The back to back Republican and Democratic debates in New Hampshire demonstrated to the American people that their choice for the next president really does matter. The Republican candidates, with the exception of Ron Paul, would continue the same policies of George Bush and are still quoting Ronald Reagan nonstop. Rudy Giuliani still talks about a reduced government role like Reagan, but he is clearly not in command of the facts. As George Will wrote a long time ago, the federal government grew and spending increased on Reagan's watch.
As far as Republicans go, I thought Romney won the debate based on his answers to the questions. People were able to understand what he was saying. On the issue of healthcare, he knows more about the subject than his Republican opponents and explains it well. I thought it odd that there were two questions that brought a good response but McCain, Huckabee and Giuliani were almost silent. In fact, those three seemed to be detached at times. The other Republicans are lost when Ron Paul talks about the fiscal disaster the Bush administration has put our country in. They can't answer him because they bought into this fiscal disaster.
The Democrats debated issues that are more related to the problems facing the people. Good thing Obama has his stump speech down pat on the campaign trail, because his answers in the debates are usually incoherent, off the mark, fragmented, and rarely, if ever, answer the question asked with any substance.
John Edwards would get my vote for winning the first half of the debate, and Hillary Clinton for winning the second half. Both of them gave answers to the questions that were good and could be understood. Hillary was a little late getting started but she finished strong and well. Obama talks about change, but he has yet to articulate how or what he would change. Edwards and Clinton have done a much better job in that regard.
Richardson is a capable candidate, but lacks the ability to stay focused on the questions and the issues and therefore his answers are not easily absorbed. He loses his chain of thought. The biggest void in the debate was the absence of Biden and Dodd. They are two people who know the issues and who can articulate what they would do if elected president. A 20% turn out in the Iowa caucus eliminated them from the campaign. Their valuable thoughts will be missed.
Edwards was the most inspired I thought and Hillary was able to make her point that you can't make change simply by talking about it. I think the best thing that could come from the New Hampshire vote is a close race with no real winner. That would bring out the best in the remaining candidates because they would all be forced to articulate their positions more sharply and then the people would really be able to make a decision based on some thing concrete rather than a stump speech. Besides it would balance the sides because Obama is the darling of the news media and is getting all the positive attention.
It requires winning over 2000 delegates to win the Democratic nomination, so we have a long way to go. I can not agree that a quick knock out in either party serves the American people well. If a quick knock out occurs, then the issues will lay dormant. That is not good for America. We have seen that happen in the past.
