Duncan hunter probably gained the 2nd most from it just by getting some name recognition.
He inserted himself where appropriate and got his face into the public view.
Romney looked and sounded presidential. Gulliani definitely did not.
McCain just sounded angry, at every question.
Tommy Thompson was so stiff I thought he was going to break like a potato chip.
If Ron Paul had a snowballs chance of winning, I'd vote for him simply because I'd know exactly what I was getting.
The rest were pretty forgettable.
Find me an article covering last night's debate that even mentions Hunter having been there last night. This one didn't, and it was written by a Republican. I was hoping Hunter would do something, anything to distinguish himself last night, and I think he failed miserably. I'm not saying he's a bad person, he's just not much of a politician. He's going to get maybe two more shots at this type of debate, and then he will be finished, because the netorks will limit participation to candidates who are polling at 10% or higher.
Hmmm... If that were my criterion, I'd vote for Al Gore. ;-)
But I'm not sure how you can say you know what Ron Paul stands for. He was a Repupblican, and then a Libertarian. Now he is a Republican again, and when he loses this election, he will likely be a Libertarian again. (Or will he?) Sometimes I have a hard time telling him apart from the moveon.org moonbats.