I'd like to only hear opinions on the debate from "undecided" members of DU please

[Herman Munster]

There's obviously no objectivity for anyone that has a horse in the race. I'd like to hear the opinions of the DU members who are currently undecided of how well the candidates did.

[cboy4]

1. Oh snap, look at your sig line.

[NMMNG]

2. Edwards won it

I don't currently have a candidate of choice, but IMO Edwards won the debate.

[Quixote1818]

3. Herman probably want to know if Hillary will be helped or hurt.

Thoughts?

[NMMNG]

4. Hard to say

As far as the so-called "Dean Scream" I thought it was actually a great smack down by her. She let Obama know she has real experience and results to offer rather than a bunch of pretty slogans that just sound nice and make the crowds swoon. But there are those (as I've seen) who will take it as a sign of her "losing control" because women apparently are supposed to keep their legs crossed and their voices modulated at all times.

[Enrique]

5. the debate put me back in Hillary's camp

I was expecting Hillary to get desperate and to go all negative on Obama like the pundits said, but I thought she effectively answered Obama's Iowa win.

[Tatiana]

6. Edwards won.

He was the freshest, I think, and most passionate.

[DFW]

7. I had to work, and only caught a part of it

First impressions:

None of them messed up. Based on what I saw, I'd be happy
with any of the four, including Richardson. There has to
be more to the equation, and I wish I had seen it all, but
there were only a few negatives. I WISH that I did not have
to hear about Hillary's "experience," Edwards' "mill town,"
Obama's "hope," or Richardson's "North Koreans." COME UP WITH
SOMETHING NEW FOR A CHANGE!! Like we haven't heard that stuff
before (like, for example, once an hour, 24/7)?

I would have preferred some more concrete statements on correcting
the budget mess, reforming education and the defense procurement
process. OK, they all have their differences on withdrawing from
Iraq, but they'll all do it, and Edwards admirably said that although
he had a wish list, he'd listen to reason from military experts if
practicality dictated alterations in his proposed timetable. That
will probably be one of the most important overlooked statements
of the debate, and I'll bet no one cares. Finally someone admits that
they don't know everything about a vital subject, and will listen to
expertise. Now, THAT is change. His inexperience on foreign policy
makes him vulnerable, and the best answer to such a matter is that he
is willing to get expert help. Bravo.

All four seemed calm and knew where they wanted to go. Aside from all
four of them harping on themes that have been used so many times, they
get boring, I thought all four of them did well, and I'm glad I don't
live in NH and have to make up my mind in 2 days.

[salin]

8. I came in with reservations about each - and at times I was personally

swayed by each. I walked away (figuratively), for the first time, hopeful. Seriously hopeful. There are things I could get behind and work for (not just "hold my nose and vote") for each of the major three (Richardson didn't pull me so much.)

I have concerns about experience and gravitas per Obama (though really, none of the top three have that much more experience than him in major offices.) He conveyed great stature and composure as he laid out different policies or concerns. I could see him as President, and I really hadn't seen that for myself before (but I haven't watched other debates as closely.)

While some on DU reacted negatively to Clinton's frustrated... "I have worked for change" - I got it - especially as she pointed out to some very specific types of changes which resulted from her work. Perhaps that was me as a woman, recognizing how often our work product gets played down in comparison to others, or worse the credit given to someone else. But I felt "Go Hillary!" at that moment. And some of my reservations of her approach which has struck me at times as a little to based in political calculus rather than in the most sound policy, was tempered. She has fought for some very liberal social policies and I appreciate that.

Per Edwards - he was willing to go a little further than the others, taking some very "unsafe" (political calculus speaking) than the others. Right from the beginning he was willing to say that towards the threat of "Nuclear Terrorism" (the opening question Gibson gave the candidates - and started with Edwards) - he talked similar programs to other stressing short-term policies, but then said that there also had to be a long-term strategy to work towards ridding the world of nuclear weapons. He came back to that a second time - not a fluke. Whether or not that is a pipedream as one poster on the current debate thread implied, the fact that he could go so boldly against conventional wisdom of safe rhetoric really grabbed me. And he did this on several points.

I think all three did well. Edwards probably grabbed me the most - but that is an individual response by own looking specifically for a quality of being willing to challenge conventional political calculus and look for the bigger picture best policy solutions and then work the politics that is required to get such progreams implemented. This is something that his track record in the senate did not show, and he only began to move away from during the 2004 campaign. If I can view Gore as transformed during his post Washington position (which it is hard NOT to view him that way), than it is possible that Edwards has as well.

So while to what *I* am looking for, Edwards did a little better than the others, I really don't know that the reaction is generalizable. Seriously there were somethings to resonate with from each of the big three candidates.

[enigmatic]

9. I watched it

Chris Dodd was my pick, so I'm looking again.

The 2 most passionate people on the stage were Hillary and John Edwards; in Hillary's case I thought the whole brouhaha of her "moment" was actually the best moment of her campaign. Edwards had the best message, and he spoke from the heart.

Obama was low-key, playing political rope-a-dope while Edwards and Hillary slugged it out. It wasn't his best debate performance. Other than his "negotiating" line, he was a non-entity.

I thought Edwards and Hillary both came out looking good, if only because they seemed to be paying the most attention and had the most to lose.

[China_cat]

10. I would really like to feel

that my Democratic vote wouldn't be just a vote AGAINST another Republican term in office. But I don't.