good deal of experience, and a likable personality, much more so than the current vice president.

3. Bill Richardson: I have to hand it to the New Mexico Governor, he has some good ideas. But, he's not as eloquent a speaker as some of the other candidates and hasn't been able to generate as much money as some others, Clinton and Obama, in particular. But, just as I said in regard to wanting Edwards to be the future VP if Obama is the nominee, I'd like Richardson to be a member of the Cabinet if that were to take place.

4. Hillary Clinton: Experience. Experience. Experience. Yes, we know, she has more experience than Obama. We don't need her to constantly shove that down our throats. Americans tend to like a president who can talk the talk, as well as walk the walk. With Hillary, it seems as if she may walk the walk, but doesn't talk the talk. That's very satisfactory when it comes to most jobs, but not so much with being the leader of this country. With Obama, he can talk the talk, and many see the potential of he walking the walk, as well. I also see much more negatively permeating throughout Clinton's ads and debate talking points. Like with Mitt Romney, that just doesn't make for an attractive nominee.