Washington Post, the Fix: John Edwards wins NPR Debate

[jsamuel]

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2007/12/npr_debate_winners_and_losers.html

WINNERS

John Edwards: In the debates to date, Edwards has wavered between two personas: effective critic and angry outsider. At times Edwards' strident critique against "the establishment" sizzles with populist brio. But, it can also occasionally come across as cranky and complaining -- not exactly the two leading traits that people want in a president. In today's debate, Edwards took on the effective critic persona. He sought to politely highlight what he called real divides between himself and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) on Iran, and largely kept his focus on the mistakes made by the Bush Administration. Edwards was also able to hold his own when the debate turned to China -- demonstrating that he does indeed have some heft on foreign policy.

(Also Joe Biden and Chris Dodd)
...

LOSERS

Hillary Clinton: Here's the problem for the junior Senator from New York: Despite the fact that polling in Iowa shows her in tight race with Edwards and Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.), her rivals for the nomination still treat her as though she is the frontrunner. On Iran, she took incoming from all sides -- Obama and Edwards accused her of attempting to distort their past statements, while Dodd and Biden castigated Clinton for her vote in favor of the now infamous Kyl-Lieberman amendment that designated the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. Clinton was also hurt by the topics chosen by NPR; on Iran and immigration she has taken considerable flack for her positions; her strongest issue, health care, was left out of the mix.

(Also Mike Gravel)
...

[waiting for hope]

1. Wow - high praise from Cillizza -

That doesn't come often - thanks for posting! This is great exposure a month before Iowa. :)

[Quixote1818]

2. K & R

[kimmerspixelated]

3. Of course!

He's the next best thing to Kucinich and he is TOTALLY electable! Go Johnny, Go!

[Stop Cornyn]

4. I thnk that is the most press Gravel has gotten all campaign.

[asdjrocky]

5. Very happy with his performance.

[frazzled]

6. He must have missed the part ...

where Edwards refused to address his previous comments on the supposed perilous dangers of Iran in a speech he gave in Israel. He was trying to slither out of it the first time by changing the subject, but the moderator asked him again, and he sidestepped a second time.

I don't know that saying he avoided the usual crankiness and complaining is a terribly resounding praise, but I am glad he was less cranky and complaining.

[creeksneakers2]

7. Edwards lost

Edwards couldn't directly answer questions and he spent all his time bashing Hillary. Edwards showed again that he's a one dimensional mudslinging phony. They sometimes asked Edwards the same question over again two or even three times and Edwards continued to hide. The stuff Edwards did talk about was all phony hype.

It was especially disappointing to listen to Edwards today because the NPR debate, unlike all the others, went into issues in depth and was full of substance. Candidates received real policy challenges and not cheap gotcha' questions. All but Edwards excelled. I'd say Biden won.

[Inspired]

8. You opinion is idiotic on this and on any Edwards related thread.

I never take a word you say seriously. The word boring comes to mind.

[dionysus]

9. slander much?

your typical MO

[ChiciB1]

10. Surprise, Surprise... Edwards Gets Notice As The Candidate Who

can go the distance. What has been strange all along is that generally he has been picked to have done the best in most of the debates. Then comes the day after and it returns to the Clinton/Obama match-up with slight mention of Edwards being included as one of the top three.

What I've been seeing lately is that Edwards & Biden finally getting some attention, and it's long overdue. Calling him cranky, complaining and angry may be misleading. What I see is that he's not afraid to tell it as he sees it, and saying what some of the other candidates don't have the courage to address. Since he's been doing this he's risked certain attacks and I think he's well aware that he will be depicted as being controversial. But to me it shows that he can run with the big dogs and won't be kicked off the porch!

Perhaps it's just having the grit or spine that we see lacking in D.C. these days. Too many politicians triangulating and being careful not to offend doesn't show leadership to me. Their "fear" may get them re-elected by not crossing a certain line, but it sure hasn't helped this country very much. I see it all the time here, we want Democrats to show some "spine" and yet when some do the reaction is a kick in the pants.

I think Edwards is willing to take that "kick in the pants" because he believes if he doesn't, nothing will ever change. It means the corruption and the power that comes with it will keep the less fortunate sinking further down the ladder. I was taught that those in Congress are supposed to work FOR the people, that we are the ones who hired them and they should represent us. Haven't seen much of that lately and I think Edwards is willing to take the risk regardless of recrimination.

May not mean much to others, but it means a lot to me!