E-Mail This Article to a Friend Grading the candidates John Edwards gets the best grade coming out of last night’s debate BY ADAM REILLY

FRIDAY, JANUARY 23, 2004 -- What a difference a few days can make The last time the Democratic presidential candidates got together, on January 11, Howard Dean was the consensus frontrunner, Dick Gephardt was nipping at his heels in Iowa, and John Kerry was a dead man walking. Post-Iowa caucuses, of course, everything’s different: Gephardt’s out of the race, Dean is struggling to regain an iota of his former credibility, and Kerry has metamorphized into the new favorite for the Democratic nomination.

So: given this radically transformed landscape, who did well in last night’s debate--the last one before the January 27 New Hampshire primary--and who bombed? Here’s a candidate-by-candidate breakdown of last night’s performances, from best to worst:

John Edwards: A-. Edwards is the most articulate and charismatic member of the Democratic field, a point driven home yet again by last night’s debate. At the outset, he offered a clear, convincing explanation of why he was consistent in A) voting for the resolution authorizing the president to use force in Iraq and B) voting against Bush’s subsequent request for $87 billion in defense appropriations, largely for use in Iraq, last fall. At the end of the debate, Edwards slammed the panelists for focusing excessively on inside-baseball questions, arguing that substantive issues like domestic poverty were being neglected as a result and temporarily rendering moderator Brit Hume of FOX News speechless. Edwards was wrong on the specifics of 1996’s Defense Of Marriage Act: It denies federal recognition to same-sex marriages and allows individual states not to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states, but does not, as Edwards thought, deny individual states the right to legalize gay marriage. Still, his condemnation of a proposed constitutional amendment banning gay marriage was eloquent and convincing. Edwards, a first-term senator, also dealt adroitly with a question on his relative lack of experience. In sum, he showed that his surprising second-place finish in Iowa was no fluke.

John Kerry: B+. Coming off his stunning victory in the Iowa caucuses and leading, according to many polls, in New Hampshire, Kerry didn’t have to be great last night; he just had to be passable. He was more than that. When John DiStaso asked a dumb-ass question about how, if Kerry were president, he’d feel about a veteran throwing his medals away, Kerry handled it perfectly: he didn’t bristle, but gave a terrific defense of his much-discussed act of protest and moved on to critique the president’s foreign policy, the Bush Administration’s treatment of veterans, and the GOP’s attempts to co-opt patriotic sentiment. Thanks, probably, to his sudden renaissance, Kerry made his comments in a fairly mellow manner for most of the debate, staying conversational rather than oratorical. He should keep it up. On the other hand, he still has a propensity to talk too much--to conclude a strong and seemingly complete answer as the bell rings, but then jam in some additional information in for good measure. Back when he was a doomed candidate, this didn’t work; last night, these trademark Kerry addendums were actually met with applause. Still, it’s a bad habit that risks bolstering an image of Kerry as a didactic Northeastern Ivy Leaguer.

Howard Dean: B. Dean handled discussion of The Whoop as well as he could have. With prompting from moderator Peter Jennings, he joked about it briefly at the beginning of the night. He laughed at himself when he served as the punch line for Al Sharp ton’s one-liner of the night (see below). He even said criticism of The Whoop had been justified. He wasn’t defiant or overly penitent about The Whoop, just matter-of-fact; under the circumstances, that’s probably the best Dean and his backers could have hoped for. Dean also gave equal billing to his support of civil unions and his opposition of the Iraq war in depicting himself as a straight talker who does what’s right. "I stood up for civil unions for gay and lesbian people my home state when it wasn't popular, and I'm willing to do it again as president," he remarked to enthusiastic applause. Given the massive let-down Iowa represented, however, Dean needed to score some major points to get back in the game. Instead, despite hitting all his familiar talking points (there was no middle-class tax cut, let’s send Bush back to Crawford, Texas, etc.), he came across as vaguely chastened. Joe Tripp needs to do something, and fast.

Joe Lieberman: B-. Lieberman insisted he’s the Democrat with the best chance of beating Bush. He plugged drug reciprocation from Canada. He urged his fellow Deems to talk about values. He defended his support of the war and celebrated the capture of Saddam Hussein. He solemnly swore to help New Hampshire keep its place of honor in the national primary schedule. He made some corny jokes. Does any of it matter? Given that Lieberman embodies Democratic Leadership Council-style centrism and has truly substantive experience, you can make a case for his continued presence in the race. But it’s hard to imagine any scenario in which he becomes relevant.

Wesley Clark: C. Of the candidates still considered viable, Clark had by far the worst night. He did fine when challenged on his Democratic authenticity. But when Peter Jennings asked about Michael Moiré’s charge, at a Clark rally in New Hampshire, that Bush was a "deserter," Clark stumbled badly. "Well, I think Michael Moore has the right to say whatever he feels about this," he replied. "I don’t know whether this is supported by the facts or not. I’ve never looked at it--I’ve seen this charge bandied about a lot, but to me it wasn’t material." What?!? Bush’s shadowy stint in the Texas Air National Guard is absolutely, positively "material" to Clark’s candidacy; Clark supporters often say they relish the prospect of a debate where Clark, the former general and NATO commander, argues defense and foreign policy with Bush. Clark’s military background is his single most important attribute. He claims it makes him a better candidate than Kerry. He should have been able to answer the question far more effectively. At another point, when confronted with an effusive, all-hail-Bush-and-Blair op-ed he wrote for the Times of London and asked to square this with his assertion that he wouldn’t have voted to authorize Bush to use force in Iraq, Clark trotted out another weak answer: "It’s written in a foreign publication," he replied. "I’m not going to take US policy and my differences with the Administration directly into a foreign publication." Not going critical abroad is one thing. But writing that "Liberation is at hand. Liberation, the powerful balm that justifies painful sacrifice, erases lingering doubt and reinforces bold action...President Bush and Tony Blair should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt"?

Al Sharpton/Dennis Kucinich: Incomplete. Al, Dennis, it’s been a blast. But it’s time to go home. Sharpton’s take on Dean’s whelp--"Governor Dean, don’t be hard on yourself about hooting and hollering. If I’d spent the money you did and got 18 percent, I’d still be in Iowa hooting and hollering!"--was priceless. But his ensuing discussion of the Federal Reserve was embarrassing. Sharpton’s a funny guy, and he may have reinvented himself over the course of his campaign, but he’s not a viable candidate. Neither is Kucinich, who appeared to have aged 30 years in the last two weeks. The Ohio congressman had his high point in the debates back when he dressed down Ted Koppel, and his delegate-swapping with Edwards during Iowa gave him a fleeting moment of relevance. Last night, though, he was cranky and shrill. The time has come for him--and Sharpton--to be gone.