Winners and Losers of the CNN Democratic Debate

Candidates came bearing political ammunition to be used at the second Democratic Candidate Debate of the Presidential Race that kicked off Sunday on the campus of Saint Anselm College in Manchester, New Hampshire, broadcasted by CNN and moderated by Wolf Blitzer.

The theme for the night was separation through the highlighting of differences amongst themselves, particularly with the issue of the war in Iraq. Sen. Barack Obama argued that the Bush administration has made the U.S. less safe, not more, to which former Sen. John Edwards agreed adding that "every tool has not been utilized, specifically alliance building."

The universally acknowledged frontrunner thus far, Sen. Hillary Clinton, chose the Iraq War as an opportunity to drive a wedge between her position and the others, stating that she has seen firsthand the consequences of terrorism in New York as a sitting senator during the September 11th attacks and arguing that we are safer now than we were 6 years ago, but not safe enough. This positioning on the war on terror poses potentially dangerous opportunities for political criticism as it places her too closely aligned with the Bush administration at a time when polls indicated plummeting support. Her campaign must also recognize the inconvenient need to emphasize her ability as a woman to remain strong on military and terrorism issues.

"As long as a single troop remains in harm's way in Iraq, I cannot vote against funding them," was Sen. Joseph Biden's argument as to his defense to his vote for the Iraq War funding, but dismissing calls to criticize his Senate colleagues, merely stating that he was right.

"Without a President willing to change course, we must say enough is enough and send a strong message to the White House," said Sen. Clinton in defense of her vote against funding.

Sen. Obama agreed noting that the best way to support the troops was not to impose a military solution in Iraq.

"There's a difference between making your position clear and staying quiet," Sen. Edwards said. Both Sens. Obama and Clinton drew stiff criticism from Edwards who argued that to be a leader; one must go out and state their opinions publicly not quietly and after all other Senators have voted give their vote against funding in the Senate. No doubt the Edwards' campaign prepared a barrage of criticisms well before the debate to be unleashed on the top tier candidates and illustrate a stark contrast. Remaining third in most polls, Edwards knows that he needs more name recognition and unique attributes to display to overtake Clinton or Obama.

Sen. Obama fired back saying, "I have been against the war from the start. You are 4 ½ years late on the issue John," referring to Edwards vote in for the war when he was in the Senate in 2003.

Recently gaining in polls, Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico advertised his credentials as former U.N. Ambassador during the Clinton administration and said that troops should be taken out of Iraq, redeploying to Kuwait and back to re-exert control in Afghanistan. Richardson added that it must be viewed as a civil war and sectarian violence. He said that Congress should vote to de-authorize the war.

Outspoken former Sen. Mike Gravel of Alaska, blasted the other candidates saying, "at least 4 of them with tell you that this is Bush's war. They have just as much responsibility; they authorized the war by voting for it."

Noticeably passionate, Sen. Biden's voice rose as he pointed out that in the Senate there are 50 votes. A Democratic President is needed to pass the much needed de-authorization. He added, "We're funding safety for the troops until we can get the 67 votes needed."

Several stories in the media have recently come out on Sens. Clinton and Edwards neglecting to read the National Intelligence Assessment before voting to authorize the war. Pressed on the issue, Sen. Clinton noted that she was well informed before voting, but that the Bush administration gave faulty reasoning that unfortunately influenced her vote.

Again wedging differences, Edwards said "the difference is, I was wrong. Sen. Obama deserves credit for being against the war from the start. I was not, and I was wrong." This was a particularly scathing shot to Clinton who has drawn many calls for her to admit she was wrong voting for the war.

Although the war in Iraq monopolized much of the debate; health care, gays and lesbians military service, immigration and government's financial responsibility all were debated. Sens. Edwards, Obama, Clinton and Gov. Richardson all worked to give specifics towards their healthcare plans, to which a brief firing back and forth occurred between Edwards and Obama to draw distinctions. All candidates support repealing the ineffective "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," policy for gays and lesbians in the military. Most agreed that Bush's tax cuts should be repealed for at least those earning over $200,000. Notably lacking in the debate was any emphasize on education other than Gov. Richardson's calls for improvements during his first 100 days in office.

Lower tier candidates Gravel and Rep. Dennis Kucinich both lived up to their reputations as being the most outspoken of the group. Unfortunately, Sen. Christopher Dodd of Connecticut fell short of any opportunity to gain ground in the highly watched debate. He lacked any true specifics when arguing policy and position.

There were definite winners in the debate. Sen. Clinton maintained her posture as head of the pack, staying out of direct criticisms of the other candidates. Gov. Richardson gained an edge by doling out his list of accomplishments as Ambassador, Governor and Secretary of Energy. Sen. Biden gained points for passion and as always comes off well informed in debate settings. Sen. Obama kept his stance as an effective and powerful communicator. Sen. Edwards seems to have gained the most, balancing attacks and compliments of his fellow candidates and giving real specifics regarding his plans for healthcare and Iraq.

In a highly populated race for the presidency on both sides of the aisle, this increasingly early jaunt to the White House will no doubt be splattered with many more debate opportunities to either spread ones message, or fall on deaf ears.