At Milly's Tavern in Manchester, New Hampshire--where Barack Obama campaign workers had assembled to watch the Iowa caucus results on Thursday night--there was only one question on the mind of the few reporters in the room: what is Hillary Clinton to do now?

By trouncing Clinton by 8 points, Obama shifted the political landscape. If he had won by merely a few points and Clinton and John Edwards had finished close, the race in New Hampshire probably would have been just a continuation of the Iowa contest, with the candidates sticking to their basic gameplans and messages. Finishing (as of this writing) in third place and losing by a significant amount, Clinton and her strategists cannot look at New Hampshire and say, "We just have to do what we've been doing better and hope it will play better before a different audience of Democrats and independents." No, you lose by 8 points, you have to make some changes.

But what changes?

Hillary Clinton has four days to try something else--and two of those days are the weekend. And for it to work, it will have to be big and be bold, so that New Hampshire voters truly notice. One obvious option: go nuclear on Obama. Clinton could, for instance, attempt to frighten--really frighten--voters about his lack of experience.

But when Clinton has attacked Obama in the past, it hasn't done her much good. She fell in the polls after tearing into him. As one Clinton adviser told me a few weeks ago, Clinton plays better as victim than attacker. What else could she do? Let Bill loose? He was ably deployed in Iowa, and that didn't do the trick. Are there other surrogates she could call on who could have an impact in New Hampshire?

Moreover, any dramatic move she might make at this point has the potential of casting her as desperate. Voters, like dogs, can smell fear. She's in a tough fix.

Despite the beer that was flowing at Milly's, none of us reporters cooked up any good ideas for HRC. She's on her own. Iowa was one damn big siren-screaming warning for the Clintonites. Young voters, independents, women and others turned out for Obama, endorsing his message of change and embracing him as the messenger. During his eloquent victory speech, Obama seemed to be riding a wave of history. (Talk about peaking at the right moment.)

In the heat of the moment--especially at Milly's--it's easy to overemphasize Iowa and even, perhaps, New Hampshire. There are other contests after the Granite State, and Clinton has plenty of money to keep her campaign fueled all the way to Super Duper Tuesday on February 5. She could opt to hang tight and hope to best Obama in later rounds. But Obama's triumph in Iowa does suggest that what Clinton has been doing ain't working. To win, she, too, might have to embrace change.

McCAIN'S 1000-YEAR WAR. At a town hall meeting in New Hampshire on Thursday night, John McCain told me that he wouldn't mind if U.S. troops stay in Iraq for a "thousand" years, as long as American casualties are declining. Read my report on this here.

We interrupt political reality--such as the impending Iowa caucuses--to bring you this....

A few days ago, David Broder, Washington Post columnist and reporter and unofficial dean of the DC press corps, offered another heartfelt cry for political unity. In a page 4 news story, he noted,

New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, a potential independent candidate for president, has scheduled a meeting next week with a dozen leading Democrats and Republicans, who will join him in challenging the major-party contenders to spell out their plans for forming a "government of national unity" to end the gridlock in Washington.

Broder was hyping an effort for which he has much affection. But it's hard to take this endeavor--and this pining for beyond-D-and-R politics--seriously. First, the poohbahs of unity participating in this January 7 confab at the University of Oklahoma include former Democratic Senators Sam Nunn, Chuck Robb, David Boren, and Gary Hart, former Republican Senator John Danforth, former GOP New Jersey Governor Christine Todd Whitman, and current Republican Senator Chuck Hagel. A few on this list are political has-beens. (Quick name Robb's greatest accomplishment. It might be having kept Oliver North out of the Senate.)

And some of these political unitarians have stains on their crossing-the-aisle credentials. Danforth is a decent fellow, but he guided Clarence Thomas through his Supreme Court nomination process, thus giving tremendous power to one of the most polarizing ideologues to sit on the highest court. That was hardly striking a blow for unity government! And Whitman, when she served as George W. Bush's first EPA administrator, provided moderate cover to the Bush administration's do-nothing extremism on global warming and other environmental matters. In other words, when she had a chance to make a difference, she punted. It's tough now to give a damn about anything she has to say about the decline of governance and political discourse.

But the real reason not to be too impressed by this bunch: Iraq. That word does not appear in Broder's article once. The war is the most pressing matter facing the nation and the next administration. What would these folks--who supposedly are preparing to back Bloomberg or another nonpartisan and independent candidate--do about it? For that matter, what would Bloomberg? He has said precious little about the war. When he does, I will consider him a serious independent presidential contender. But until then, Bloomberg and the others are just playing at nonpartisan politics. The guys and gal running in the Democratic and Republican primaries each have had to address the issue.

So don't order your Bloomberg bumperstickers yet. For now, it's back to the real world and waiting to see which of the partisan candidates will be taken seriously by the people who count the most: the voters.

Don't be fooled by the headline, for only a fool would make real predictions about the coming caucuses and primaries. I'm heading out of town (and off-line) for a week on a trip that was booked long before Iowa decided to ruin the holiday season by scheduling its caucuses for January 3 (and New Hampshire compounded the inconvenience by setting its primary for January 8). But before I grab the tanning butter and skedaddle, I thought I'd offer one possible headline:

Obama Has Won Iowa

Note the verb tense. This is not a prediction but a statement of fact. What I mean is that Obama has already done in Iowa what he needed to do: show he's competitive with Hillary Clinton. Certainly, if on January 3 he can actually attract more votes there than Clinton or John Edwards, he will truly be in a strong position. But even if he loses in a close race to Clinton by a few points, he will be firmly in the hunt. By drawing close to her--and surpassing her in the polls--in Iowa, Obama has demonstrated he can get within reach of winning.

Earlier this year, Obama was stuck in poll after poll far behind Clinton. That led to talk that he better win in Iowa...or else. Now that "or else" is gone. If he is not blown away by her in the final results, he will be able to carry on. Both Obama and Clinton have plenty of money. And campaigns tend to peter out only when the well gets dry. So Clinton and Obama will continue on to New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina, and Super Duper Tuesday, a.k.a February 5, when 20-plus states will have primaries or caucuses.

The race could turn into a real slugfest. (Think of one of those Rocky movies.) Usually in politics, as in much of life, when chips fall, they fall in the same direction. There are prevailing winds, after all. But is it possible for the chips to split. If that comes to pass in this contest, the Democrats will have a delegate-counting race. And if it's close enough, the so-called super-delegates--party officials awarded delegateship--could end up playing a decisive role in the nomination.

Yes, all this horse-race what-iffing is a bit fanciful. John Edwards still has a shot in Iowa. And who knows what might happen to Joe Biden if he vaults into fourth place in the Hawkeye State? But let's congratulate Obama for having already succeeded in Iowa. He can take the rest of the week off.

Mike Huckabee is a threat. Not just to Mitt Romney, but to both the leaders of the Republican Party and the leaders of the Christian Right.

For years, the Republican Party has played the Christian card, pushing "family values" and decrying abortion and (more recently) gay marriage and, in return, collecting the votes of evangelicals across the country (including key presidential swing states). But if Huckabee wins Iowa and continues to do well in subsequent states, how will the GOP elite react to the possibility of this former Baptist minister nabbing the nomination? My hunch: with panic. While Huckabee can pull social conservatives, he's not what the party needs to attract independents and those suburban GOPers who are not social conservatives. Consequently, there may well develop a campaign--call it a crusade?--to stop Huckabee. And if such an effort emerges, how will the social conservative grassroots of the GOP will take it? Another hunch: not kindly. They've been there for the party, and if they see their party not standing by one of their own, there will be resentment, anger, and alienation--hell to pay?--which could last until November and beyond.

It's not hard to envision a stop-Huck campaign actually deepening his support, for it would play into the familiar narrative of a Christian being persecuted by the powerful. Imagine Huckabee turned into a martyr. Many Huckabee supporters might see how the GOP leaders respond to his success as a litmus test. And that's not a test Republican leaders are likely to pass.

The same goes for the leaders of the Religious Right. How can Pat Robertson face his flock and justify choosing Rudy Giuliani over one of their own? Why won't James Dobson bless Huckabee's bid? Why does the National Right To Life Committee side with a fellow who once advised an abortion rights group instead of supporting an antiabortion champion? Why do some evangelicals ride with a Mormon who has flip-flopped on abortion and gay rights? Have they, Huckabee will ask, succumbed to the corruptions of power? Yes, many of his supporters will say. And, of course, they're right.

There are two possible splits in the works: one separating social conservative votes from the GOP and the other dividing them from the top of the Religious Right infrastructure. So should the Democrats be cheering on the former Arkansas governor and proclaiming, Thank God for Huckabee? Perhaps. But they ought to be careful what they wish for, for maybe Huckabee does, as he believes, have God on his side.

Skeletons--it's hard to keep them in the closet when you run for president, especially if you start to do well. That's what Mike Huckabee has been finding out at hyperspeed in recent weeks. His past statements on religion, AIDS, and the family have come under close watch. His decisions as Arkansas governor are being dissected; his ethical lapses are being studied. At Mother Jones, we discovered that that his presidential campaign and the churches where he served as a pastor for twelve years will not provide copies of the sermons he delivered. GIven that Huckabee campaigns as a self-proclaimed "Christian leader," his actions as "Christian leader" are certainly legitimate subjects of examination. Why is he sitting on them?

I did find one quasi-mega-sermon. Yesterday, I posted piece on a 1998 book Huckabee wrote that was filled with inflammatory fundamentalist rhetoric. In that book, Huckabee equated environmentalism with pornography and associated homosexuality with necrophilia. He dismissed those who advocate workplace equality for women. He denounced those Christians who accept a "misguided version of 'tolerance.'" He decried unnamed "modern government-sponsored social engineers" and claimed that "virtually every dollar poured into" government social programs is wasted. He also declared that people who do not believe in God tend to be "immoral" and tend to engage in "destructive behavior."

The book's content was not shocking, coming from a Bible-thumpinig fundamentalist. But Huckabee is trying to pitch himself as a friendly fellow who, as he claimed in the last debate, can unite a "very polarized country." Huckabee is free to believe whatever he wants, but it's hard to see how a social conservative advocating such extreme views could bring together a divided society.

There's still plenty of digging to be done in the fields of Huckabee. Who knows what will be unearthed? Yesterday, my former co-author Michael Isikoff and a Newsweek colleague of his broke the story that Huckabee, when he was governor in 1998, allegedly blocked a criminal investigation of his then seventeen-year-old son. David Huckabee had been accused of killing a stray dog at a Boy Scout camp, where he was a counselor. The head of the state police at the time told Newsweek that Huckabee's office leaned on him to stop any inquiry. And the FBI chief in Little Rock back then also said Huckabee attempted to stop an investigation of his son. No charges were ever filed. Huckabee denied the accounts of these two men.

The Newsweek story didn't detail the grisly details of the dog-killing incident. But a letter sent to the head of the Boy Scouts in 1998 by the Animal Legal Defense Fund did include the specifics:

It has come to my attention that David Huckabee and Clayton Friday, two scout counselors, have admitted to the brutal killing of a stray dog at Camp Pioneer on July 11, 1998, and have been protected by the Caddo Area Council as well as Camp Pioneer authorities. The two boys allegedly hung a dog by his/her neck, throwing the body over a railing to a twenty foot drop. After realizing that this did not kill the dog, they slit his/her throat, and stoned the dog to death.

Nice boys. No doubt, throughout this (alleged) event, they were thinking, What would Jesus do? ("Yeah, stone the dog!") Now, are the sins of the son the responsibility of the father? They sure are--if the father intervened in a criminal matter to protect the son. And by the way, the 1998 Huckabee book that I referenced above was called Kids Killing Kids. In that book, Huckabee claimed that moral decline in America was producing the kid-killers who conduct murder sprees in schools. The only way to address this problem, he argued, was to make religion and faith the cornerstone of American culture and to do so within the family. Hmmm, what went wrong in the Huckabee household?

Loads of Democrats would be delighted to see Huckabee trounce the other Republicans. For then, they will have months and months to keep on digging and to ask many, many questions about the minister-turned-politican.

Earlier this year, the conventional wisdom was that Iowa might not matter as much as it has in the past. Some candidates--most notably, Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani--were not mounting major productions there. There were new early states for campaigns--and pundits--to worry about: South Carolina and Nevada. And several big states, looking for a piece of the action, were moving their primaries up to February 5 and creating an early Super-Duper Tuesday. So with all that front-loaded action, Iowa, it seemed, could become merely a throat-clearing exercise.

Then there was a shift. After months of campaigning, Barack Obama could not seem to close the gap between himself and Hillary Clinton in national and state polls. In some surveys, HRC was posting a 20-plus point lead. Obama had star power and dino-dollars, but Clinton maintained what at times looked like an unassailable advantage. Her strategists were running her campaign as if she was already in the general election. Her supporters talked of inevitability. Under these conditions, Iowa became crucial--for Obama. In order to stop the Clinton Express from shooting straight to the convention, he would have to slow her in Iowa and demonstrate that he could turn all that cash and charisma into caucus votes. It would be his first and probably only chance. Iowa was all.

Then there was another shift. As Obama surged ahead of Clinton in the Iowa polls, the state became the battleground where Clinton had to win to prove her electability. If she fell her, members of the politerati wondered, would she crash and burn?

Now I'm predicting another shift: Iowa's hype is exceeding its significance. Iowa is obviously critical, with the polls showing a neck-and-neck race there between Clinton, Obama, and John Edwards. But it's now possible to see either Clinton or Obama losing Iowa and still snagging the nomination. (Not so for Edwards.) One key reason: they both have plenty of cash, enough to keep their campaign machines humming along. I ran into a prominent Clinton fundraiser the other day and asked if s/he was worried about Iowa. "Not as much as you might think," the cash-chaser said. "This campaign is going to go on long past Iowa. Why? Because we and they can afford to. Campaigns end when you run out of money. And that's not going to happen to either one of us." And while Obama once had to prove his competitiveness, the fact that he has put Clinton on the ropes in Iowa demonstrates that he can be a contender.

So Iowa might not matter--as long as neither Clinton nor Obama end up on the wrong side of a blowout. "This is going all the way to February 5," the Clinton fundraiser said. "And maybe beyond." In other words, Iowa, you're just the warm-up.

Warning: sports metaphor ahead.

Imagine a year in which the NCAA college basketball tournament is made up of 64 teams that are each lousy. None deserve to be national champion. Yet no matter how bad these squads are, it is a mathematical certainty that one of the 64 will end up winning six games in a row and take the title.

That's worth keeping in mind when pondering what will happen in the Republican presidential contest. Yesterday's dull debate in Iowa was a reminder that none of these guys ought to win. I could list the obvious reasons--Rudy's a gay-loving abortion rights supporter; Mitt's a flipper; John's too crotchety; Mike's got little to say about national security; Fred's a box-office disappointment--but why bother? You know it. Many of the Republican voters in Iowa know it. Still, one of these rather imperfect candidates is going to win.

When asked who it will be--and each day someone demands that I make a prediction--I throw up my hands and say, "I haven't a clue." There are too many imperfections to factor into any calculations. Too many structural flaws to say whose construction will stand (that is, not collapse). But the debate yesterday reaffirmed two simplistic and basic points: Romney sure looks and acts like a president from Central Casting, and Huckabee comes across as a likable fellow. With a field of Grade B choices, such attributes are not to be dismissed.

By the way, David Yepsen of the Des Moines Register, which sponsored the debate, opined that Thompson fared best. He credited Thompson for refusing "to play the 'raise your hand' game in answering a question about global warming." But given that the question was whether Thompson agreed that global warming is caused by human activity and poses a threat, it could be that this moment comes to haunt Thompson, who has flirted with global warming denial--should Thompson reach a position where general election voters care about his mocking skepticism toward global warming.

There's unlikely to be a Thompson bubble--or any other bubble--as the result of this last debate before the Iowa caucuses. Republican voters in Iowa are just going to have to find an inadequate candidate to settle for. And these sort of political decisions do not show up in my crystal ball.

THE WORLD THEY MAKE. The Bush administration is not big on responsibility. I know that's no news flash. But two stories in yesterday's paper made this point. A Washington Post front-pager reported that Defense Secretary Bob Gates is peeved that NATO is not doing more in Afghanistan, where the war is not going well. The article also covered congressional testimony delivered by Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. An excerpt:

Pressed by lawmakers on whether the United States should not shift more of its military resources to Afghanistan, Gates and Mullen held firm, saying Iraq remains the overarching priority for stretched U.S. forces.

"In Afghanistan, we do what we can. In Iraq, we do what we must," Mullen said. "There is a limit to what we can apply to Afghanistan."

So Bush starts another war before finishing the war in Afghanistan and now the U.S. military cannot do an effective job in Afghanistan because of that and Gates is angry that NATO allies are not picking up the slack? Seems there's a lesson in here--and perhaps cause for some humility in asking other countries to do more in Afghanistan, which, of course, they should.

Then there was this headline in the Post:

Hard Choices on Climate Can Wait for Next President, Aides Indicate

That kind of says it all.

Will the GOP debate in Des Moines this afternoon and the Democratic face-off tomorrow in Iowa--the final candidate get-togethers before Iowans caucus--be free-for-alls? Each will be the last time the aspirants have the opportunity to directly challenge rivals before voters start to vote. One can make the case that Hillary Clinton, say, should go for the jugular and slam Barack Obama before he surges past her. Or...that she shouldn't. After all, she's a more sympathetic figure when she's being attacked. And will John Edwards and/or Obama take a powerful swing at her jaw and see if it is made of glass? Remember, though, Iowans tend not to like dustups, and they sometimes do punish candidates who go too negative.

As for the GOP debate, I previewed it here and wondered if it could turn into a theological smackdown, given the recent religious tussle between Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee. Democrats can only pray that the two get into a nasty fight over whether or not Mormons believe that Jesus was the brother of Satan?

Meanwhile, Rudy Giuliani will have to try to address his slipping poll numbers. He's still ahead nationally, but a Washington Post/ABC News poll released yesterday shows Giuliani losing almost one quarter of his support among likely Republican voters in the last month--with Huckabee more than doubling his following and moving into second place. (Romney ticked up a few points, and the two disappointing senators--Fred Thompson and John McCain--each lost about a quarter of their support.)

UPDATE: There were no explosions--theological or otherwise--at the GOP debate this afternoon. In fact, it was rather sedate. I explain here.

Just two days ago, I suggested that Giuliani's support had nowhere to go but down. That's what's happening. And there's still room for further deterioration. At least so says a former Giuliani business associate. This person, a Republican who's not supporting anyone in the race, tells me that he believes Giuliani's consulting firm may be the weakest of the several Achilles heels on the Body Giuliani:

The public still doesn't know all the stuff there is to know about Giuliani--especially his business. This is his general business model: pay me $10 million and you get to say you know me. That's what he does. And I think most Americans are going to think this is kind of shifty and not exactly right. And they're not going to go for his bare-knuckles approach to...just about everything.

And then there's his wife. This person says that Judith Nathan Giuliani sat in on every business meeting he attended with Giuliani. She didn't say anything. She just was there. It was "a little creepy," says this source.

As I noted, those nice Iowans usually don't fancy nasty political attacks. But desparate times lead to desparate measures--and every leading GOP candidate, save Huckabee, has plenty of reason to feel pretty desperate these days.

Hillary on the attack.

That's the narrative of the Democratic contest this week, and it may be the dominant theme until the January 3 Democratic caucus in Iowa. (See here and here.) Sliding in the polls in Iowa--and falling behind Senator Barack Obama--Senator Clinton has begun to swing hard at the Illinoisan. Not just at his ideas, but at him, at his character. Clinton spokesperson Howard Wolfson said the other day, "Senator Obama is a fabulous orator, but we need more than words. We don't need someone who says one thing and does another, somebody who talks a good game but doesn't have the courage of their convictions. And on issue after issue, Senator Obama says one thing and does another." The Clinton campaign sent out an email on Monday calling Obama Karl Rove's preferred Democratic (ouch!) and blasting Obama for supposedly not understanding his own health care proposal, for lying when he has said he has not harbored presidential ambitions for years, and for allegedly running a slush fund (meaning a leadership political action committee, which he manages in the same manner Clinton runs her own leadership PAC). In other words, the fellow who has inspired thousands--if not millions--is a sleazy, hypocritical, incompetent sham.

On Monday, Clinton called Obama a "talker" not a "doer" and a purveyor of "false hopes." She mocked his candidacy: ""How did running for president become a qualification for being president?" On Tuesday, the Clinton campaign suggested that Obama's campaign was mounting dirty tricks against Clinton in Iowa and New Hampshire.

This is much tougher an attack than anything Obama has hurled at her--and he has been critical of Clinton. (The first negative ad against Clinton has gone up, and it's being pushed not by Obama but by a liberal advocacy group.) And it shows--take your pick--either the meanness or toughness of Clinton and her posse. I lean toward characterizing it as the former.

When talking to Clintonites in recent days, I've noticed that they've come to despise Obama. I suppose that may be natural in the final weeks of a competitive campaign when much is at stake. But these people don't need any prompting in private conversations to decry Obama as a dishonest poser. They're not spinning for strategic purposes. They truly believe it. And other Democrats in Washington report encountering the same when speaking with Clinton campaign people. "They really, really hate Obama," one Democratic operative unaffiliated with any campaign, tells me. "They can't stand him. They talk about him as if he's worse than Bush." What do they hate about him? After all, there aren't a lot of deep policy differences between the two, and he hasn't gone for the jugular during the campaign. "It's his presumptuousness," this operative says. "That he thinks he can deny her the nomination. Who is he to try to do that?" You mean, he's, uh, uppity? "Yes." A senior House Democratic aide notes, "The Clinton people are going nuts in how much they hate him. But the problem is their narrative has gone beyond the plausible."

That is, the Clintonites--and the campaign--may be overreacting. Will Democratic voters really buy the Clinton argument that Obama is an inauthentic and a dissembling scoundrel? Until the caucus-goers of Iowa speak, there is no way to know if Clinton's DEFCON-1 assault on Obama will succeed or backfire. But the Clinton attacks do say something about Hillary Clinton. She's adopting a whatever-it-takes strategy, mixing legitimate criticisms with truth-stretching blasts. And her campaign aides have adopted a we-must-destroy-him mindset that they justify by viewing Obama as a political lowlife.

Whatever-it-takes often works in political campaigns. But we all know that hatred can be blinding. Clinton is, as has been noted, running the risk of alienating those kindhearted souls of Iowa by slamming the lovable, likable and inspiring Barack Obama. She could end up looking a bit desperate. Candidates are always responsible for their campaigns, and they can be judged accordingly. If the Clinton campaign throws anything it can against Obama--with little regard for accuracy or decency--that will reflect her own character and values. It could, to turn her words against her, be a disqualification for the job.

Clinton is playing with fire. In explaining to reporters that she will be tougher on Obama, she said, "Now the fun part starts." That was tasteless. It's a remark that certainly can--and will be--used against her. And some Democratic voters might worry that the comment reveals too much desire for (political) blood.

In politics, there can be a thin line between tough and mean. (Ask Rudy Giuliani.) The future of Clinton's campaign--and perhaps the future of the United States--will be determined by how this woman navigates the difference.

ROVE'S LATEST UNTRUTHS. If you want to see how Karl Rove pulled a fast one on Charlie Rose regarding the CIA leak case, check out my story here. Or if you're interested in reading about how Rove has apparently been mis-citing an article I wrote in 2002 to justify his (false) contention that congressional Democrats, not the White House, rushed toward a vote on the Iraq war, click here.

Two days ago, I wrote:

The GOP race is turning into a circular firing squad. There are several in-the-hunt contenders, and the dynamics of the race keep shifting. Remember when a guy named John McCain was the favorite? For a while, the main action seemed to be the mudwrestle between the Giuliani and Romney camps. Now Huckabee is fielding the most hits. Last week, the politerati (myself included) wondered how nasty Barack Obama and John Edwards would get in taking on Hillary Clinton. The answer provided by last Thursday's debate: not as nasty as anticipated. Expect the Republicans to get more down and dirty (and desperate) in the days--and debates--ahead.

Well, the Dems, it seems, are trying to keep up. On Tuesday, ABC News and The Washington Post released a poll showing that Barack Obama was ahead of Hillary Clinton in Iowa by 4 points, with John Edwards trailing Clinton by four points. This was the first time the junior senator from Illinois beat Clinton in an Iowa survey--or, as far as I can recall, any survey.

No wonder then at 3:18 p.m. on Tuesday, Clinton's campaign sent out an email to reporters highlighting one brief passage of a speech she had delivered that day:

I have traveled the world on behalf of our country -- first in the White House with my husband and now as a Senator. I've met with countless world leaders and know many of them personally. I went to Beijing in 1995 and stood up to the Chinese government on human rights and women's rights. I have fought for our men and women in uniform to make sure they have the equipment they need in battle and are treated with dignity when they return home.

Now voters will judge whether living in a foreign country at the age of 10 prepares one to face the big, complex international challenges the next President will face. I think we need a President with more experience than that. Someone the rest of the world knows, looks up to, and has confidence in. I don't think this is the time for on the job training on our economy or on foreign policy.

Ouch. The previous day, Obama, at an Iowa campaign stop, had cited his experience growing up in Asia and his family's Kenyan background as factors that bolstered his foreign policy judgment. Clinton was mocking him.

Fifty-two minutes after the Clinton campaign zapped out its email, John Edwards came rushing to Obama's rescue, with his communications director, Chris Kofinis, issuing a statement defining "mudslinging"--which Hillary Clinton in the last debate had accused John Edwards of engaging in--as when a candidate uses "insults and accusations, esp. unjust ones, with the aim of damaging the reputation of an opponent." Example A: Clinton's ridiculing of Obama. "Now we know what Senator Clinton meant when she talked about 'throwing mud' in the last debate," Kofinis said. "Like so many other things, when it comes to mud, Hillary Clinton says one thing and throws another."

Edwards was both circulating Clinton's slur and excoriating her for it. A twofer? Is he hoping Clinton and Obama will clobber each other, ignore him for a while, and he can slip by? Do his internal polls show that Clinton is still his major obstacle in Iowa? Or does he want to help drive her numbers lower before targeting Obama. This triangle at the top of the Democratic field will lead to interesting and perhaps ever-shifting dynamics in the weeks ahead.

Meanwhile, Obama fired back at Clinton. Referring to her boasting of hobnobbing with global leaders, he quipped, "I was wondering which world leader told her that we needed to invade Iraq." Credit him with half-a-zinger. Problem is, most Democrats have decided not to hold the Iraq vote against prominent Democrats. After all, Democratic voters supported John Kerry in 2004, and he, just like Hillary Clinton, voted to give George W. Bush the authority to invade Iraq whenever Bush wanted. But whatever Obama is doing seems to be working, according to that latest poll. With the freshman senator taking the lead, one can assume the Clinton machine will do more than fight back with sarcasm. This will get rough. Hillary Clinton has made no promises to advance hope or change the bloody, mean-spirited nature of modern-day politics (as Obama has). She has only vowed to fight for you. And before she can do that, she will fight for herself.

Have a good Thanksgiving. I'll see you next week, when the food fight on each side will be approaching Animal House proportions.