Washington ? Some sort of technical glitch slightly delayed the local cable station picking up the start of Saturday’s Democratic presidential debate in South Carolina, so the first thing Washington saw was civil rights activist Al Sharpton saying that the United Nations could have disarmed Saddam Hussein peacefully if George Bush had not been so impatient to go to war.

Not a great message or messenger for the Democrats, I thought. The first debate of the election cycle, sponsored by ABC News, got better, but at the end of the 90-minute broadcast, it was clear that it will take more than debates to sort the Democratic field. It will take votes in Iowa, New Hampshire and other early contests to determine which of the nine aspirants have staying power. Moderator George Stephanopoulos did a skillful job of giving each candidate a spotlighted moment, but a field of that size is unwieldy, and Stephanopoulos probably gained more stature from the evening than any of the politicians.

Having said that, here’s how the candidates rated on my informal scorecard. In alphabetical order:

• Carol Moseley Braun — The former Illinois senator looked great and made a plausible appeal for women’s votes, but only if you are totally unaware of the shortcomings that led to her defeat for a second term by a Republican so weak he is not even trying for re-election.
• Howard Dean — The former Vermont governor and leader of the anti-Iraq War wing of the party throws enough elbows to have earned the enmity of many in the field. His self-righteous tone may not wear any better than his claim to national security experience, but Dean worries the others as much as he vexes them.
• John Edwards — The North Carolina senator looks younger than Stephanopoulos, who still looks as if he should be getting doughnuts for Bill Clinton. Edwards is running on his humble origins and an anti-corporate repertory of Enron lines, punctuated by elegant hand gestures. Is that enough?
• Dick Gephardt — The longtime House leader can match Edwards in his blue-collar autobiography but, unlike Edwards, he has a big idea: trading tax cuts for universal health care. His plan came in for sharp criticism on its high cost, but Gephardt sells it with conviction and it gives him a niche in the early going.
• Bob Graham — The Florida senator and former governor was lost in the first half of the debate, but once called upon had sensible things to say about the value of his executive experience in the fourth-largest state and his chairmanship of the Intelligence Committee. In a field of self-promoters, he needs to develop aggressive salesmanship — and quick.
• John Kerry — A hoarse and squeaky voice and bad camera angles made it a tough night for the Massachusetts senator. He defended himself well in his personal exchanges with Dean but never got around to developing the rationale for his candidacy. An unexpected bit of humor deflected the “aloofness” charge that dogs him.
• Dennis Kucinich — The Ohio congressman shares Dean’s antiwar position and is more thoroughly populist than either Gephardt or Edwards. But he whiffed on the question of Cleveland’s bankruptcy during his tenure as mayor and came up short on the gravitas scale.
• Joe Lieberman — The Connecticut senator, clearly a grown-up, was quick on the uptake, funny when he needed to be and tied his hawkish national security views with his opposition to the president on domestic issues more effectively than anyone else. But his frequent references to his 2000 run with Al Gore may remind Democrats of an unhappy chapter in their history.
• Al Sharpton — The preacher-politician had the best one-liners, and was effective in allaying fears that he would be as divisive in this self-appointed role as a presidential candidate as he’s often been in his New York past. The white candidates who covet African-American votes in the South Carolina primary would still like him to go away. He won’t.

The oddity of the night was that, in the section where each candidate could ask a question of any rival, no one tackled Kerry. Maybe it was a sign of respect for his record as a skilled debater or a tactic for denying him camera time, but it sure worked against the man some have called the heavyweight in the field.

Overall, I thought the evening showed, not surprisingly, the advantage of those who have been there before. Gephardt, who ran for the nomination and lost in 1988, and Lieberman, the 2000 vice presidential candidate, delivered their messages consistently — and a showdown between them would clearly measure the strength of the old-time Democratic-labor message vs. the Clinton-Democratic Leadership Council version. But others have other ideas.

— David Broder is a columnist for Washington Post Writers Group.