Who won tonights debate?

Holy joe and "Dick" Gephardt.

Just my 2 cents worth

:wtf: Someone's on HEAVY-duty drugs...

I was switching back and forth between "The Omen" and the debate, and Lieberman was awful.

At least Al LOOKED good when he was wooden...:P

Always has really bad gas that he is trying to supress?


He has this look on his face like any second he's just going to let one rip that's going to knock the backdrop over.

That one had me laughing so hard my mouse was shaking too much to click 'Reply'! :P

before he put on fifty pounds and his hair started thinning..


He looked like the pre accident Christopher Reeves...

I think he's still a handsome man; my little jibe at Holy Joe was just that.. :hi:

Clark Kent-esque.

...and often.

He really sucks. I've said all along I'd vote for any of our candidates but wow.

On the brightside, wm. kristol says Dean's the man.

Bill Kristol, fellow neocon, pal of Karl Rove.

They'd love Dean to be the nominee. Doesn't that make you wonder, just a little?

Not really. I know why they think Howard's the man.
Let's just try to keep it positive while we take the opinions of wingnuts like kristol and carlson for what they're worth.

Let's be positive about our candidates yes, but lets also be honest and be just a tad suspicious about Bill Kristol's motives in raving about Dean.

Remember, its not about winning the Democratic Primary -- its about taking back the White House.

If I wasn't clear, forgive me. It's obvious to most that bowtie and pnacboy love to talk up Dean because they believe he can't touch 43* in the general election. I'm not ready to concede that point.

I'm for Clark, BTW

I apologize to you, and see that you do agree with me about Kristol and Carlson feigned admiration of Dean. That was my only point.

I tend to believe Dean can't beat Bush. Perhaps it is because I am from Massachusetts, and have seen how other NE candidates have been treated.

IMO we need a southerner, with military experience, with international diplomatic experience and a really solid brain - Wes Clark.

It's just a little early to be laying down absolutes, IMHO.
peace.

where'd all those Lieberman votes come from?

9 people voted for that piece of S*&T?! WTF? Who FReeped the poll?

throughout the debate to speak. There are just way too many candidates, and I wish some of those whose campaigns have not gathered and steam would drop out.

If they were given more time, at least equal time, their campaigns might pick up a lot more steam!

They all did very well, even Lieberman and latecomer Clark. We should all be proud of all of them.

Bush was the loser tonight!

I think Kerry won this one.

...and did not even bother to say he wasn't! That's not the type we need in the White House!
Wes Clark (Silver Star), will beat Bush (Silver spoon) in 2004!

What difference does it make? He's an American. That's it. Period. :eyes:

And Carol does an amazing job... she is the best speaker up there IMO.

Edwards still has my support and work, but I'm rooting for Kerry to win New Hampshire

But, I would love to see Edwards as Attorney General for any of the other candidates. He shins when it comes to discussing legal matters.

weird. Oh well. :) Kerry was good also, and Sharpton is always good.

Really took advantage of the format and Dean.

It's early, but the pattern looks like votes for predetermined favorites. I hope that people are really trying to answer the question in the best, most precise way as a service to everyone.

You don't really think that do ya? ;-)

Judging by the responses of some of the candidate regulars, I'd say there's just a WHOLE lot of projection going on.

Having not seen the debate, but having read the debate threads, I'd say Sharpton won...AGAIN!

Followed by Kerry

n/t

I was being honest. I am a Clark supporter but I thought Sharpton won this one and I voted for him in the poll. Kerry, Edwards, and Clark were tied for second, IMO.

Glad to read that, and your honestly is laudable. Some time after I posted my earlier comment, it appeared that people were trying better to address the question rather than simply record who they liked.

Cheers.

He was the worst.

I'd rate it Edwards, Kerry, Clark and Dean.

On edit: Sharpton is the best, most cogent orator and is probably the best speaker in the Dem party.

He is very honest, I love it when he turns the question on its head -

Dean and Kucincih had bad nights. Lieberman had a horrible, horrible night.

Everybody sounded pretty good to me. There were a few attacks on fellow Democrats that I didn't like. Other than that, everybody did well. IMO

nt

An honest answer would be Sharpton.

Most of them were very good though. Very, very good even those I don't like.

It was a good debate but TOO SHORT for a political junkie like me! I should add that I only caught the last 30-45 minutes :(

I'm taking a break from it.

After 3 years of intense politics, I am still not bored but there are MANY times I wish I were so I could have my life back!

politics. All of them are better than a second Bush term.

Sharpton and Kucinich spoke for what I believe in. Dean spoke as the one who can really tackle the budget.

But it was John Kerry, armed with Dave Letterman's one-liners, and with a new haircut and JFK hair coloring, who I thought did the best in the debate.

And with my back turned to the TV, I missed Kerry's new look. I like his old look just fine- he must be looking amazingly sexy with this!

same color as JFK's, and the hair looked more like a normal haircut. Kerry was funny and focused. No one disputes his well-earned liberal credentials. His bad vote in Iraq is counterbalanced somewhat by his good vote against the $87B that Bush wanted.

And on C-SPAN tomorrow around 10:00.

...CLEARLY. FOX News analysts keep talking about Dean, strange.

Later.

RJS

say that the other candidates are now all trying to emulate Dean

why is that?

New Mexico according to them.

What Kristol and Williams said is that every debate in which Dean comes out unscathed is a victory for Dean.

As all of us that are into sports know very well, the team that plays to protect a lead usually ends up losing the game.

That's the conventional wisdom for Presidential debates heading into the final month before an election, but the first caucus isn't for 3 months yet. I don't think Dean plans to coast until then.

made my blood run cold... Kristol gives me the chills...

I scored each candidate response while watching and added them up, and ended up with this:

Kerry 8.5
Sharpton 8.0
Edwards 7.7
Clark 7.7
Dean 7.6
Kucinich 7.4
Gephardt 7.0
Lieberman 6.7
CMB -- 6.0

Kerry in general was very well prepared on policy questions. He has humorous, and attacked Dean very effectively. Lastly, he brought out his liberal credentials, which is something Democratic voters like to see.

I wouldn't have thought to give scores to answers, but your rating mirrors my opinion of the debate. I might switch Lieberman and Moseley-Braun, but she didn't have nearly as much time, so it's hard to judge.

Dean goofed up on the foreign policy/bush tax cuts, and clark didn't really get specific on much.

n/t

Positive night:

Sharpton
Kerry
Clark
Kucinich

Neutral:

Edwards
CMB
Dean

Negative:
Lieberman

Invisible:
Gephardt

He really IS their boy...

since Dean enters the debate as the frontrunner, so long as nobody throws a knockout punch (which nobody did) Dean wins by default.

Was a pretty good "knock out punch" for me...

And "we don't elect a staff we elect a President" was also...

That second line could really hurt Dean. The gun thing could be the next attack from Kerry to Dean.

The gun issue will solidify the perception of Kerry as a disconnected out of touch new England liberal elitist who wants to take your guns.

People, the fact that dems keep trying to use gun control as a way to look tough on crime, while not really doing much about crime other than passing more and more and more laws... this is a mentality that is turning off a hell of a lot of rural democrats.


Frankly I hope Kerry makes a big issue of gun control... because it is an issue that will hurt him all through the midwest and south with the dem base.

Do you own guns? Were you pro-gun before Dean? Are you selling your soul just to apeal to middle america? It sounds like it.

and oh so experienced and knowledgeable Kerry was dead wrong.

And for all the effort Kerry made to tie himself to Clinton, he certainly ignored Dean's comment that in addition to Bush, Dean has more experience that Clinton or Carter when they went into office. Kerry’s attacks fell flat, and Dean defected them right off.

The message I got from Kerry tonight was he has switched around again and now supports some of the Bush tax cuts, he used a household making 70K as an example of working poor average Americans getting the tax cut… and like it or not Kerry, that was Bush’s rhetoric almost verbatim, regardless of the source for your numbers, because the deception is not in the numbers, but rather in acting like the average family is teetering on that break over point that makes enough money, has enough kids, and is married to have seen more than 300 bucks fro Bush’s tax cuts.

Kerry’s whole night was spent attacking Dean or making excuses for his flip flopping. Kerry’s attacks on Dean, like Lieberaman’s attacks were not well received by the crowd at all, and the only reason they didn’t boo Kerry like they did Lieberman, is that Kerry knew enough to preface his attacks with jokes.

most of the other candidates.

Thanks.

IMHO, it was lame the way Kerry got away with alluding to something that Dean had supposedly said about the 'entitlements being on the table' but then not getting specific, just making it sound like Dean had flip-flopped.

Kerry's math is also almost as bad as Kucinich's...you can't do it all, all at once, and not have to make some tough choices. Wish it could be another way, but that's not how budgets work.

Is Talking Up Dean Because He'd Love to see Dean run against Bush.

That is it, that is all!

on the Foreign policy question....considering that's why people are hesitant about his electibility. His answer that he would surround himself with people who know about foreign policy and that Bush didn't have anymore experience than he when Bush started....

He-lo, Dean.....that's we are worrying about. Please do not compare yourself to Bush in foreign policy......IT IS NOT REASSURING!

That's why I can't think that he won. For him, that was the biggest question of the night...cause that's he biggest flaw...and that's Bush's strongest suit (why I don't know).

I think that question is going to be quite damaging to him. He could not have won the debate based on that alone. It is arguable that he lost it on that.

Foreign Policy didn't matter (relatively speaking) when Bush ran, or when Clinton ran - not like it matters today.

Foreign policy matters now.

.

he is someone who should be discredited with every fiber of your being

Don't listen to him...don't pay attention to him...
He's PNAC and a power in the right-wing transmogrification of our country.

Reject Bill Kristol!

There's a reason kristol and bowtie love Howard Dean, they think he has no chance. I personally disagree with this assumption.

kristol is a sneaky son-of-a-bitch who i trust about as much as i can piss into a hurricane.

nothng he says should be considered at face value.

debate?

kerry improved his stance in the public eye, espeically the response to his woodeness with " see the video of kerry gone wild" but contrasting what he is versus what he is perceived as is useless energy.

dean did not improve, nor lose ground, and it is doubtful he gained from either undecided voters nor from partisens of other candidates, but he placed his campaign in the best light possible, and tied in his candidacy as a movement not a personal crusade... that resonates, a lot.


clark neither up or down, but did address the concerns about him .

gephardt a little less than the last debate and his focus on traditional democratic policies was drowned out by the other candidates attempting to delineate themselves from each other and bush.

the rest are garnish. albeit fun to watch.

this will be the last time we see all thse critters getting approximatley equal time. the "garnish" are about to be set to the side and it will beintersting to see who if any carry forward a part of their messages.

looks like dean is it, unless gephardt ambushes him in iowa, but eventhen, NH follows, and dean is huge there. so the next month after NH will be the terrain for the nomination.

Whether or not you agree if he is electable or not, he has won every debate, especially if you go by audience response. The other candidates bow to him basically and Leiberman tries to ride his coat tails every chance he gets.
SCott

If I was totally undecided, this debate would have moved me more in favor of Kerry and Edwards and less in favor of Dean and unchanged regarding everyone else. These results were universal in an unscientific poll of the people in my livingroom at the time of the debate.

and I support Clark. Kerry was calm and "presidential"
Edwards shows passion and heart, and he knows how to stay on point.

Really- his whole "the middle class *IS* doing their fair share" statement was perfect.

'It's insulting to suggest that the poor who are sending their kids off to war aren't doing enough, while Enron sits offshore and does *nothing*...'

He was fantastic- that guy is one hell of a speaker.

He kicked ass as usual. He really sets the tone for the debate and tells it like it is. He's got my vote in the primary.

and i'm leaning strongly towards him in the primary also.

no, i don't think he can win (and that is our loss), but the more votes hed DOES get, the more his ideas and policies will be adopted and implemented by who does.

The other candidates could stand to take a few pointers from Sharpton--- all of them have the potential.

Ministers tend to know better than politicians: It's not enough to say something the audience agrees with; you've got to convince them that they need to get up and do something.

Sharpton conveys that sense of urgency, that sense of outrage, that I don't pick up from the other candidates. They've got to have that fire in the belly, that attitude of "This country's going in the wrong direction. I want to turn it around, and I want each and every one of you to join me."

Sharpton may not have a snowball's chance of winning, but I hope his passion will rub off on the candidates who do.

I think they all won. What a great debate!! I do not think as I just heard "That Dean controls the Ring". I do think that there is a concerted effort by the opposition to propel Dean to the front. I am not saying he is not a good candidate; but, I don't think he can garner the southern vote, which we will need to win. I believe that this distinction belongs to General Clark.

I am sorry that Dennis Kucinich didn't get more of a chance to speak. When he did have a chance, he was good; just not in front of the camera enough. Al Sharpton was fantastic. I also thought Gephardt was very good; also Dean, Lieberman and Edwards.

I simply cannot pick a winner.

and I say this as a Clark supporter

Actually, it made me feel better about two other possibles - both Kerry and Edwards. I always liked them, but didn't think they could beat Bush. After tonight, I think they could do it.

More than once he was too busy tossing out his prepared lines to actually answer the question. That loses a lot of points in my book. Sharpton did the same, but his lines were better than Kerry's.

Clark was good in the international half but weak in the second half. Edwards and Dean were good throughout.

Hands down.

I thought they all defended themselves well. I could list positive things I heard from every candidate. And I saw some do a masterful job of evading the question/issue.

I think I could support any of them in the general election. My take:

Winner: Sharpton

If I had to delete two from the race based on this debate, it would be Lieberman and Gephardt. Lieberman because I just can't get with his positions on some of the issues. Gephardt because he just didn't seem to have a message... seemed like he was recycling things.

And a special thanks to Reverend Sharpton for mentioning the party's move to the right, and his agenda...to slap the donkey back to the left.


:P

He continues to amaze me with the way he hits the nail on the head. I've loved the line about the Christian right vs. the right Christians.

so I'll be totally honest...in order of best to worst:

Sharpton, Kerry,, Dean, Clark,Kucinich, Gephardt, Braun, Lieberman

Keeps your Blood pressure down.

But I guess I'd have to say the Reverend Al won this one. Good to know that Fox News thinks Dean won hands down.

Is if your measure of victory is that he avoided answering almost every question by barking out some empty platitude... we have to get America back on track... we have to get behind America... we have to get on the road to fiscal solvency.... blah blah blah.

Not one specific policy statement... and when the moderator called him on it, it made him look very inexperienced and unprepared, which is the worst thing he could look like right now.


This debate belonged to Sharpton in terms of pure speaking power, he got the best response and hammered some great points. Dean, while he did not make a spectacular showing, won tonight in terms of effectively fending off attacks, and getting his message out clearly and concisely. Edwards was a close second, he looked good and refuted some attacks. CMB did OK.

Kerry and Lieberman looked like assholes... and Kucinich looked like such a whiny little cry baby. When Dean refuted his attack about that ad with the simple and obvious fact that he wasn't talking about Kucinich, CMB, Graham, or Sharpton... then Kucinich was all upset that the moderator wouldn't allow him to continue to whine about it. He looked like a total fool.

Dean won in that he is way ahead and lost no ground, in fact gained some... while his closest challengers both looked really bad. So I'd say Dean gets the tactical victory here and Sharpton gets the media PR victory.

the Kerry comment about FP experience and picking a cabinet.

Also, This is the weakest I've seen Dean yet. What happened?

THAT'S never good.

I didn't hear Dean booed once.

When is Lieberman going away?

Since Dean and his staff were correct on the war, and oh so experienced and knowledgeable Kerry with all his info was dead wrong.

Kerry completely ripped him up when Dean said that he has great advisors around him like Bush did. Also, Dean got exposed for supporting the repeal of the ENTIRE Bush tax cut. Then finally he got exposed for not addressing how he would fix the problem in Iraq.

Dean is quite happy to be "exposed" for supporting repeal of the ENTIRE tax cut, but I will agree that Kerry did a good job of stating his counter-position.

That was Kerry's only good statement of the night. He went on ad nauseum with every other response, and his closing statement was strange. He's not very believable as the candidate against special interests.

He has done so numerous times, did so before the war, and continues to do so today. Had he been allowed to respond to that baseless attack, I'm sure he would have pointed that out.

As for the advisors... Dean and his advisors were right about Iraq, they were dead on. While Kerry was dead wrong.


And the fact Dean wants to repeal the bush tax cut is nothing new... what is new is Kerry suddenly supporting these tax cuts that he previously was against.

So you are in agreement with the Fox News commentators? You're basically saying what they said just after the debate.

Edwards. I think he did very well, came across as extremely likeable. My man is Clark but I think he did a lot better during the Town Hall meeting from a couple of weeks back.

think Dean lost ground, not as sharp, and strange thing with the fingers sort of to the mouth and coughing going on there...

Kerry made Dean look bad on the tax cut repeal.

While I agree that Dean wasn't as sharp as he has been, at least not until his closing which was great, he didn't lose any ground on Kerry's attacks.

On the tax cut Kerry had to resort to mouthing Bush's rhetoric... taking a household making 70k a year that is married with two kids, and acting like that's an example of the average working poor American's situation. Most working poor are not married and are making a hell of a lot less than 70k a year. The average American didn't see Bush tax cut, but Kerry is using Bush's BS to try and act like they did.

Using Bush's BS to defend his vote for the war and to defend his current support for Bush's tax cuts. This doesn't do anything to Dean but prove he is right about the Bushlite comment.

And Kerry continues to be unable to address the point Dean raises about the costs that went up because of the tax cut, like property taxes and college costs.


"and strange thing with the fingers sort of to the mouth and coughing going on there..."

Yeah that's called covering your mouth when you cough... polite thing to do when you are around other people or in front of a microphone.

He is a doctor, after all.

on the Tax issue...he looked weak in Foreign policy...again, to surround yourself with advisors...and to joke that you have as much experience as Bush did....is not very reassuring in these times.

No, I think that Dean hurt himself......People don't want someone that's going to pass the buck on foreign policy...Hell, that what we got with Bush......

So between Taxes and Foreign policy, is there anything else left....

Also, the "power to the people" "democrat from the democratic wing" are worn and no longer fresh....we have heard that a million times!

I also thought Dean's response to Kucinich's question about the ads was very weak. 'My opponents' does not mean 'those of my opponents who supported the war', and saying that's what he meant was Clintonesque in the bad sense: wriggling out of what he plainly said in annoying, legalistic ways. Of course, what I assume is the correct answer, namely 'I meant those of my opponents who have any chance at all of winning' would probably not have gone over too well either. Much better not to have made that claim in the ad in the first place.

is by far the best, most compelling speaker of the bunch. The man speaks truth to power, and helps keep everybody (moderators included) honest.

I do agree with Faux's point about Dean's "controlling the ring," in terms of his campaign framing the debate. Although that may be a result of the media attention Dean's had as much as it does with Dean himself...apparently everybody has some clue about Dean's positions on issues, and no clue about most of the others'.

all these positive responses to Kerry's appearance from supporters of other candidates! I love hearing Sharpton, too, but I'm glad you guys think Kerry did really well!

I'm a Clark supporter, but I have been warming up to Kerry more and more the last few weeks. I have to admit I didn't like him at first but he has really grown on me. He did a great job tonight. I was impressed.

He's starting to relax and be himself more. He was great on Hardball last week, too.

Yes, Kerry's Hardball appearance really made me start to think twice about him. He seemed "real" in that appearance in my eyes, FWIW, and I really did warm up to him. I was a little pissed when he didn't refute Tweety's comment that Kerry was "the only candidate who actually fought in a war", but other than that, I was very impressed with his appearance on the show, and I could easily get behind him if he wins the nomination. He was outstanding in tonight's debate, and I am in awe of his record serving our country in Vietnam. GO DEMS!!!

The Clark/Kerry ticket in 2004 sounds really good to me, anybody else care to comment...The Southern decorated general with foreign policy know-how teamed up with a solid New Englander also with bonafide military experience. I've never been a big believer that a military background automatically makes you more special, but in times like these when there is so much focus on our (lack of) current foreign relations, this is definitely a plus in 2004. Also, not only are they ex-military (which can sway the moderate votes our way) but they are actually two intelligent, real human beings not just props up on stage spouting one word answers. Let's bring honor and intelligence back to the White House in 2004.

Dean, Gephardt and CMB were in neutral positions, IMO. Nothing too much stood out, to me.

Was shocked to see Edwards come out a bit flat, IMO, since he usually does so well at these. Kucinich seemed a little off and whiny (and this is coming from someone who agrees with him about Dean's ads). Lieberman's performance tonight was just pathetic, IMO.

DTH

n/t

He seemed less confident in the domestic issues part of the debate.

I didn't really Sharpton and Kerry's performance. Both spent a lot of time making prepared quips rather than answering questions. At least Sharpton's were funny. Kerry did have a good statement on tax cuts in response to Dean's good statement.

I agree with a post in another thread, Sharpton for Attorney General!

from his statement that Dean never said what he would do in Iraq when he was criticizing the war?

Surprise -- he issued a detailed statement back in April.

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5364&news_iv_ctrl=1441

That is not something I respect. So who did he win over? Kerry supporters? Surely not Dean supporters and Dean has more supporters that have even more reason to not support Kerry.

Most people are just expressing the honest truth about what they saw tonight - I don't read people as saying en masse they are shifting their support from a candidate to Kerry. I appreciate the candor, and respect that people can say something POSITIVE about candidate who is not their first choice without feeling threatened.

What a concept.

and your point was as a Kerry supporter?

What is wrong with stating that Kerry's antics offend and alienate Dean's base?

Kerry will never win the nomination so what good are his endless attacks on Dean? I am sure Bush appreciates the favor. If in some alternate reality, Kerry were to win, he would have some trouble galvinizing Dean's forces, not only because of his present tactics but because of his past disregard for his constituients.

In the past I supported Bill Bradley over Gore, and Gore's attacks on Bradley disgusted me and made it very difficult to ultimately support Gore. I had every intention of voting for Nader until convinced, at the last moment by the Green party, to reavaluate my vote due to being in the swing state of PA. That is why I voted for Gore.

Why take those risks again with the politically untalented and resentful Kerry? No, we should go with where the power of our base is, anything else is a gamble.

on c-span.com......Tonights will be on tomorrow:bounce:

She is the candidate most different from toostupidtobepresident, in every conceivable way. And now with more women graduating from college than men in America, it would be an advantage which could bring a new generation of professional women into our party. The Republicans will never see it that way, but this could be the winning advantage if Democrats are the first to nominate HER over another him.

She got my vote in this poll. I'm white, straight, southern and in my late thirties. I'd vote for her in a second.

Moseley-Braun in second, love her we broke it and now we've got to fix it position.
Dean tried to stay above the fray and took a few hits from Kerry.
Kerry reached out to the $70,000 income group to show he's in touch with us common folk.
Clark was an incredible bore with nothing but platitudes.
Edwards needs a few years and this campaign will really help him in the future.
Gephardt, was he there tonight?
Kucinich came across as Kucinich.
Lieberman-ugh

Dean, Sharpton, Clark, Kerry.

Dean stayed on point and got his message out clearly and concisely. Not a lot of sex appeal, just plain speech.

Sharpton had damn near all the good lines. Lots of sex appeal. But this time he actually went deeper and actually got a few policy positions worked into the mix. Only standing ovation of the night. Go Al go!

Clark took one deep with the McCarthyism line. He showed a bit of fire. A trace of sex appeal and fair amount of command. No doubt, his best performance yet.

Kerry landed a couple of unanswered debating points on Dean because of some well placed comments at a break. His stand on the war still seems a bit muddled but he is getting better with time. Little sex appeal but some points for intellect. He needs to start defining himself as something other than the anti-Dean candidate.

Lieberman - dead last. The cheap shot on Clark made a joke out of anything positive he had to contribute. The man is toast.

Dean and Clark running neck n neck. Dont know who won but I notice this.

he "won" this debate again. Of course he cant win so he is not my choice for the nominee but I love his positions. People saying Dean won are firmly in his camp and will say he won if all he did was scracth his nose all night. He didnt say anything that stood out and he took some pretty hard hits. I really wonder how he will counter * in the general election by saying that middle class folks got NO tax cuts. He will be eaten alive on that one.

It's easy to 'win' when you aren't under pressure KWIM?

He does have the best one liners though ;)

Sharpton is a really terrific speaker. Unfortunately, he has too much baggage to seriously consider him, but I find myself liking the guy more and more each time I see him.

I was not won over by Kerry. I thought he was too much about the soundbites. I also laughed at his choice of a family making $70,000 as an example of why we should retain tax cuts. I could go look it up, but I'm relatively sure that's well above the median income for a family of 4.

... you're wandering the desert wise and alone.

Perhaps we have another bug, or someone manipulating the system, as has happened before. But I did not vote (didn't see the debate), and yet a vote for Clark is registered on my behalf. :shrug:

This was Clark's worst showing to date and all the rabid supporters in the world isn't going to change the fact that his shine is wearing off under the glare of the spotlight.
Once they start pecking away on the issues and Clark's past record, all of Clark's soundbites lose their punch with the hard questions.

He doesn't stand up under scrutiny.

I really think he did an excellent job. If I were to be impartial I'd give it to Edwards.