Granite State challenge

The exchanges were nasty at times during last night's presidential debates, held at St. Anselm College in Manchester, New Hampshire, and televised on ABC. Several of the Republican candidates attacked Mitt Romney, while on the Democratic side John Edwards and Barack Obama went after Hillary Clinton. In both cases it wasn't because the target had won Thursday's Iowa caucuses, but rather because both Romney and Clinton were once front runners who had been tripped up in the opening contest of the presidential nomination calendar and their opponents smelled blood in the water.

The former Massachusetts governor and the current New York senator were both leading in New Hampshire until just recently and are now vulnerable. John McCain has surged ahead among GOP voters and Obama seems to now have a small edge in recent polls of Democratic voters in the Granite State. With large national organizations, Romney and Clinton could both bounce back if they do well in Tuesday's New Hampshire primary, where other, lesser candidates would be out of gas if they were to lose the first two contests. (Romney did win the small and mostly-ignored Wyoming Republican caucus yesterday.)

It's hard to see how Mike Huckabee, who topped the GOP caucus in Iowa, does well in New Hampshire or nationally. While the Christian conservatives who make up his base will help him in some Southern states, his lack of foreign policy experience, overt religiosity and the question of electability would seem to be obstacles for many mainstream Republicans. The people of that party in the Live Free or Die state are rather different than the Iowans who supported him. Among non-Evangelicals in the Hawkeye state, Huckabee finished fourth.

McCain's surge could be the big story Tuesday night if voters aren't drawn to Huckabee or Romney. Rudy Giuliani is off pursuing his big-state strategy, while Fred Thompson is about as exciting as a mailbox. He reminds me of the vapid Southern governor that Jed Bartlett ran for reelection against on The West Wing.

On the Democratic side, Clinton is far from out of this thing, while Edwards -- despite snagging second in Iowa -- needs to do well Tuesday and to come back with a strong finish in South Carolina. Otherwise he'll again be relegated to the sidelines. All eyes are on Obama, who has momentum and star power. By winning in 92%-white Iowa, he's proven to the black community that he is electable, which will hurt Clinton quite a bit.

Regarding last night's debates, I was disappointed that ABC was allowed to limit the field of debaters. While it admittedly does make for a less-harried event, it just isn't fair. Networks, and the large corporations that own them, should not get to decide who the viable candidates are -- not after just one state has voted and not after the network's parent company (Disney in ABC's case) has donated money to campaigns and causes.

The other item that struck me -- though not for the first time -- is the honesty of Republican candidate and Texas Congressman Ron Paul. He said, correctly, that America's troubles with the Muslim world can be, to a large degree, blamed on many awful US foreign policy decisions, especially propping up unpopular dictators and blindly supporting Israel. The other GOP candidates openly laughed at him, but they are -- excepting McCain -- morons. I am not on board with Paul on a whole host of issues, but he says what he thinks and what he thinks is based on actual thoughts, not a desire to kiss up to segments of his party or to express some foolish ideology.