I saw nobody standing out as Mitt did in the last one. I’m waiting for Fred to get in this race. If not, then Newt. I like Hunter as the v/p.
I agree with the observation that nobody stood out. My other observations:
Rudy's like oil and vinegar - it's just not going to happen.
Ron Paul's the true conservative up there but voters don't understand or care for true conservatism (paleo-conservatism).
Huckabee went up a few notches in my book but seems too soft to go up against a raving liberal.
Tancredo did pretty well but he's probably the 2nd least electable, Tommy Thompson being the first.
Romney gained a bit but not much. Had the most detailed and interesting arguments (behind Paul).
Hunter was impressive, but like another poster said, always looks angry - maybe not dynamic enough - needs to show more range.
McCain is just a non-starter...he's riding his name-recognition as far is it will take him I guess.
Gilmore has the opposite problem of Hunter - looks too happy or sheepish all the time. Decent points though.
Brownback - speaks like Gore - too emotional, and therefore the most sincere.
Thompson - unmemorable
Do you think that no one stood out because no one had an excellent debate or do you think it was because more of the candidates had a pretty good performance this time? While I thought some of them were awkward in trying to force answers that didn't fit the questions, I still think that all of them came across as good men. I lean towards the explanation that no one stood out because they all came across better than they did last time.
Bill