JOE BIDEN

When the most buzz you make in the first major debate is a one-word answer, you're in trouble.  But what really angered me was the fact that Biden gave a one-word answer.  The question that was asked to him was more or less could he reassure the American people that he wouldn't let words (plagiarized or racially insensitive) get the best of him if he were president.

I'll remind you, this is a man who told an Indian-American supporter that Indian-Americans were "the fastest growing population in Delaware" and that "you can't walk into a Dunkin Doughnuts or a 7/11 without a slight Indian accent" and know what was going on.  This is set apart from the comment about Barrack Obama made earlier this year where Biden pretty much said that Obama was the first "articulate" African-American candidate for president.

This was an opportunity for Biden to apologize for these remarks, but instead he gave the one word answer to the question of: "yes".  He might as well have said, "pass".  It continues to confuse me why we are holding Joe Biden and Don Imus to different standards.

HILLARY CLINTON:

Well, I guess I could say Hillary did what she needed to do and I have to say maybe came off the best of all the candidates.  She needed to clearly define her position on Iraq and I think she (FINALLY) did that.  But beyond that she was trying to hard for sound bites and she came off as just being fake.  She told people what she wanted to hear sure, but I don't think she convinced many people that it is actually what she believes.  She's calculating and she's too political, but so is Granholm and people buy into that, so maybe that will propel her to the nomination.

But she also came off a bit snooty.  Suddenly Senator Obama became "Barrack" and Former Senator Edwards became "John".  It reflects that she feels she has an aura of superiority that she probably doesn't deserve.  Dick Posthumus kept calling Granholm "Jennifer" during their first debate and he got hung out to dry.  The first name basis won't lose you an election, but is certainly gives you an appearance of arrogance, which poll and poll shows American's don't tend to appreciate.

CHRIS DODD

I don't think that there was anyone more non-existent in this debate.  Dodd didn't do anything to rock the boat or draw attention to himself and that is a BAD thing.  When you are trailing as bad as he is, standing with the top dogs and agreeing with virtually everything they say isn't really going to get you anywhere.  Dodd missed a huge opportunity to distinguish himself and came off as "Democrat Lite" next to the heavy hitters.

JOHN EDWARDS

Is there really anyone running for president who's more full of $#!& than this guy?  Recently Edwards got busted for accidentally paying for a $400 haircut from his campaign.  He'll reimburse the campaign and that's fine, I don't have a problem with that.  But the fact that this man is masquerading as a "Champion for Middle-Class America" is simply laughable and dishonest.

Edwards was asked about "Haircut Gate" during the debate and made the comment that he had a "Blessed life, but remembered where he came from".

Okay, first of all, that's almost exactly what Dick DeVos said the entire campaign.  But that didn't stop our friends at Michigan Liberal and the Democratic Party from barraging us with pictures of DeVos mansion and yacht as well as snide (and at times down right immature) comments that DeVos couldn't connect with "real Michiganders".  Glad to see that the same standards apply with Edwards.  Spell it for me: H-Y-P-O-C-R-A-C-Y!  What does it spell?  HYPOCRACY, HYPOCRACY! YAAAAAAAAAY DEMS!!!

Edwards then told a "touching" story about his father taking the family out for dinner but then had to leave because he couldn't afford the prices on the menu.  I don't know if you've heard (since Edwards says this at least 10,000 times a year) but his father worked in a textile mill (granted as a middle-manager, which he often fails to mention, but still...) meaning he grew up in meager circumstances.  So I guess maybe his father understands what it's like to be a middle-class American, but I'm not really sure that this is where Edwards "comes from".

Then the man boasted the most specific health care plan of any candidate in the race.  In fact, it was so specific that he gave no specifics.  On the War in Iraq, he apologized for voting for it and then towed the company line the best he could.  All and all I think people were expecting a lot more from him.  What they got instead was the same John Edwards that they've been inundated with since 2004 (and can someone please explain to me why the Wal-Mart question went to Hillary?  That made no sense to me).

MIKE GRAVEL

My goodness, this flavor of crazy would have been more than worth the price of admission.  After accusing his fellow Democratic candidates of considering nuclear attacks (I'm not kidding) Gravel went on to question the competence of just about everyone who shared the stage with him (with the possible exception of fellow crazy Dennis Kucinich) and said that they were "frightening".

But just like you'll find a diamond in an occasional lump of coal, some of what Gravel said was worth considering.  Mainly, he stated that if Democrats in the United States Senate wanted to end the war, they should cut the funding for it.  It's a fair argument, but not something you want on your record if you're running for president, which is why it hasn't happened.  I respect Gravel for having the gumption to call them out on it.

DENNIS KUCINICH

Anytime Kucinich is playing second fiddle to anyone in a "crazy" contest, you know you're witnessing something extraordinary.  To Kucinich's merit, the man opposed the Iraq war from the start so at least he's consistent.  But he's also a crazy.  This is a man who ran in 2004 proposing that America needs a Department of Peace (apparently he had never heard of the State Department) and like his friend Mr. Gravel demonized the United States government for just about every military action it has taken.  In a Kucinich administration I guess we could expect a Secretary of Peace to be appointed, go over to Tora Bora and ask the terrorists very nicely to stop.  That's some foreign policy.

BARRACK OBAMA

All eyes (and possibly Democratic hopes) were on Obama last night and I think he disappointed.  But then again, when the bar gets set as high as it did for this guy, how can you do anything else?

To me Obama seemed to be extraordinarily unfocussed and at times intimidated.  He did a fine job articulating his points and I think people who were actually caring where he stands on issues got a glimpse of that, but there was nothing behind it.  Obama came across as very dry and bland and almost re-sparked memories of Al Gore.  There was just no passion behind it, at the end of the day, Obama just looked too much like someone who viewed the debate more as a danger of making a mistake than an opportunity to show us he can lead.  I think it was mostly his inexperience that got the best of him.  I'm sure many Democrats out there hope he will improve and I'm sure many out there think that he will as times goes on.

BILL RICHARDSON

I have to say that I was personally disappointed in Bill Richardson's performance.  I have said that if someone held a gun to my head and said pick the next president and he or she has to be a Democrat, Richardson would be my choice.  Despite the fact that I would never vote for him, I have great respect for him and what he has been able to accomplish (especially with matters of diplomacy).

But Richardson's experience didn't show last night.  He talked about being the only executive on the stage and talked about some of the things he'd done in Darfur and North Korea, but not in enough detail where as people could really appreciate his talents.

Perhaps the most disappointing was the answer he gave when he was asked about his opinion about the circumstances surrounding Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.  When asked by the press weeks ago why he hadn't been out front criticizing Gonzales he apparently said "because he's Hispanic, I'll be honest".  Richardson tried to repair the damage that he did to himself by saying he thought it was fair to give Gonzales a chance to explain himself.  But the Hispanic question lingered and he just dismissed it, as "people want an honest president".

Yes, people do want an honest president, but they don't want one who is going to give preferential treatment to one ethnic group over another.  I don't think that's Richardson's agenda, but it came off that way and it looked bad.

Richardson also bungled the gun question.  It was brought to the viewing audience's attention that the National Rifle Association preferred Richardson to any other candidate (Republicans included) and Richardson launched into this explanation that he was a westerner and westerners like guns.  It came off as a little kooky.  I would have liked to have heard him make more informative comments like "everyone talks about the lives that our lost as a result of guns being fired, but nobody talks about the countless lives that are saved from guns being fired."  I think that would have been more profound and in the context of the Virginia Tech shooting could have opened the door for him to continue elaborating on the issue and reach out to moderates and perhaps even some conservatives.