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.

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.

With the United States' image abroad suffering--especially in the Muslim world--what could America do to improve its standing? How about selecting as commander in chief a fellow who describes himself as a warrior for Christ?

That's what more and more Republican primary voters appear to be planning to do, for lovable, ol' Mike Huckabee, now the Iowa front-runner, has used some harsh rhetoric over the years to express his belief--to put it roughly--that everyone ought to be Christian. As has been widely noted in the past day, during a 1998 speech to Southern Baptist pastors, Huckabee, a former pastor who at the time was governor of Arkansas, declared that they had to "take this nation back for Christ." (Now where would that put American Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and atheists?) And in a 2003 Veterans Day speech at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Huckabee, as the Fort Worth Star-Telegram put it, compared Christians to "soldiers on a spiritual battlefield." In that address, Huckabee explained, "When you're a pastor, you should be the captain of a warship that's fighting the forces of evil." (He also complained that too many "people in the pews" would prefer their pastor be "captain of a Love Boat," meaning a minister who arranges feel-good activities for his parishioners, such as outings for seniors and summer camps for the youth.) In the speech to the seminarians, Huckabee urged them to consider themselves as soldiers and added, "you must be willing to sever relationships that hinder the mission."

Sure, plenty of fundamentalist Christians feel this way. But such tough talk--let's be Christian soldiers and reclaim the country for Christ!--probably would not play so well abroad. For example, how might Arabs interpret a President Huckabee decision to send more troops to Iraq? Hmmmm, onward Christian soldiers? (On Monday, my colleague Jonathan Stein posted other examples of Huckabee's rhetoric of absolutism.)

Huckabee has called for compassionate social policy, and there's a touch of populism to his positions. In his 1998 speech to the Baptists, he decried Christians for not doing enough to help the poor:

I'm often asked why taxes are so high and government is so big. It's because the faith we have in local churches has become so small. If we'd been doing what we should have -- giving a dime from every dollar to help the widows, the orphans and the poor -- we now wouldn't be giving nearly 50 cents of every dollar to a government that's doing...what we should have been doing all along.

But at the same time, he denounced the ability of government to help those widows and orphans:

I didn't get into politics because I thought government had a better answer. I got into politics because I knew government didn't have the real answers, that the real answers lie in accepting Jesus Christ into our lives.

So it all comes back to Christ. Forget government, just get right with God's only son. That's not surprising for a Baptist pastor. But it may be a hard sell in the general election and overseas. Which is probably why, as Stein and I reported yesterday, the Huckabee campaign says it will not release any of sermons Huckabee delivered during the twelve years he was a pastor at two Arkansas churches. He's now a captain who wants to keep his battle plan secret.

Once upon a time Mike Huckabee was a Baptist preacher. Then Mike Huckabee became a lieutenant governor. Then Mike Huckabee became a governor. Then Mike Huckabee became an ex-governor running for president--and a front-runner in the all-important little state of Iowa. And that Mike Huckabee was not so keen on sharing with voters and the media all the glorious words that Mike Huckabee the minister preached.

Since becoming a hot commodity, Huckabee has zigzagged on statements regarding faith and politics. In one speech he said the power of prayer was responsible for his surge in Iowa polls; he then quickly backtracked. In one debate, he indicated he believed in creationism; more recently, he dodged the question. And days ago he hit a rough patch when harsh statements he made in 1992 about AIDS were publicized.

In the midst of all this, Mother Jones, my home base, went looking for copies of the sermons Huckabee delivered during the twelve years he was pastor at two churches in Arkansas. The bottom line: neither church is willing or able to produce a copy of any of Huckabee's sermons from that entire period. And Huckabee's campaign, responding to an inquiry from my colleague Jonathan Stein, says it will not take any steps to make Huckabee's sermons available to the media or the public.

Is the full gospel of Huckabee being hidden from the public? You can read the story Stein and I wrote about this here.

Let us now give thanks to Rudy Giuliani for causing the introduction of a vitally important issue into Campaign 2008: Secret Service protection for presidential mistresses. On Meet the Press on Sunday, uber-host Tim Russert asked the former NYC mayor if it would be "appropriate for a president to provide Secret Service protection for his mistress." Giuliani waffled, saying it "would not be appropriate" but then explained why it had been appropriate for New York's finest to protect his mistress when he was mayor, suggesting it could be justifiable for the Secret Service to safeguard a presidential gal-pal (or guy-pal).

I'm relatively certain this is not the sort of stuff Giuliani expected he'd be discussing when he entered the race. And it's indicative of a problem facing his campaign: he doesn't do well on what I call the Ten Second Test.

For many Republican primary voters, Giuliani probably does fare rather well in the first ten seconds they think about him: America's Mayor, Mr. Tough Guy, the fella who seemed courageous and in command on September 11 (when the national commander-in-chief was playing hopscotch on Air Force One). But most of the information a GOPer obtains about Giuliani after that first consideration is not (on a Republican scale) positive. On key social issues, he's closer to Hillary Clinton than George Bush. Regarding his actual record on 9/11, there are rescue workers, emergency management specialists, and fire fighters who decry his actions and undermine his main sales pitch. His business clients? Giuliani has worked with government officials in the Middle East connected to al Qaeda and with an international gambling venture that included a partner linked to the regime of Kim Jong Il and international organized crime. (Does Jack Bauer know about this?) There's also Giuliani's promotion of his once-close friend, the now-indicted Bernard Kerik, and, to top it off, a personal life that even O.J. Simpson wouldn't want. (Can you imagine a family in which a son opposes the possible presidency of his father? Oh yeah, the Reagans.)

So Giuliani, in terms of how he's seen by a GOP voter, starts out at a high level--perhaps close to the ceiling for his potential support. But he has far more room to fall than to rise.

New Yorkers know much of the it-ain't-pretty nitty-gritty about Giuliani--and so do all those NYC media-types who have been covering and chattering about him for years. But even this far into the campaign, there likely are plenty of Republican primary voters--and certainly plenty of those non-party-minded voters who only bother with general elections--who have not boned up on Giuliani. When they learn more, how will they regard the man who has to explain why his mistress needed security?

Now for the counterargument. Can Giuliani win? In this GOP contest, anything is possible. (Yes, even John McCain has reason to hope.) And if Giuliani should somehow bulldoze his way past the social conservatives and snatch the GOP nomination, he might go on to become America's Margaret Thatcher. She once seemed an improbable leader of England, scorned by foes as "Attila the Hen." But in the late 1970s, she became England's iron-handed nanny and held the post for 11 years. Many in England obviously yearned for a toughie--and that was long before 9/11. These days, perhaps American voters will overlook Giuliani's corruptions and peccadilloes and be swayed by his whatever-it-takes-to-protect-us swagger. There are many corrupt mayors and governors who have been elected to office because voters cared about something other than cleanliness. Voters could well go for Giuliani's bark and ignore his self-inflicted bites. If so, politicians who worry about the security of their mistresses will have reason to be grateful.

WHERE'S HILLARY? Is it a coincidence that in the wake of Hurricane Oprah sweeping through Iowa, South Carolina and New Hampshire, Hillary Clinton is not campaigning Monday or Tuesday in any of these states? In fact, shes in California with a very, very light public schedule (only one public event), according to an email sent out by her campaign. Waiting for the storm to blow over? My theory: she wants to avoid getting into any sort of fight with the Diva of All Entertainment. That would be good for ratings--but not for the Clinton campaign.

For the moment, it seems that the question of the Democratic horserace is this: how negative will Hillary Clinton go?

A prominent Clinton campaign adviser tells me that the Hillaryites are worried about the calendar--and worried enough that her attacks on Barack Obama may well get sharper. If--just if--Obama wins in Iowa, this Dem says, the five days between the caucus and the New Hampshire primary might not be enough time for Clinton to derail Obama. Then a nightmare (for Hillary) scenario is possible. Independents and Republicans (who want to hurt Hillary Clinton) turn out to vote for Obama in the New Hampshire open primary. Then the next place truly to stop Obama will be South Carolina on January 26 (a week after the Nevada caucuses). But one word about South Carolina: Oprah. In the Palmetto State, the fight will be for African-American voters. Clinton has done well there so far, according to the polls, and she has racked up critical endorsements from African American leaders in the state. But if the Diva of All Entertainment tours with Obama in South Carolina, she could win the black vote for him. Imagine the impact it might have if she appears at rallies with Obama and simply remarks, "Finally." She wouldn't have to say much more. And if South Carolina falls....

This sort of what-iffing is a sport for the politerati. But it's what campaign planners have to do. "We once thought he had to win Iowa to stay alive," this Clintonite says. "We now think that we might have to win to stay alive." Will the fight get even more nasty as Iowa approaches? "There's still plenty of time for that," this person says. "And that's how things go in politics. There may be no choice."

No doubt, the Obama campaign is gaming out the possibilities and calculating how far to go in slamming Clinton, as is the Edwards camp. Yesterday Edwards, who weeks ago was slashing away at Clinton, disparaged candidate-on-candidate sniping, complaining that such political discourse ignores the problems of real folks. Perhaps he has concluded his best shot is to try to sprint past the carnage created by a Clinton-Obama battle. Given the short space between Iowa and New Hampshire--last time there was eight days in between--there will be no time for any campaign to try a series of different tactics. They will have to be ready to roll on January 4 with whatever strategy they have cooked up for what will likely be the five most intense days in modern political campaigning.

So will Hillary, should she come up short in Iowa, continue to blast away at Obama (or denounce Edwards if he manages a surprise win in Iowa)? A former top Clinton White House official, unaffiliated with any current campaign, points out that one thing that Hillary Clinton does not do well is attack: "She's much better when she's being attacked." This person's advice for Clinton if she happen to lose in Iowa: "She should flirt. She can charm. I've seen her do it. Not like Bill. But she should not get her back up. She should be gracious. She doesn't do sarcasm well. She looked bad when she mocked Obama for saying he had gotten foreign policy experience by being a kid in Indonesia. That's something a surrogate should do, not her. She should resist the urge." Can she? "Well," this former Clintonista says, "that may depend on whether it's a 2-point loss in Iowa or a 5-point loss."

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.

After the CNN/YouTube Republican debate last week, fellow CQ blogger Richard Whalen observed:

The verdict: a very disappointing “debate.” After the worst-ever week for the greenback in the past half century, not one of the presidential candidates had anything to say about the economy, the dollar, the falling real estate market, the erratic stock market – zip.

These rich and powerful men are not concerned about how Americans are just getting by from pay day to pay day. Why aren't these candidates addressing the economic issues that are troubling most Americans and better yet, offering concrete solutions? Even a Thompson who flashes down-home folksiness had nothing to say about jobs, security and the future of the economy.

There were other matters not addressed during that debate. Iran, for instance--and global warming. (No YouTubers asked Thompson why a few months ago he delivered a radio commentary mocking people who worry about global warming.) But Whalen's posting prompted me to go back and look at the Democratic debate, held in Las Vegas on November 15. A search of the word "job" produced ten times the candidates used the J-word:

* Joseph Biden: "The American people don't give a darn about any of this stuff that's going on up here....They're worrying about whether they're going to keep their job."

* Christopher Dodd: "We Democrats have a job to do, and that is to unite this party, attract independents, Republicans who are seeking change....The American people want results, they want the job done, exactly what Joe Biden talked about here. But people get up in the morning and go to work, they sit around and they worry about their jobs, their retirement, their health care, this kids' education, and they wonder if anybody in Washington is paying any attention to them and whether or not the job is being done on their behalf.

* Bill Richardson: "Are we creating jobs and economic growth?

* Dodd: "I believe part of our job is to discourage those who want to come here [illegally]."

* Dennis Kucinich: "So I'm the candidate of workers in this -- this campaign because I've stood for jobs for all, full employment economy."

* Hillary Clinton: "you need to weed out the teachers who are not doing a good job."

* Richardson: "[Musharraf] is supposed to go after terrorists on his border. And he has done a very weak job of doing that."

* Barack Obama: "[American troops in Iraq] are doing a magnificent job."

* John Edwards: "NAFTA...has cost us millions of jobs.

* Richardson: "The federal government wasn't doing its job in stopping the flow of drugs and people....We should speak frankly to our friends [in Mexico], and it should be something like this: Mexico, give jobs to your people.

Note that none of these references were a pledge to improve the jobs situation in the United States or a proposal to do so. Sure, conventional unemployment numbers are low. But plenty of Americans are--to use a technical term--wigged out by the prospect of economic insecurity. In today's globalized economy, practically anyone can lose his or her job tomorrow and have a tough time finding a new one with good pay and benefits. Once upon a time, many Americans--even those with only a high school education--could look forward to sticking with the same decent-paying job for decades. No more. And add the accelerating costs of health care and education to the picture, plus the iffiness of many retirement plans, and you get a mood of unease and worry. (And I'm not including in this mix the fear of dirty bombs being detonated in malls during the Christmas rush.)

None of the leading candidates are speaking much about this declining (or lost) economic security. The Dems uttered the word "security" when discussing border matters and foreign policy (and, of course, Social Security). But they have not raised the wider issue of economic security as a main subject. (Edwards has come close in his populist attacks on corporate power in Washington, but just close.) And the Republicans are not even within a country mile of the issue. They're too preoccupied with providing tax "relief" to millionaires.

Jobs--this used to be bread and butter for Democratic candidates. Not that it always worked. Remember Michael "Good Jobs at Good Wages" Dukakis? But the last Democratic candidate to win the White House--Bill Clinton (a.k.a. Mr. Feel Your Pain)--did so by addressing the economic anxieties produced by the recession of the early 1990s.

The international economic tidal forces that are battering American workers are not easy to alter. Even though Democratic candidates do have position papers outlining how they would straighten the middle class and create some jobs, they are skimming the surface. None have yet connected with the deep-seated anxieties of today--and connecting with the voters is their No. 1 job.

LET THE GOOD TIMES...COME BACK. This weekend I attended a fundraiser held by the Future of Music Coalition, a nonprofit outfit focusing on music and technology issues, and Sweet Home New Orleans, a nonprofit organization that supports New Orleans musicians who lost homes during Hurricane Katrina. Part of the proceeds from the evening are going to help Al "Carnival Time" Johnson, a New Orleans musical icon for four decades. His home of 40 years was destroyed during the flood when a barge landed on it. He lost just about everything he owned. At the fundraiser, Johnson played some old-time New Orleans R&B, and Mike Mills of R.E.M. did a short set of his own. If you'd like to help musicians like Johnson, please check out Sweet Home New Orleans.