MANCHESTER, N.H--In the waning moments of tonight's ABC/Facebook Democratic debate, moderator Charlie Gibson did what debate moderators have done since the Stone Age (i.e., 1960 or so): closed on a "lighter" note. "There've been an awful lot of debates," he said. "Tell me one thing you said in those debates that you wished you hadn't said."

Clinton's answer--or non-answer--was revealing. "What's really most important about these debates is that the Democratic Party stands in such contrast to the Republicans," she said. "They're not talking about what really is going to face the next president. Beyond that I'll let the pundits decide what I said or didn't say in any of the debates."

Delivered, as ever, like a true frontrunner: speak magnanimously for the entire field--and never say anything that can (and will) be used against you in the court of public opinion. It's long been Clinton's forte.

The only problem? After a crushing eight-point loss to Barack Obama in Iowa, Hillary is no longer the frontrunner.  Nationally, she's still beating Obama by 20 points. But polls taken here after Iowa show the Illinois senator with leads ranging from one to 12 percent. If Clinton loses on friendly turf--her husband's political network is strong in New Hampshire and she's long dominated state surveys--catching Obama will probably prove impossible. Tonight's faceoff at St. Anselm College in Manchester was her first and last chance to reorient the race before Tuesday's primary.

Did Clinton handle her new role as second fiddle well enough to reclaim the lead? Beauty may be in the eye of the voter. Her wonky, bullet-pointed answers on Pakistan and loose nukes will likely please supporters, but it's hard to imagine that undecideds, much less Obama fans, were converted. Everyone already knows that Hillary is a formidable wonk. She kept up with Edwards and Obama in the (absurd) contest to say "change" several times per sentence, delivering her message--“Words are not action. As beautifully presented and passionately felt as they are, they are not action. What we need to do is to translate thought into action and feeling into reality”--with gusto. But the success of that argument still depends on whether New Hampshirites believe that only experience begets change--or if they decide, like Iowa, that the best agent of change is change itself. Finally, she spent much of the middle of the debate attacking Obama. She attacked him for not including a mandate in his health care plan. She attacked him for changing positions over the course of his career ("He could have a pretty good debate with himself," she said). And she attacked him for appointing a pharmaceutical lobbyist as his New Hampshire campaign chair. (No response). As risky as this is--sniping looks desperate and only reinforces Obama's "new politics" message--it's Clinton's best hope to reinforce doubts about her rival and show fiesty Granite Staters that she's willing to fight for their votes.  

Obama, for his part, made no mistakes, defending his politics of hope ("Words do inspire. Words do help people get involved. Don’t discount that power") and brushing off barbs. (Key moment: asked for a response to the Republicans' remarks about him, Obama was too cool to be bothered:  "I was going back and forth between the Republicans and football.") Edwards didn't help, aligning himself with Obama as a change agent and criticizing Clinton's carping. “Anytime you speak out for change, the forces of status quo attack," he said (spurring a heated, eminently YouTube-able response from Hillary, above). And since Bill Richardson won't win, his efforts to distinguish his experience (gubernatorial, cabinet, diplomatic) from his opponents' (senatorial) sounded more like a call for a balanced ticket than a presidential pitch.

Over the next three days, expect Clinton to continue characterizing Obama as an unknown quantity who talks big but won't deliver (while laboring to convey confidence). And expect Obama to continue to float above the fray. "There have been all kinds of aspects to my debate performance that I'd like to correct or sharpen," he said in response to Gibson's final question. "But here's an area where I actually agree with Hillary. There's been a stark contrast generally between the four of us and those who were debating previously." All magnanimity, all dodge. Sound familiar? On Tuesday, Obama will either fully claim Hillary's frontrunner crown--or the tug-of-war will start all over again.