Liveblogging The ABC/Facebook New Hampshire Democratic Primary Debate

Didn't Iowa just finish their caucus? What on earth are we doing debating in New Hampshire already?

Welcome to the 2008 primary calendar — where one state comes after another so fast, there's not even enough time to digest the first results before barreling on toward the second.

Tonight's debate gives both Republicans and Democrats a key opportunity to put their candidacy in clear focus in the wake of Iowa — or, if necessary, to redefine themselves just prior to the first primary in the nation. But if you can't catch it, don't fret: starting at around 7:45 Central, we'll have the debate for you here, liveblogged by yours truly. Join us in the comments with your take on how it's going.

7:45 Well, we're about to start the Democratic half of the debates — the Republican debate was surreal, but that's another matter. The Democrats, who immediately follow, were asked to come on while the Republicans were still on stage, and an awkward handshaking ceremony followed. That was something.

It looks like we have a little time for Republican debate punditry. Since we're on ABC, George Stephanopoulos gets to be the central pundit du jour. He notes — rightly — that Romney was the bad guy on the stage, attacked by just about everyone, and — wrongly, I think — that Huckabee's attack, which started off the anti-Romney lovin', was a "clean shot." Huckabee interjected on a request for Romney to state his view on the Iraq war with, "Which one?" It was a quick, sharp response, but Romney took the opportunity to correct Huckabee on statements he'd made about Romney's policy and take the high ground and talk about how they should be addressing their own policy and not others.

Now, that won't end up mattering, because firstly, all the other candidates — and Charlie Gibson, the moderator, himself — went on to point out Romney's vacillation, so that'll probably be the message that sticks, and secondly, if Stephanopolous ignores Romney's response, it's likely that many others in the media will as well. And as much as we'd all like the content of debates to matter, I've said once and will say again that the inherent value in these debates is the earned media that comes from them, and so what the media decides to pick up is in large part all that matters — if the MSM says it didn't happen, it didn't happen. Sad, but true. (Assuming no Kos or Drudge front pagers, anyway.)

8:00 And for a little Democratic punditry: well, I suppose Stephanopoulos knows what he's talking about. (OK, seriously, of course he knows what he's talking about, but I'm the pundit here, so I get to pick on him.) It's a high-stakes night for Clinton, and for Edwards as well, though no one seems to be as concerned with that — which makes for a better possibility for a break-out night, I suppose, as a strong showing by Clinton would simply be "catching up." Obama needs to simply not make any glaring mistakes. Richardson is still on the stage, and no one else met the viability requirements. I'm just surprised he didn't mysteriously abstain when he found the horse head in his bed after having made the alleged deals with Obama to pass him voters in Iowa.

8:06 The first question is directed at Obama, who had earlier said he'd enter Pakistan if he had actionable intelligence that al-Quaeda were trying to acquire nuclear weapons, whether or not Pakistan agreed. Obama stood by that, and added on a bit about nuclear proliferation in general. Charlie Gibson called what he was saying effectively the same as the Bush doctrine — that we can strike regardless of the interests of the country involved. Ouch! Obama draws the distinction that he's talking about an imminent threat, not some perceived chance of a threat in the future.

Edwards is asked if he agrees. He says that if he knew where Osama bin Laden was, he'd go get him, but in the long term, we have to lead the world in global efforts to solve the problem of nuclear proliferation.

Richardson says that we use diplomacy first. Pakistan is already unstable. He takes a crack at Bush's support of Musharraf and how poorly that's been working out. He says he'd ask Musharraf to step aside in favor of a caretaker government, which is provided for in the Pakistani constitution. A very smart answer, but very difficult to soundbite. This probably isn't the place for it.

Charlie Gibson brings it back to the point: al-Quaeda is in western Pakistan, Musharraf won't do anything about it, do we go in? Richardson says that if there's actionable intelligence, then yes, you do, but you can use diplomacy first to try and get them to do something.

Clinton then gets her chance. She's going foreign-policy wonk on it, trying to lay out the complexity of the problem with five different points. She'll get points for foreign policy savvy, but nobody's going to remember those five points tomorrow.

Richardson interjects in favor of deposing Musharraf again, by pointing out that historically when we supported a head of state, like we did with the shah of Iran, it doesn't work out unless the public will is there and that we should be supporting the people of the country, not the head of state.

Obama also gets one more interjection, and goes after Bush for having used 9/11 as a scapegoat to invade Iraq and pulling away from the chase for al-Quaeda, and how now al-Quaeda has been strengthened by that choice.

8:20I haven't been very good about tacking times on to these, have I? Gibson asks what we do if a nuclear weapon is used in an American city, given that estimates of the chances that will happen in the next ten years range from 30% to 50%.

Edwards answers first, and says that the key issue is to find out who is responsible, and go after him, because if they got one nuclear weapon into the United States, it is very possible that they already have another there somewhere, and they must be tracked down before they can use more.

Obama mentions that he's worked on this, and says that retaliation is necessary, but so is curbing nuclear proliferation globally.

Gibson, in turning to Clinton, notes that retaliation may not be possible since it's not likely to be a nation that can be blamed for a potential nuclear strike.

Clinton mentions a Senate bill she's sponsoring to answer the earlier question of "what do we do," which deals with getting national resources to work more efficiently together in the face of a crisis, before getting to the retaliation point and the need to assure that there are no safe haven countries for such terrorists, and that everyone is working together to uproot those terrorists.

Richardson, getting the final word, talks about agreements on fissionable materials before drawing the "big picture" of transnational challenges — not just nuclear proliferation, but the climate crisis, etc. Which, of course, means a shot at Bush.

8:28 On to domestic spending. The idea of change gets thrown out, and Clinton, answering first, gets to use her "you don't get change by fighting with it or hoping for it, you get it with hard work" line that did her pretty well in the previous debate, before launching a barb at Obama about health care and how he's moved around on the issue, as he used to support a single-payer system, unlike now where his system actually leaves people out. Obama answers that that's not what he'd said, and that if he were starting from scratch, he would indeed support a single-payer system, but that's not where we are right now. He doesn't think the risk of people being left out is significant, because they want it — if it's affordable, they'll get it. He also mentions as a difference between himself and Clinton in that she's criticized his payment system, of raising the cap on payroll taxes.

8:33 Clinton gets another shot in at Obama, in that Obama's consistency is in question: he criticizes Clinton for mandates on health care, when his policy also includes mandates for health care for children, and he's criticized Edwards for not being electable because he's changed so many views over the last four years, where he has said he wouldn't fund the Iraq war, and voted for $300 billion for it. Obama answers by defending the difference in the mandate, and saying he hadn't called Edwards unelectable. Edwards, who Clinton had hoped would speak up, probably doesn't get many points by Clinton's book — he identifies himself and Obama as agents of change, noting that they got first and second in the caucuses, and singles Hillary out as a force of the "status quote." Boy, I'm not sure if that bodes well for Clinton *or* Edwards — I don't think Clinton's the one Edwards has to worry about right now.

8:40 Clinton puts down the hammer. In response to Obama and Edwards, she names specific cases of her having actually brought about change, and brings back the "35 years of experience" meme as saying she's running on "35 years of change." Boy, that was a pretty fiery response — but controlled, and powerful. Well done, Senator.

Richardson asks, "is experience a leper?" Sadly this doesn't get as many laughs as "I've been in hostage negotiations friendlier than this one." He got a good laugh out of the crowd with that. Then, of course, he puts out his resume. This may be the longest he's waited in any debate to do so, at least.

Edwards clarifies his point by saying that there are differences between the candidates, and the primary difference is the willingness to confront the special interests that control government. Clearly directed at Senator Clinton.

Obama finally added that what change in government needed to entail was transparency, giving people the understanding that we're working for them. Probably a shot at Clinton as well, considering the issue she's been confronted with before of releasing documents from Bill Clinton's presidency regarding her involvement in the administration.

8:45 Charlie Gibson goes on to the Iraq conflict, and asks if anyone's willing to admit that the surge was a success. Clinton points out that it has not, because the intent was to allow political advancement to take place, and it hasn't. Richardson actually gives a better answer: he points out we're looking at the wrong metrics, and by all metrics that matter, there has been no success.

Charlie insists on someone admitting that the surge has worked — clearly he's convinced of that. Obama finally gets to what I've been hoping someone would say three months ago: our standards for "success" have simply become remarkably watered down, and no, the surge has not worked — of course adding troops temporarily drops the level of violence, but the fact that we're now "down to" the level of violence before the spike during 2006 is not a success. We sure didn't think that level of violence was particularly acceptable in 2006, did we? It's a shame nobody in the media will pick up on that; "the surge is working" is now as facile a buzz phrase as "mission accomplished."

8:53 Edwards adds that when the UK pulled out their troops, there were significant reductions of violence in the areas they had previously occupied. The violence is perpetuated by our being there, and we need to get out.

Richardson mentions that he wants us completely out, unlike everybody else on the stage, and thinks a peacekeeping force will be more harm than good in the area.

Clinton, finishing off the discussion, goes into a little more foreign policy wonkiness — she sure loves those details! — clearly to point out that it's a complicated issue, and she's the person to bring all those threads together and most effectively solve the problem.

Aaaand our first commercial break!

9:00 After the break, we get back to serious questions — like is Hillary likeable enough? No, I'm not kidding. After pointing out Iowa crosstabs that indicated that people felt Clinton was more experienced and qualified, but Obama was more likeable, the question to Clinton is, what would she tell those New Hampshire voters that simply like him more?

Clinton plays coy for a bit, saying that "that hurts her feelings," she doesn't think she's that unlikeable, prompting Obama to say she's "likeable enough." Really, is playing the cute card going to get Clinton any headway?

She then gets to the point — her standard stump points that we need a president that's ready to lead from day one, and that her experience proves that she's capable of that.

Obama then gets a chance to respond to what Republicans have said are reasons she shouldn't be elected. He says that everyone on the stage represents a significant improvement from George Bush's party, and then he gets to beat up on Republicans, saying that "we've seen this movie before" and that we already know the "Republican playbook" and expect this sort of thing.

Richardson, going next, does the resume thing yet again. Apparently his feelings were hurt too, in that he didn't get cited in the crosstabs that were thrown out. He's the only one that's negotiated with terrorists, he's the only one that's balanced a budget.

Unfortunately, apparently he had a question just for him as well — he keeps citing his experience as energy secretary, but we face similar energy problems as before, and if he didn't get the job done then, why would he think he would now?

Richardson actually answers fairly well, noting that both parties have failed at doing what needed to be done with the energy problem, but then pointing out what he did at the time to improve the situation and the effects it had.

Richardson then is asked if executive experience is necessary and relative youth is a drawback. He says, no, relative youth is not a drawback — it worked great for Kennedy — but executive experience is a help.

Edwards also gets the same question, and shifts the topic to what he feels is necessary: not executive experience, but the rejection of lobbyists and special interests. Back to stump points. On a followup on experience, it's mentioned that he doesn't talk about his six years in the Senate much, and how his experience helps him. Edwards brings up the Patient's Bill of Rights, which was one of the first things the Senate did then and which he credits for first taking on the large health care corporations, and how we're still fighting that fight.

Obama follows along on the same thread, talking about cutting out lobbyists by preventing them from buying legislators lunch and how politics needs to be personal and for the people. I don't know why he's trying to play off of Edwards' populism schtick; he doesn't do it as well.

Clinton, going next, gives Edwards and Obama their kudos, but then goes on to say that she's gotten much more done, and that she has much more experience doing that than anyone else on the stage.

9:20 Charlie Gibson waxes a bit on his experience covering Washington, and how everybody talks about change and always has, and then gets elected and does nothing. Clinton responds, noting that President Clinton came in with a budget deficit, and fought corporate interests to raise corporate taxes and get rid of the deficit, along with a number of other domestic initiatives, and that "if people don't see change in that, we've all got amnesia."

Edwards and Obama answer with stump points, sadly for them. Edwards says that we can't get change by catering to lobbyists and corporate interests, and Obama says that we need to be hopeful and words can inspire people. Richardson contrasts himself with Edwards, saying that people don't like the fighting, and that we need to heal America.

Edwards gets the last word, and says that he agrees completely with Richardson and Obama that we do need to heal America, and we do need to unite. He notes that his fight is not one with other politicians, who should be working together. And "it's definitely not with the American people. It's for the American people," and against the special interests which are blocking change.

9:27 Next question: energy. Charlie Gibson wants to know about the carbon tax, which Dodd supported and Al Gore did as well, and why no one on stage would support it.

Richardson answers, and says it's because it's a bad idea. It doesn't make for a mandate, and it gets passed on to consumers. Obama agreed, and also agreed with the cap-and-trade alternative Richardson posed, but also noted that Americans need to be acting to lower their energy footprint. Clinton noted that it is indeed about the middle class, and how that's made harder by the looming recession.

Gibson jumps on the recession issue, and Clinton follows up by saying that we need to fix the alternative minimum tax and give the middle class the tax breaks they need. We're on Democratic red meat territory; expect to have heard all this before.

Edwards added that we're losing jobs, and projected to lose more, and that some of those most at risk are college graduates — this threatens not just the poor, but the entire middle-class foundation of America. Obama once again tried to riff off of John's populism, talking some more about the disparity in earnings and the rich getting richer while the middle class hurt more and more.

Richardson gets asked, in answering the question, to specifically touch on the concerns of the small businesses that make up 75% of New Hampshire's economy. He completely ignores it, and instead talks about balancing the budget, encouraging economic growth, and investing in science.

9:34 The final question: there have been a lot of debates; what one thing that you've said do you wish you could take back? Clinton dodged the question, stating that the tenor of conversation was much better in the Democratic debates than in the Republican debates and that topics were covered that were important to America. Gibson lets her off the hook without a specific answer. Richardson is quick to answer: when he said that his favorite Supreme Court Justice was Whizzer White, he was saying that because he was a JFK appointee, and he wasn't aware that he was also anti-Roe v. Wade and anti-civil rights. Edwards wishes he hadn't picked on Hillary's outfit, and says that he thinks she looks great tonight. Obama also dodges the question, and gets away with it because there's no more time — the New Hampshire debate is finally over! Time for the spin room.

Ok, so how did today's debate pan out for the candidates? Firstly, it's clear that Richardson benefits from the other second-tier candidates not being in the debate, but this was his chance to convince people that he'd earned his spot at the big kids' table, and despite a few strong moments, his constant reminders about his resume made him look like he was trying too hard to prove he deserved to be there.

Among the top three candidates, Obama's never been the strongest performer in debates — he holds his own, but he doesn't impress like he does in prepared speeches. He didn't have any particularly weak moments, but he didn't have any strong ones either. His message was often clouded by Edwards, who got some breaks in being able to often push his "for the people" message before Obama got to it. It's no secret that there's some significant overlap between Edwards and Obama's messages, but with moderators no longer having absolute power over who speaks when, Edwards was able to get in some good lines with good timing and overall have a better evening than Obama. But without any mistakes to capitalize on, Edwards' solid performance may not matter. And the clarification that his "fighting" style was directed at corporations, and that in government we needed uniting, was probably true months ago but is now presented far too late to have any likely effect on how he's portrayed in the media.

But, despite Stephanopoulos' comments after the debate, I think Clinton had the most solid performance of the night. Part of that, I suppose, could stem simply from the fact that she had more that she had to get accomplished tonight to make up for Iowa. Regardless, she seems to have succeeded — she was positive until attacked, and then responded with forceful, clear answers that went as far as a debate performance probably could to redefine the change vs. experience dynamic we've been seeing between her and Obama. Denying the opposition of those two ideas, she pulled a thesis/antithesis/synthesis with the topic and tried to cast her experience in the light of the change it brought about. Instead of talking about "experience vs. change," the message was "my experience is change."

She also gets some points for noting that a female presidency would in itself be a significant change; if there's one thing in the debate that could hurt her, however, it's the trying to play coy with the likeability question, and fishing for a compliment from Obama. That's not bound to play out well for either of them. But on the whole, merging the change and experience messages is a very clever redefinition of her previous image, and it's one that she defended well during the debate. I think Clinton gets the nod for the strongest performance during the debate. The question remains, however: will that be enough?