Something extraordinary happened at the Democratic debate last night:  it got interesting.  With a mere seven candidates on stage, the debate got to go more deeply into the issues, and to hear more from each of the people on stage.  What happened when we saw and learned more about these candidates? What did they do with their extra time to persuade us they were ready to assume the presidency?

Tom Steyer delivered strong, especially on race — but it wasn’t enough.  Steyer was consistent, humorless, and strident.  He looked and sounded like a man who wasn’t getting the attention he felt he deserved.  His body language revealed this combination of strength, anger and rigidity:  he karate-chopped incessantly, describing a narrow lane with his hands, as if by restricting his message (to his business experience and beating the current president) he might perhaps get more attention.  He had a strong debate but, I suspect, did himself no good.

Andrew Yang showed a sense of humor and irony.  When asked what gift he would give the other candidates – or how he would ask forgiveness from them, his response, after a long pause, was “Wow.”  Then he offered his book as a gift, “full of data.”  I’m not sure there will be a lot of takers on that gift, but Yang’s performance was the most flexible and interesting.  His body language mirrored this content: his hand gestures were the most open and varied.  If the American people keep seeing more of Yang, they might actually come to consider him a possibility.  At least, they’ll find him entertaining; he got the most laughter all night.

Amy Klobuchar displayed both anger and humor – and asked for forgiveness.  Amy had a strong debate, showing flashes of anger and humor, both.  Klobuchar is offering the public two reasons to vote for her:  her legislative experience, and her origins in the “flyover” part of America.  I think she made her case powerfully and probably helped her standing.  Her worst body language sin is a tendency to narrow her eyes when looking at the camera as if she doesn’t like what she sees.  That’s a problem because anybody watching feels like she’s looking at them.  But overall, she’s quick on her feet, smart, and strong.

Pete Buttigieg took some hits but kept his poise.  Pete had a so-so night.  His worst moment came when he was accused of having a fundraiser in a wine cave where $900 bottles of wine were consumed.  His response was effective, saying that he wants all the help he can get – basically the big tent answer – but that didn’t completely dispel the image of that sybaritic wine cave.  My question to Pete:  how do I get a taste of that expensive wine?  Seriously, Buttigieg is starting to show a tic in his answers.  When he finishes his response, he looks straight at the camera (not the questioner), opens his eyes wide, and, in effect, says, “love me.”  Pete, stop “nailing the landing”; it looks affected.

Elizabeth Warren stuck to her talking points.  Warren had the weakest showing.  She hasn’t moved much beyond her “I’ve got a plan for that” answer for most questions, and it’s starting to pale a bit.  Her fracas with Buttigieg on the wine cave was probably effective in taking him down a bit, but as we saw with Kamala Harris, candidates don’t win with negative zingers in a large field.  And it almost sounded like she was complaining when she referred several times to the 100,000 selfies she’s taken.  Still, she does use the anecdotes she’s heard while taking those selfies, about hardships Americans are suffering, to good effect.  But in picking more fights she risks looking strident; she’s at her best when she’s talking positive.  Her body language was repetitive and dour, as if she wasn’t glad to be there.

Bernie Sanders displayed consistency.  Sanders was the same as ever – the pointing forefinger, the shouty voice, the portentous statements about corruption and big corporations, the tendency to answer every question with the same complaints about Trump and greed.  It’s apparently still playing well on the campaign trail, but he quickly gets monotonous when he gets more time.

Joe Biden came ready to fight and ended with a holiday message of thanks.  The surprise of the night was the performance from Biden.  For the first time, he was succinct, relevant, and clear.  He scowled most of the time, and that focus served him well.  He talked about his experience and for the first time you could believe it might be valuable.  He actually committed a body language sin I haven’t seen in years on the stage at one point when one of the other candidates was talking:  he crossed his arms over his chest like an angry parent about to discipline a child.  Speaking of children, he may get into trouble for mimicking a child (unnamed) whom he was apparently helping regularly in some way, who appeared to have a stutter.  But, as always with Biden, you don’t suspect malicious intent, just some slightly clumsy attempt at empathy.  And then at the end, in his closing statement, he turned all Nice Biden again, with a statement of thanks to the other candidates and to the hosts for, essentially, working this close to the end of the year.  If anyone could be said to win the debate, it was Biden this time.

All in all, a debate much more worth watching than most of the earlier ones.  Let’s keep winnowing the field!