Sports Calendar

The best overall performance from an actor in a supporting role was probably that of Joe Biden, the Delaware senator. The notoriously loquacious senator certainly had the best - if shortest - line of the night and with it produced the only real moment of humour in a desperately earnest ninety minutes. When Brian Williams, the NBC anchor moderating the debate, asked him if he would be able to control his famous verbosity and prolixity if he became president, the senator had the perfect answer:

“Yes” he said, and proceeded to say nothing more in a rare unscripted moment that beautifully deflated the question.

Mr Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, also handled most of the substantive issues – especially on foreign policy – with depth and skill.

Chris Dodd, the Connecticut senator, gave some of the most organised, intelligent and thought-out answers. But you found yourself constantly wondering why exactly he is running.

Bill Richardson, the New Mexico governor, was also a little disappointing. He seemed not quite match-fit for the first big night. He was easily the most verbose and least disciplined. He was not helped by what looked like an oddly rehearsed repetition of hand movements during each answer – obviously modelled on the oratorical master Bill Clinton – which were both distracting and made him look as though he were being wound up by some unseen puppeteer.

Making up the numbers were the two wing-men of the unit – wingnuts might be better descriptions – both of whom are in it purely for vanity and self-publicity reasons. Denis Kucinich, the Ohio congressman, and Mike Gravel, the former Alaska senator fulminated against the Bush administration and what they regard as pliable Democrats over the Iraq war, in a rather pointless battle for the pacifist vote.

In magnificently 1960s overtones, Mr Gravel denounced the military-industrial complex and suggested America was the global bully to blame for the world’s problems. But even he declined to join Mr Kucinich in calling for the impeachment of Vice President Dick Cheney.

The Issues

You could not slide a cigarette paper between Mrs Clinton and Mr Obama on the main issues. They both want a quick end to the war in Iraq, both favour a more multilateral foreign policy, both want universal health care. But they both also wanted to make sure voters understood they were tough on national security.

This was the most striking aspect of the whole evening – with the exception of the hard left candidates, all seemed to be trying to appeal not to left-wing Democratic primary voters, but to a broader general election audience. This was evident not only on Iraq but also on some gently conciliatory words on the emotive issue of abortion, for example. It may suggest Democrats are so confident that they are in the ascendant that they can afford to irritate the party’s left-wing base and concentrate already on winning the moderate centre-ground.

Oddest question of the night

“How do hedge funds make America better?”

If the question was odd, the answers – crimped and nervous from candidates who have taken a lot of money for their campaigns from these well-resourced but not popular financial institutions – were odder. They suggested only how little the candidates actually understand what these businesses do.

Best Moment

Hands down, Joe Biden‘s response to the verbosity question.

Worst Moment

John Edwards floundering in baffled silence for a full five seconds as he tried to answer the question: Whom do you regard as a moral leader? He eventually came up with his wife, his father and Jesus Christ, but too late to suppress doubts about how quick on his feet this successful trial lawyer really is.

Most pointless exercise

No, not the entire debate, though cynics might think so. The most otiose feature was the man from the local South Carolina television station who popped up from time to time on cue from Brian William to ask mind-numbingly dull questions from “ordinary voters” that, we were supposed to believe, had been carefully selected from among thousands.

One other luxury that would be better dispensed with: there were too many candidates for this to be a serious debate in the time available. As the campaign goes off on its long journey, television producers must be hoping for some early exits from the also-rans to make future debates real events that might actually change the way people vote.

Times Recommends

• A doctor, a daughter and a man called Johnny
• Mona Lisa's smile may belie ill health
• ‘Parasite economy’ lies behind Greek tragedy