Joe Biden: Our guy did well, although if we were calling a winner we’d probably call Edwards. Biden got angry once, which was good; and as usual he demonstrated his command of the topics, looked presidential, and took no real hits. He scored points in defending his “yes” vote for the recent war funding bill, while Edwards took a shot at Hillary and Obama for voting “no” only after the vote outcome was moot, and not engaging in dialogue. More than once, as Biden spoke, you saw the others—notably Hillary—looking at him, as if they were thinking, “Hmm, he’s good… maybe he could be my running mate.”

Hillary Clinton: I didn't really get any kind of impression from her... she did have one funny line, saying of Cheney meeting with foreign officials, "That doesn't strike me as too diplomatic." I don’t know… I just don’t know. She remains the worst nightmare of the Right, which I can’t really fathom, because she is clearly the most conservative candidate among the Dems. (Really she's the worst nightmare of the left...) “Anybody but Hillary” from the right has to be based more on personality than on policy. Her main attribute still seems to be the air of inevitability her campaign has cultivated, and she runs not to screw that up, as opposed to running to win. I think it is going to backfire on her, but maybe I’m wrong. If she wins, she will have pulled a hell of a fast one; claiming frontrunner status without actually earning it, then riding it out to self-fulfilling prophecy. Perhaps only Al Gore can save us.

Chris Dodd: I am becoming more and more convinced that, if this guy could get the nomination, he would totally carry Connecticut.

John Edwards: In a “who won?” sort of analysis, I think Edwards did the best, taking his seemingly-polite-but-really-a-little-bit-smarmy shots at the two in front of him, Hillary and Obama. I get the feeling that this guy has waltzed through life on the basis of his smile and hair (indeed I don’t hold the $400 haircut against him; it was savvy to invest in what is clearly one of his best assets.) But the more I see of him, the more I start to see this little bit of smug smarm, a lot like the stuff Bush oozes. With Edwards it isn’t coated over with hubris and arrogance; rather he couches it in fake humility. But still. On the other hand, Clinton the husband had a ton of it, and it served him well.

Mike Gravel: Glad he’s around. Unlike the Reps, this field isn’t loaded with comic relief. Gravel seems like a sincere and decent guy, but he’s so far out of the mainstream that he couldn’t win even if he could somehow raise enough money and get his name out there to the point where even people who don’t watch the debates know who he is. (Tell the truth: did YOU know who he was before reading this post?)

Dennis Kucinich: Nice earnest guy, passionate in his positions, and apparently well-liked by the others. But he’s too short and too far to the left for the country, and besides we’ll never elect a vegetarian. He’s the peace, love and understanding candidate, 35 years too late. Ani DiFranco likes him, but then she’s pretty short too.

Barak Obama: I think he has a problem. In the debate format, he comes off seeming very much like the other candidates. Only with a lot less experience. Whereas his appeal on the campaign trail is all rock star buzz, charisma, and differentiation. This is a guy who comes off way better in rolled-up shirtsleeves, working a room with a hand-held mic, than he does sitting still in suit and tie, next to 6 other suits and one pants suit. I suspect that the rock star appeal will wear off, and he’s going to have a hard time staying ahead of Edwards.

Bill Richardson: Making the fundamental mistake of believing that a great resume is sufficient to put him into serious consideration. And like it or not he’s going to get stuck as the immigration candidate, because he’s Mexican and governor of a border state.