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.

AMES, Iowa--I was expecting Martin Sheen--or, to West Wing addicts like me, President Josiah "Jed" Bartlet. I got Bill Richardson instead.

Scheduled to appear with Richardson yesterday and today for a series of "Final Job Interviews," Sheen was too sick to fly to Iowa. The hope, I suppose, was that the endorsement of the Nobel prizewinning, trivia-obsessed President Barlet, an inspiring if fictitious figure in American politics, would help propel the New Mexico governor to a surprise top-three showing in Thursday's caucuses. That's not going to happen. Richardson won't finish first. Or second. Or third. Truth be told, the best he can hope for is a sub-bronze, fourth-place finish--with or without Sheen. And yet still he came, like the Joe Bidens and Chris Dodds and Dennis Kuciniches of the world--his fellow fourth-place hopefuls--to campaign at an Ames, Iowa art gallery at 8:30 a.m. on a frigid New Years Eve. Sans Hollywood superstar.

I'm glad he did.

Witnessing Richardson in the (ample) flesh is instructive. In the debates, the only place most of America has seen him in action, the governor appears as a bumbling Bluto of sorts--you (or at least I) was constantly reminded of former SNL star Horatio Sanz. But in the small rooms of Iowa, he displays a "he's like me," Average Joe quality that's completely lacking in the rest of the Democratic field.

I've spent time with Obama, Clinton, Edwards and even Biden. All of them are "slick" in their own ways--Obama, cool and professorial; Clinton, coiffed and distant; Edwards, theatrical and salesmanlike; Biden, self-consciously ingratiating. But Richardson is none of the above. This morning, for example, he appeared in a blue wool workshirt with leather elbow patches, a red turtleneck t-shirt and dark moleskin pants. (Imagine Obama in that outfit.) He ad-libbed jokes ("Congressional earmarks: all pork. Maybe I shouldn't say 'pork' here."). He admitted that his plan to cut the deficit won't pass Congress. And when a handler told him to wrap it up, he shouted, "Hey, man. I'm at 13 percent"--a bit of an exaggeration--and proceeded to take eight more questions from the audience (in fact, a full hour of the hour-and-fifteen-minute event was Q&A). For comparison, Clinton isn't taking any questions these days. And even when she was, she'd stop after three or four. Total.

Richardson reminds me of Huckabee, actually. Same sense of humor. Same "likability." But while the former Arkansas governor has risen to the top of the Republican field, his New Mexican counterpart is still mired in the single digits. That gap speaks volumes about the difference between the Democratic and Republican races for president. The former is clogged with celebrities at the top; the latter is completely lacking a consensus candidate. There's no room in the Democratic contest for anyone not named Obama, Clinton and Edwards. In the GOP, there's nothing but room. C'est la 2008.

Not that Richardson is admitting defeat. As this morning's event came to a close, he turned to one of the two TV cameras filming his address--Obama and Clinton command dozens at this point--and said, "This is for my friend here from ABC. Let's shock the world. Don't let the D.C. pundits tell us who's going to win. It should be the voters of Iowa."

DES MOINES, Iowa--Maybe you checked the RealClear polling averages daily. Maybe you read Marc Ambinder morning, noon and night. And maybe, be-dewed with perspiration, you refreshed DesMoinesRegister.com over and over again, waiting for the latest political stories to appear.

Or maybe not.

If you were like most normal/sane Americans, you probably spent the last week eating, drinking and gifting with family and friends--not following the "race for the White House." Smart move. But smart or not, the race went on without you. Now, after a year of punditry and prognostication, the Iowa caucuses are only a few days away. You know, actual voting. At long last. To get you up to speed, here's a candidate-by-candidate primer on the (Hawkeye) state of play. Dems first; Republicans a little later. Are you ready for some politics?

DEMOCRATS

John Edwards (Average: 25.8 percent)
On Dec. 29, Mason Dixon released the first poll since August showing Edwards leading in Iowa. Of course, polling the caucuses is essentially a crap shoot--not to mention the fact that Edwards led Clinton by only one point and Obama by only two, making the survey, which had a five-point margin of error, statistically meaningless. But that didn't stop the Edwards campaign from claiming "growing momentum"--or reporters like me from reporting on it. The truth is, Edwards has never been out of the hunt. He has a loyal base of previous caucusgoers, many of whom caucused for him in 2004, and a solid get-out-the-vote (GOTV) organization; he's the only one who's been here, done this. But after being largely ignored by the dueling Democratic frontrunners, he's spent much of the last week under heavy assault from Obama over 527 groups--outside organizations collecting undisclosed and unlimited donations--that are spending in the state on his behalf (more below). We've yet to see whether the attacks--which question whether Edwards walks the "anti-Washington, anti-big money" walk--will work.

Barack Obama (Average: 26.4 percent)
Publicly, Obama has spent much of the last week attempting to turn out new, under-50 caucusgoers and saying he's the only candidate who can "change" our politics. Nothing new there. But behind the scenes, his staff has been working hard to to distinguish the Illinois senator from Edwards. Since Dec. 27, more than half (14 of 27) of the emails I've received from the Obama camp have essentially called Edwards a hypocrite for not stopping Alliance for a New America, a labor-backed group run by his former campaign manager, from spending millions of dollars on paid advertising in Iowa--even though Edwards is critical of such efforts on the stump. (Edwards has said he wants the spending to stop, but claims he has no control over the group.) Only one of those 27 emails focuses on Clinton--a striking shift in focus. What's happening? Clearly, Obama realizes that there are enough anti-Hillary votes here to win--but he can't split them with Edwards. The risk: negativity could backfire. Obama hasn't led by a statistically significant margin since mid-month.

UPDATE, 1.1.08: Scratch that. You should never trust an Iowa caucus poll--but if you're short on cocktail party chatter, at least go with the Des Moines Register, the only one to correctly predict the top four finishers in 2004. Last night, the paper released its final pre-caucus survey. The results: Obama (32 percent) leads Clinton (25) by seven and Edwards (24) by eight. The runners-up have issues with the sample, which is heavy on Independents and Republicans and was taken during a holiday. But at this point, it's the best we've got.

Hillary Clinton (Average: 28.4 percent)
As Obama and Edwards duke it out, Clinton has remained above the fray, crisscrossing the state (now by plane) and delivering her "all things to all people" message: "that she is an utterly familiar figure who is an agent of change; that she has already lived in the White House but that her election would be historic and unprecedented; that she is someone who is tough but also likable," as the New York Times' Mark Leibovich has put it. This is exactly where she wants to be--and the latest polls, which show her leading by statistically significant margins, bear that out. But her organization is arguably the flimsiest, and she trails both Obama and Edwards as a second-choice--perhaps the key stat in a process that sees voters shifting allegiances after entering the caucus room.

The Rest
Only Richardson (6.2 percent) and Biden (5.2) have a prayer of finishing fourth. Whoever does will claim momentum heading into New Hampshire, then lose there and likely drop out. The others will--or should--be gone by the end of the week.

Bottom Line
No news. It's still a three-way tie. Clinton can finish third and continue; in fact, she's actively lowering expectations by saying that because Edwards has experience in the state and Obama is from neighboring Illinois, she never anticipated doing as well as she's doing. Obama will soldier on no matter how he finishes, but a second-place loss to either Clinton or Edwards would make New Hampshire an (unlikely) must-win. And God forbid he finishes third--a near-impossible position from which to launch a Comeback Kid performance in the Granite State. Edwards, for his part, has to finish first or second to stay alive. Only a win would provide him with the momentum needed to make a real run for the nomination, but relegating either Obama or Clinton to third would be a huge spoiler story--and would completely reorient the race.

"Bad for Bhutto. Good for me."

If there's one line that sums up how yesterday's assassination of Pakistani opposition leader Benazir Bhutto is "playing" in the U.S. presidential race, that's it. Despite warnings from Hillary Clinton spokesman Jay Carson ("No one should be politicizing this situation") and Barack Obama himself ("It’s important for us to not look at this in terms of short-term political points scoring"), pretty much every campaign started spinning this geopolitical tragedy as proof of why he or she is best qualified to lead in a time of terror the second it hit the wires. Meaning pundits immediately started spouting off about who "wins"--or "benefits" or "stands to gain"--and who "loses."

One word: ugh.

There was Clinton, noting at a high school in Lawton, Iowa that Bhutto was a pioneering woman (wink!) and claiming that "it certainly raises the stakes high for what we expect from our next president," as if, with the wars in Iraq and on terrorism, they weren't already astronomical. "I know," she added, "from a lifetime of working to make change." Making change = foreign-policy prowess? Who knew?

There was her surrogate, Sen. Evan Bayh, informing MSNBC that "we live in a dangerous world, and tragedies like this just remind us that we need someone with the seasoning, the experience and the strength to be commander in chief during uncertain times. The job of the next president is not to be entertainer in chief." Quick! Somebody tell Mike Gravel.

There was Obama guru David Axelrod reminding the world that "Barack Obama had the judgment to oppose the war in Iraq, and he warned at the time it would divert us from Afghanistan and Al Qaeda"--then straining to link the killing to Clinton's authorization vote. "And now we see the effect of that," he told reporters. "I think his judgment was good. Sen. Clinton made a different judgment, so let's have that discussion." Or not.

There was Bill Richardson, calling (absurdly) for Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf to step down; there was Joe Biden (rightfully) attacking Richardson's statement. There was John Edwards boasting that he had SPOKEN to Musharraf, implying, I suppose, that, as president, only he would have considered that particular course of action. There was John McCain saying that Romney "doesn't have any [national security] experience," then adding that the same goes for "everybody that's running"--other than himself, of course. "None of them supported what's working in Iraq," he said--apparently because Iraq is, like, also a Muslim country. There was Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney on FOX News, CBS, Larry King and MSNBC, repeating the words "9/11" and "Ronald Reagan" ad infinitum. Guess which was which. And, finally, there was us--the MSM--declaring that "BHUTTO'S ASSASSINATION COULD ROIL BOTH PARTIES, WITH CLINTON AND MCCAIN SEEN AS THE LIKELY BENEFICIARIES." Read all about it.

Look. It's not like I'm surprised by spin or peeved by punditry that reduces a destabilizing disaster to cocktail-party chatter. As the Politico notes, it's a necessary "dry run for daily life at 1600 Pennsylvania"--and since we're days from the Iowa caucuses and this stuff is absolutely inevitable, there's no point complaining. But I can't help thinking that all the spin and punditry is sort of pointless, too. In the end, we rely on our gut to pick a president--not the headlines. For the folks who've already chosen, Bhutto's assassination will only confirm whatever conviction led to that conclusion; if you think Obama was right on Iraq, for example, you'll probably give him the benefit of the doubt on Pakistan. And to assume that Bhutto's slaying will sway the folks who still aren't sure is to assume that, until now, they'd forgotten that the world is a dangerous place. There was terrorism yesterday, there's terrorism today and there will be terrorism tomorrow--especially overseas. To treat Americans as if they don't know that--and to imagine that shouting "danger!" will determine their votes--is pretty condescending.

Because the media says so. "The debate was about Clinton fighting back," said NBC's Chuck Todd; "She arguably gave her most commanding performance to date," added Marc Ambinder of the Atlantic. This isn't evidence of bias, as the Web's energetic anti-MSM element is already alleging--even if CNN did pack its post-debate panel with former Clintonites James Carville and David Gergen. But it is lazy storytelling. The press billed tonight's Sin City skirmish primarily as a test of Clinton's resilience. As Patrick Healy wrote in this morning's New York Times, "Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton heads into tonight’s Democratic presidential debate in Las Vegas with an opportunity: to try to erase the unflattering image that her chief rivals, and her own mistakes, have helped create." That expectation admits only two possible outcomes: either she messes up or she doesn't.

She didn't. Clinton was clear, calm and prepared--which means she's magically 'back-on-track." (Assuming you don't follow Iowa and New Hampshire polling and actually believe she was knocked off-balance to begin with. I don't.) For the 15 non-Beltway types who tune in to Chris Matthews & Co., expect a few days of 1) Clinton's health care "attacks" on Edwards and Obama. Not that they were particularly damaging. But strategy matters more than substance on CNN and MSNBC, and Clinton's well-prepped potshots offer easy evidence of a new "game plan." 2) Licenses for illegal immigrants. Obama equivocated and took issue with Wolf Blitzer's "yes or no" framework; Clinton just said "No." Ignore the context--it took until yesterday, when New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer's killed his plan, for her to decide to oppose it--and you, like the pundits, can applaud her candor. And 2) the "gender card" response. “Clinton hits this one out of the proverbial park," wrote the Hotline's Jennifer Skalka. "No doubt." Of course, Clinton's been delivering the same lines--"They're attacking me because I'm ahead"; "I'm comfortable in the kitchen"; fathers, daughters, 90-year-old women--for weeks. The only difference now is that her canned "gender card" comeback fits the chic, complacent storyline: "She's staunched the bleeding." So the chattering classes chatter.

What, you ask, did Stumper think? Richardson was better than he's been. Biden was loose and likable. Edwards hammered too hard and got booed. And Clinton and Obama were utterly unsurprising (which, of course, helps her, the frontrunner, more than it helps him). One Q-&-A struck me as particularly revealing. When Blitzer asked, in reference to Pakistan's current instability, "Is human rights more important than American national security?," Obama replied, "The concepts are not contradictory, Wolf." His first instinct was go "meta"--that is, to address the framework rather than the actual issue at hand. Yes, it was a ridiculous question; yes, Obama was right. But when Clinton's turn came, she actually, you know, answered it. "I agree with that [i.e., national security is more important than human rights] completely," she said. "I think the first obligation of the president is to protect and defend the United States of America." (Note to Obama: reread the Oath of Office.)* She quickly pivoted to "the failed policies of the Bush administration" and reminded viewers that she called on Bush to change course after meeting with Musharraf earlier this year.

On substance, Obama and Clinton were the same; they both said, as Clinton put it, that "there's a connection between a democratic regime and tightened security for the United States." But where he offered thoughtful abstractions about the process, she offered partisanship and pertinent experience.

Seems to me the choice for Democrats at this point is a choice between precisely those two approaches.

TRANSCRIPT AFTER THE JUMP...

"Kicking the Bums Out" fundraising letter, 11.8.07
Richardson on Clinton's electability:

What worries me when I think about the 2008 election is that if we nominate the wrong candidate, we’re not going to win the White House... You’ve seen how the national Republican Party operates. They’re masters at destroying our candidates through smear campaigns and distortions. They’ve already got their long knives out for Senator Clinton - a person I admire even though I disagree with her on many important issues... The best we can hope for if she is the nominee is another squeaker that could go one way or the other... If I’m the candidate, we’ve got our best shot at taking back the White House.’

Campaign memo, 11.8.07
Dodd on Clinton's honesty, integrity... and, um, electability:

The lack of candor with which Senator Clinton answered many of the questions posed to her at the recent Democratic Presidential Candidates’ Debate in Philadelphia has had a significant impact on public perceptions of her “honesty.” A Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll released today shows that only 34% of Americans view Senator Clinton as honest, while a plurality of Americans, 43%, rate Senator Clinton negatively for “honesty.” [Wall Street Journal, 11/8/07] These findings are all the more significant in light of the fact that public polling has repeatedly shown that Americans have said that “honesty” and “integrity” are the top characteristics they are looking for in a president... Simply put, voters tell us clearly that Senator Clinton is perceived to have least what they say they want most: honesty. As such, these findings pose a significant hurdle for Senator Clinton to overcome in a general election and are telling to the issue of “electability.”

This morning, Bill Richardson and Barack Obama both released new foreign policy ads. It's like Christmas here at Stumper headquarters.

Obama's, called "Conventional," uses tasteful footage from a recent campaign stop to call for a change in America's approach to foreign policy. Richardson's, called "Only One," features testimonials from two American aircraft maintenance contractors arrested in Iraq in 1995.

Which is better? Richardson's, by a mile.

Watch the Obama ad first.

Handsome, but bland. Hopeful, but airy. And not nearly specific enough. "When we break out of the conventional thinking and we start reaching out to friend and foe alike," says Obama, the honest eyes of ordinary Americans fixed upon him, "then I am absolutely confident that we can restore America’s leadership in the world." Get the reference to Hillary Clinton? Didn't think so. Back in July, Obama and Clinton tussled over whether a president should agree to meet with hostile foreign leaders without preconditions. He said yes; she said no. The point of the ad is to suggest that Clinton is too conventional to repair the damage done to America's reputation. But it's a bit much to expect viewers to make the connection—especially when Obama is too busy rhapsodizing about beacons of light to actually mention Clinton by name.

Now try the Richardson spot. (Obama, I hope you're taking notes.)

Anybody have a Kleenex? In terms of effective messaging, Richardson beats Obama on three fronts: