RALEIGH — Talking about high drama.

The seven remaining Democratic candidates for president gathering in New Hampshire Thursday night for a nationally televised debate. Days after the campaign turnabout in Iowa, where Sens. John Kerry and John Edwards stunned the pundits by soundly defeating Howard Dean and Richard Gephardt, the opportunity for the loser to rebound, the winners to capitalize on their momentum, and the Iowa no-shows — Wesley Clark and Joe Lieberman — to prove their mettle was clear.

The moment was dramatic but the performances weren’t. You got the feeling that while this show may have been fresh and engaging on opening night, it had now been running so long that the actors were physically tired, bored with their lines, and in desperate need of a hiatus they are not going to get.

That having been said, I think that Kerry, now once again the frontrunner in the race (at least for a few days), was most successful in seizing the opportunity available to him. He sounded authoritative, emphasizing the “stature gap” argument he often uses to distinguish himself from the field and underline his ability to compete with President Bush. He looked like the frontrunner. But even Kerry faded as the evening wore on.

North Carolina’s John Edwards had a less effective presentation. He bumbled a question on the Defense of Marriage Act, which he said he disagreed with but which contained language protecting the very state autonomy he said he endorsed. Moreover, Edwards was probably the most aggressive of the panel in seeking the change the subject, to downplay the questions asked him by the journalists in order to make a point or emphasize his empathy-and-charm offensive. It was probably a good tactic but it was inelegantly carried out. He looked evasive — not a trait that a trial attorney would presumably want to exhibit.

Still, Edwards was marginally a winner in the debate, too, because Clark did so poorly. Edwards is really running against Clark for third place in New Hampshire (or against Dean if he continues to sink below Clark). It is unlikely that he can overtake yet another candidate and snag second place. Edwards’ bid was helped by Clark’s wooden and sometimes embarrassing performance, including his unwillingness to distance himself from propagandist Michael Moore’s assertion that President Bush was a “deserter.” Clark also struggled to rebut Fox News anchor Brit Hume’s question about the general’s real position on the Iraq campaign. He tried to draw a distinction between his position and Bush’s, but it was all about the aftermath of the war, not about whether to authorize force in the first place.

Howard Dean was another loser. Obviously stung and reeling from his underwhelming showing in Iowa and his subsequent donkey impression, Dean seemed determined at the outset to return to his previous persona of moderate Vermont governor and policy wonk. It didn’t take long, though, for the other Dean to emerge. He talked a lot about fighting. He still looked like a coiled spring. He laid 500 dead Americans at the feet of the three senators on the dias who had voted for the war, a gruesome and unnecessary accusation. And he restated, despite his campaign’s previous disavowal of the idea, his intention to repeal “every dime” of the Bush tax cut, which means a tax increase on the middle class — a position that clearly helped doom his candidacy in Iowa.

Lieberman was highly effective in defending his position on the war, and I think I’d say that even if I didn’t agree with it. But he is no longer a significant factor in the race, I’m sad to say. And neither Sharpton or Kucinich ever were, though Sharpton does have the potential to play somewhat of a spoiler role in South Carolina. I suspect he won’t. I think most black voters in the state will decide to pick a president rather than send a message, but this campaign has already shown some unpredictable twists and turns so I guess we’ll just have to see.

All in all, the last debate in New Hampshire probably didn’t reshuffle the deck. The candidates with momentum will probably keep it, and those without it didn’t get it back — including Howard the Schmuck, who actually admitted that he didn’t always think with his head but with his heart.

Uh, we’re elected a commander-in-chief here. Not exactly a selling point, Dr. Dean.

Hood is president of the John Locke Foundation and publisher of Carolina Journal.