How come UK couldnt explain how he will run the country from the Hague? To me he has not plan. I am surprised that people think that he did well, he did not.

Dida impressed because he punched above his weight. He was clueless about foreign policy when asked about Migingo.

Martha had fresher ideas which is to be expected but she should have found a way to talk tough on corruption and tribalism. She does well when she talks tough.

Muite talked tough but appeared to be paper weight. He didnt seem to believe himself when he argued that the 2 principals should have been Hague bound.

Peter Kenneth had one good moment when he talked about funding his budget but sadly did not capitalise on that moment and expound his vision. He could have come up with revolutionary ideas on reducing government expenditure.

Raila and UK. There was nothing particularly impressive about the 2. They dwelled 2 much on what they have done in the past. I believe that their advisers convinced them to desist from proposing risky new ideas and instead play defensive since they lead in support. Expect them to be even more boring in future debates. Raila should have turned around on his accusers that he influenced the ICC. Surely if he is so powerful that he can influence the US, the UK, the EU, the ICC, isnt he then the president that Kenya deserves? UK should have already prepared a policy paper on how he plans to govern when he and his deputy are at the Hague. That paper would have been very helpful in the debates and also on the campaign trail.

Mudavadi. The question is still out there on who Mudavadi really is and whether his various about turns betray a man more interested in himself than the common good of Kenyans. He lost the opportunity to come out the perfection of 2 dictators. One malevolent, one benevolent. He was supposed to be a cross between UK and Raila. He was unable to portray that image.

My observations on how the debate was framed;

1. The moderators should have fact checked on the voting records of the 4 candidates who were in parliament during ICC debates. There were various lies peddled on that issue by all 4.

2.There should have been questions on the economy. I am surprised that none of the candidates linked food insecurity as a threat to national security.

3. Geopolitics: Several issues including sanctions but more important East African politics should have been discussed. With our neighbours already exploiting their resources, Uganda - oil, Tanzania gas,- it its only a matter of time before Kenya's hegemony and presumed regional leader role is challenged. It will be a sad day when that role is relinguished. Ethiopia with its 80 million people and now challenging Kenya in the flower industry front and a strong military would also be a serious economic challenger in future years.

I believe that Dida was the only winner in that debate.

@accelriskconsult, the next debate on Feb 25th will tackle Economy, Land, Foreign Policy and Devolution.

How can this person give Dida last position:

C & P:

Mohamed Dida: A schoolteacher who joined the race spectacularly late, the political first-timer lit up the four-hour debate with his common touch, spiced with anecdotes that bordered on the comical. While he tended to rumble and be incoherent at times, Dida, 38, asked some basic but hard questions directed at the two perceived frontrunners, Uhuru Kenyatta and Raila Odinga, making them visibly squirm. Score : 4/10

Paul Muite: The 67-year-old lawyer who sought an injunction unless organisers included him. He had declared his candidacy early but then disappeared from the campaign trail only to resurface a few weeks ago. His intellect has never been in doubt and caused a stir when he flatly stated that it was not possible that the country’s grand coalition principals were not also facing International Criminal Court Charges. He performed well given he had nothing to lose and his short preparation time. Score: 5/10

Musalia Mudavadi: A composed—many say aloof - politician whose main campaign theme is that he is a safe pair of hands in the face of more hardline rivals, he looked decidedly colourless on the night as though he wished he were elsewhere. The 52-year-old belatedly stirred to life when discussing his policies on health and education, but by then it was already too late to leave a mark. Score: 5/10

Peter Kenneth: A suave, young politician with dashing looks and who has run a youthful campaign, he was fast out of the blocks selling his policies even before he had introduced himself, but then faded badly. He had a few shifty moments, like when he claimed he did not want ICC-indicted rival Uhuru Kenyatta struck off the ballot, but then insisted that Kenya was “bigger than all of us and not about individuals”. The 47-year-old limped home with some memorable broadsides at the dishonesty of tribally-inclined politicians and also showed good understanding of the national health and education problems, but with few specifics. Score 6/10

Uhuru Kenyatta: One of those believed to have the best shot at the presidency, he was articulate and had clearly rehearsed his policy lines well. However the deputy prime minister, 51, struggled to exonerate his campaign from charges of running on a tribal base, and didn’t help his cause further by confirming that the election was a referendum on the grave ICC charges he is facing. "Kenyans are fully aware of the charges I am facing,” he stated. In a veiled shot at fellow frontrunner Raila Odinga, he said disputes should be settled in courts, not on the streets, an allusion to the fallout over the disputed, and deadly, election of 2007. Score 6/10

Raila Odinga: The incumbent premier, the 68-year-old did well to fend off attacks by opponents over his stint as one half of a coalition government, blaming intra-government infighting. He memorably declared tribalism “a disease of the elite” but could not avoid taking potshots at Uhuru Kenyatta, charging that his chief rival’s campaign was intimidating smaller communities by bandying tribal numbers to prove their dominance. He generally enumerated his policies well, no doubt aided by experience at the head of government, but was unable to land a telling blow on his deputy. Score 6/10

James Ole Kiyiapi: A former permanent secretary in several government ministries, Kiyiapi, 51, gave a polished performance, drawing from his experience of beating the odds despite coming from a marginalised community (Maasai). He struck the right notes on governance but it may not be enough, lacking the staggering resources that some of his rivals command. He remains a breath of fresh air in Kenya’s cut-throat politics. Score 7/10

Martha Karua: The ‘Iron Lady’ of Kenyan politics, the feisty former cabinet minister probably got the edge the debate, as she sought to out her rivals’ rhetoric on tribal unity. In one riposte that drew cheers’ she declared that there was “no difference between a hungry Kikuyu and a hungry Luo,” in reference to the rival communities of frontrunners Kenyatta and Odinga.
She was firm on governance and had decent arguments on health and education, but also seemed a tad too eager to impress, interrupting others and harping on her own record. Strong on principle, the 57-year-old's lone-ranger campaign has however struggled to make inroads on poll numbers, despite a raft of good policies. Score 7.5/10

Verdict: Despite what was an historic engaging debate that helped provide further insights on candidates in what is one of the most tightly contested elections in Kenya’s history, there are doubts if it would provide any perceptible shift in voter choices.

The talking heads at the TV stations remain convinced that opinion poll numbers will remain almost the same for all, with a runoff almost certain. However it certainly broke barriers, forcing leaders to discuss the near taboo-topics of tribal chieftains and the ICC while in the same room.

A second and final debate is scheduled. February 25th.

A very honest and true comment. I see them here too, shouting at the top of their voices defending their tribal chief.

So she is better than the rest of Kenyans sio? She is our role model? That's a tribal jibe, even rao has them, some of this civic/ngo types just wish it was them on those stands, too bad! She can never make it tribalism notwithstanding, meza wembe! Our democracy has come a long way, there are problems but let us enjoy this positive milestones without looking for problems everywhere.