An example. Today I drove from a Barack Obama event in Jefferson to a Joe Biden event in Newton. The distance, in geographical terms, was about 100 miles. It felt like lightyears. As always, the Obama event was clockwork--a hulking black press bus; a filing room with plentiful powerstrips and wireless internet; volunteers asking for contact info at every corner; massive, well-designed banners; a stage filled with seated supporters.

The Biden event seemed "smaller"--even though it drew roughly the same number of people. The posters were droopy. The room--Newton's Community Center--wasn't particularly pimped out. But Biden's family--a son, a daughter, a brother and others--stood, arms crossed, on the periphery, whispering and smiling, and the candidate paced up and down the rows. No stage. No podium. No TV crews. When I entered a few minutes late (as usual), a staffer approached, asked my name, shook my hand and helped me locate an outlet for my laptop. He was surprised--pleasantly--to hear the name Newsweek. "We're not the Obama campaign," he said, unprompted. "No bus. No wireless. Sorry." He flashed a sheepish smile. "No problem," I said. I actually meant it.

People opposed to Obama often say that he's short on substance. That's probably a little unfair--like all the other Democrats, his policy proposals are pretty specific. But his public persona is premised on stuff that's "above" substance--hope, audacity, change, et cetera. Biden is the exact opposite. Sure, he can get airy, especially when quoting his "favorite contemporary poet," Seamus Heany, on making "hope and history rhyme." But he comes alive, shifting from solemnity to bombast, when answering a question on, say, Pakistan. "I'm the only person running in either party, Democrat or Republican, who three months ago put out a plan for Pakistan," he begins, and twelve minutes later--after discussing the country's religious demographics and reminiscing about that time Benazir Bhutto worked out of his Washington office, among (many) other things--he still hasn't stopped. Biden can be boring, immodest (today he seemed to take credit for convincing Bill Clinton to intervene in Kosovo) and condescending. Watch out when he starts a sentence with "Ladies and gentlemen," which he does about once a minute; he'll follow it up with something like "By the way, we're talking about the Sudan. That’s where Darfur is. [Bashir] is in the capital of the Sudan, which is a distance from Darfur. Darfur is an area about the size of France. And there is carnage going on."

Obama doesn't bore, condescend or brag. Neither do Clinton or Edwards. They're well-oiled machines at this point--delivery mechanisms for the "winning" messages their handlers have devised. And that's okay. It's the way you win. But because Biden has no shot--he currently polls at five percent, trails everyone in fundraising and has said he'll drop out if he finishes fourth or worse in Iowa--he doesn't have to deliver a winning message. He isn't handled. He can't afford handlers. Seeing him in person, the overwhelming impression you get is of a guy talking about what matters to him, for better or worse.

Chatting with a half-dozen reporters after the event--eat your heart out, Obama--Biden put on a brave face. Is your goal a strong fourth place finish? one asked. "My goal is to win," he said, grinning a bit too assertively. Everyone, including Biden, knows that won't happen. But with the race (and the remaining candidates) about to get very big and very distant, he still has three days to enjoy being the little guy shaking hands in little rooms and hoping they add up--and we have three days to enjoy him enjoying it. For most of the people running for president, that, in the end, is what Iowa is all about.

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...

Ah, "The Bill Factor."

We here at NEWSWEEK started the conversation back in May. New York magazine followed up in October. In between, hacks like me spilled enough ink to fill a special branch of the Library of Congress with essays, editorials, gossip and reporting on what Bill Clinton means for Hillary Clinton's candidacy, what a Hillary White House would mean for Bill--and what Bill and Hillary, together, mean for the future of America.

But no one bothered to check in with the poor folks who'd potentially serve under Hillary--and, presumably, Bill--in second Clinton Administration.

Take, for example, Joe Biden. The press assumes that Biden--like his fellow second-tier candidates, all of whom are polling under five percent--is running not for president but vice president. So reporters ask, over and over, whether he (or Bill Richardson, or Chris Dodd) would accept the second slot. Usually the candidate recites some pabulum like, "No, we're focused on winning right now." But over the weekend, Biden gave CNN a pretty good reason why not. Its name? Bill Clinton. "If I don't win the nomination, the likely nominee is going to be Hillary," he said. "And I love Bill Clinton, but can you imagine being vice president?... I'm not looking for a ceremonial post."

During lunch with NEWSWEEK yesterday, Biden reinforced his refusal to serve as Hillary's veep--and added Secretary of State to the list. But he also left the door open for Obama and Edwards, meaning that it's not the job he doesn't want--it's Bill and Hillary as bosses. "In a Barack administration, in an Edwards administration, I'd probably be looked to a whole lot more," he said. "Now, I don't think they would ask me. But I think they would look to me more. Do you think Hillary's going to call me in the room when she decides what she's going to do?"

I doubt Biden would turn down a top slot; very few ever do. Still--does he have a point? Would Bill, the only former president to reoccupy the White House as a First Spouse, act as Hillary's real second- (and third-, and fourth-) in-command--rendering her vice president and even Secretary of State less powerful than any of their predecessors?

Sorry, Joe. According to the experts, there's not much stopping him.

First off, he's an ex-president. Not only does that trump "senator" in the experience department, but in the last half-century it's become a position of security and power that would've astonished at least the first twenty-four men who outlived their own time in the White House. Ex-presidents are entitled to some form of executive privilege, thanks to Truman's argument in 1953, when called before HUAC, that he could not be forced to testify about his actions while in office (Nixon revived the defense twenty years later). The Former Presidents Act of 1958 declared that ex-presidents were entitled to receive "a monetary allowance" of $25,000 a year (it's now about $180,000), authorized a government-funded staff, provided for office space, furnishing and equipment and granted free mailing privileges. In 1963, the Senate modified its rules to give ex-presidents the right to use the upper chamber of Congress as a forum whenever they wished. After Kennedy's assassination, Congress provided ex-presidents (and their families) with a Secret Service detail. President Johnson put Air Force jets and helicopters at Hoover, Truman and Eisenhower's disposal; the privilege has continued. In 1969, a Victorian townhouse adjacent the White House was deemed the official Former Presidents' Residence. And in recent years, sitting presidents have given their predecessors limited security briefings (printed and/or oral, consisting, says Rutgers professor John Whiteclay Chambers II, of "just as much as the current president wants them to have") and expected them to attend the funerals of foreign leaders as representatives of the United States.

Executive privilege, money, a townhouse, security briefings and access to the Senate, Secret Service and Air Force--not a bad life. But here's where Biden's really buried. Despite all those powers and perks, the quasi-official office of the ex-president pales in comparison to the almost entirely unofficial and unregulated position of First Spouse in terms of access and potential influence.  The job isn't mentioned in the Constitution, and for the first 200 years of the Republic it wasn't subject to any federal statute or law. Even now, the only restriction is on gifts accepted from foreign governments -- i.e., unregulated income that the First Spouse would bring in as a result of being married to an elected official (remember Nancy Reagan?). There are congressional appropriations for first-spousal security and staff--but otherwise, it's all off the books.

The result? Bill's potential influence, unlike Biden's, would be unlimited. "There's no standard for how much information and access a former president receives from the current administration," says Mark K. Updegrove, author of "Second Acts: Presidential Lives and Legacies After the White House" (and former publisher of NEWSWEEK). "But 'pillow talk' absolutely supercedes anything that it could offer on a formal basis."

"The whole status of former president wouldn't even enter into it because a president can tell his spouse anything he or she wants," adds Carl Sferrazza Anthony, author of "First Ladies: The Saga of Presidents' Wives and their Power. "The whole role of First Spouse is the 'Don't ask, don't tell' position in American political culture."

Hear that, Bill Richardson? Never has that "governor of New Mexico" gig looked so good.

Our third and final question--sorry, everyone; Sen. Biden only had time for three--comes from Anil Malhotra:

Don't you think that you will be doing a far greater service to the country if you left the campaign trail and convened the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to investigate the Iraq, Iran and Pakistan issues? Sen. Fullbright in the 1960s did more to organize the anti-war campaigns through his hearings than anyone could have done on the hustings. You can do a great deal to lift the level of debate over critical issues by acting as a senator rather than as a candidate. Why are you not doing that ?

The committee is investigating these issues, number one. Number two, there is virtually no cooperation coming from the Administration, whether I'm chairman or not. Look what's going on in the Armed Services Committee and all the rest of the committees. And I think, quite frankly--I'm going to say something outrageous--I think I've forced the other candidates to talk about Iraq and Iran in a different way than they were talking about it [before]. That's a presumptuous thing to say, but you'll notice the dialogue has changed on foreign policy from the first debate to now. From Darfur to Iran. So I think I can have more influence that way.

Our second question comes from Muhammed Azim:

Sen. Biden thinks that a three-state solution (Sunni in the Central Iraq, Shiites in the South and Kurds in the North) is a viable way to bring about a permanent peace in Iraq. But doesn't it make the situation even more complicated on the ground, furthering the fear of a wider civil war in Iraq? What is your assertion and take on this issue?

The irony is, this is the only way to hold Iraq together. Iraq will not be held together unless you're able to figure out how to stitch it together through a federal system at the front end of this. Because there's no possibility of us sustaining 160,000 or anywhere near that number of troops for the next two, three years. What's going to happen is, we're going to leave. The American public will not allow us to stay there. And without a political settlement it's not going to happen; through a strong central government it will not occur. What's going to happen is we're going to leave and they're worried it's going to splinter apart. It won't splinter in three easy pieces, it'll be half a dozen pieces.  So I believe [my plan is] the only way to hold it together, number one.

Number two, it's the only thing that's going to stop this self-sustaining cycle of sectarian violence. I don't feel a compulsion to kill John, my neighbor in Baghdad, who is a Shia and I'm a Sunni, unless there is a Sunni-Shia war raging throughout the country and I feel I'd better get him before he gets me. In the context of an overall political settlement [with a federal system], there's actually an agreement made between the warring factions and their leaders. They'll have their own local security, their own police force, et cetera. In that situation, I no longer have the need to kill my Shia neighbor before he kills me.

There's something else no one's talking about, but I have to admit that I believe will happen. If this exit strategy worked, of having a federal system, there will be intramural fighting of consequence in the nine Shia provinces. Because you've got five militia, you've got three of them very strong; the odd man out is Sadr, and he's not going to go quietly into the night.

So it'll be messy. It'll be messy. I've never argued that this will be clean and gentle. But I believe it's the only possibility of keeping this country together. Most people have come around to this position as a default position, not as a preferred position. They make it sound like I wouldn't prefer a strong central unified government. I would prefer a strong, central, unified government that had our trust, our confidence, and the ability to hold the country together. But I don't see any, any, any evidence that that's likely. 

Just got back from lunch with Democratic senator and presidential candidate Joe Biden, who was kind enough to field a few questions from Stumper readers. The first is from Sonny Castille, a forester from Mena, Arkansas.

Sen. Biden, I think you would govern sensibly from the middle. Why aren't you getting any traction? 

One, two or three in Iowa. If I don't do that, I don't get there. This is a dangerous thing to say, but look: if I come out of Iowa, one, two or three, I am not going to have the same dilemma with so-called big feet in the press that others will. I'll have other problems. But mine's not going to be whether I know enough to be president. Mine's not going to be whether or not I'm strong enough to be president. Mine's going to be, "Can he keep his mouth shut? Can he raise the money?" But that's not what's on the voters minds. They understand me out there. They're not confused about what I say. And so for me, if I come out of that, I believe I will raise all the money I need.

Somebody is going to be running against Hillary. Right now, because of the--understandable in my view--enormous amount of publicity and coverage she and Barack have gotten, and his inability to move, you all [the media] are going to begin to make a decision: He's not the horse who can carry the sleigh. I don't think you're going to conclude that John [Edwards] is going to be able to do that. You're going to keep an open mind that one of us from this lower tier can do it because you know we haven't gotten any exposure yet. The truth of the matter is, no one knows who I am, nationally. And every poll you've conducted, you know, at this point, this is overwhelmingly name recognition. Sixty-seven percent of people in Iowa still haven't made up their minds. For me, the only level playing field is Iowa and New Hampshire. If I can't break out of there, then, you know, I did it on my own terms, I tried and I'm gone.

[But] I am a pretty good street politician. You know what I mean? I'm a fingertip politician. And I'm telling you, I gaurantee you, that the public out there--to use an expression one of you probably came up with--is looking out the window instead of looking in the mirror. They know that what's going on "out there" has significant impact on them. They don't know what it means, but they're looking for somebody who they think has, for lack of a better phrase, the breadth and depth of experience, someone who they can trust to lead them through what they know is going to be a pretty confusing decade. I'm drawing now--as even the Times acknowledged--I'm drawing big crowds now, the last three, four weeks. And they're all about Iraq, Iraq, Iraq, terror, the world, immigration. This idea that health care is the top thing? Come with me to any of these events. It's the fourth or fifth question asked.

Folks, they get it. They want to figure out how we're going to get this thing back in the box. How we're going to tie up all these loose ends.  The way out is me.

It's not that I am this tough guy. It gets down to voters determining your substance and your resolve. Are you going to protect us? This election is about "Who's going to make us the safest?" It's not about global warming, it's not about health care. You can't cross that threshold, you're not going to make it as a Democrat.

Hi all,

Democratic senator and presidential candidate Joe Biden is stopping by Newsweek today at 1:00 p.m. for lunch with a small group of reporters and editors. Send me your questions, either by email (aromano@newsweek.com) or in the comments, and I'll do my best to get them answered. Expect a post later this afternoon.

Look forward to hearing from you,
Andrew