The Republican primary contest in New Hampshire has turned into a festival of recrimination, with the candidates arguing over which campaign is violating the supposed 11th Commandment of the GOP: thou shall not attack a fellow Republican. (Yeah, right.) And at the GOP debate on Saturday night, amid this bitter bickering, Mitt Romney got caught (oh so easily) in a lie.

During a heated exchange about illegal immigration--the hot topic of the night--John McCain accused Romney of falsely calling the immigration plan McCain tried to pass in Congress "amnesty" for illegal immigrants. McCain was mad:

It's not amnesty. And for you to describe it as you do in the attack ads, my friend, you can spend your whole fortune on these attack ads, but it still won't be true.

In defense, Romney shot back:

I don't describe your plan as amnesty in my ad. I don't call it amnesty.

Immediately after the debate, in the so-called spin room, Senator Lindsey Graham was spinning for McCain and blasting Romney for running negative ads against candidates and not owning up to doing so. As Graham fumed, a McCain aide shoved into his hand a flyer that Romney had mailed out to potential voters. The piece was an attack on McCain, and one of its key charges was that McCain supports amnesty. "Look at this," Graham said. Gotcha!

This one scene was representative of the larger narrative: the other candidates do seem to detest Romney at the moment, believing he's running a dirtier-than-permitted campaign. The good news for Democrats: there's plenty of time for the GOP contest to get even nastier. Then again, the same can be said of the Democratic race.

I'm in New Hampshire, reporting for my home base, Mother Jones. Here's a list of my recent dispatches:

* How HRC previewed her get-Obama strategy at the Democratic debate. Click here.

* How Romney became an Obama copycat, how McCain became a self-proclaimed "agent of change," and how Mike Huckabee became a Chuck Norris sidekick. Click here.

* How Clinton has had a tough time trying to dash Obama's hope. Click here.

If you're not overwhelmed by New Hampshire coverage, check out these dispatches.

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.