Newsweek political columnist Jonathan Alter is up here in New Hampshire covering the primary, and he just sent me three fascinating tidbits.

1. Huckabee was disappointed by his performance in tonight's FOX News GOP debate. Asked whether he missed a chance to deck Romney, Huck admitted that he's "had better nights": "Sometimes there are a lot of things on the menu and you can only order one or two." According to Alter, Huckabee's aides think he blew a chance to finish third here and capture some momentum heading into friendlier South Carolina--and they're upset. They wanted the coup de grace delivered to Mitt; because it wasn't--and because Romney has plenty of money--he gets to keep going. The pundits may be saying that FOX face-off was pointless. Alter says it was "pivotal."

2. On the Democratic side, Elizabeth Edwards told Alter that her husband won't drop out of the race until the convention, even if he trails badly. The reason? To speak up for the voiceless. Time to start pinching pennies...

3. In the GOP ABC/Facebook debate on Saturday, Ron Paul had kind words for Barack Obama. With Alter, he went one step further, saying that he has more in common with the Illinois senator than the other Republicans. I guess Romney isn't the only one trying to hop on the Barack bandwagon.

By Matthew Philips 

MANCHESTER, N.H.--After spending the last two weeks talking about Nataline Sarkisyan— the 17 year-old leukemia patient who died Dec. 21 after her health insurance company refused to pay for a liver transplant—John Edwards was joined on Sunday by her parents and brother during an emotional campaign event in Manchester.

“This is not about only my daughter Nataline, it’s about the whole world, every one of you, this could happen to any of us,” said Hilda Sarkisyan, Nataline’s mother, who urged a crowd of more than 500 at the Franco-American Hall in downtown Manchester to vote for Edwards.  “We have to put a stop to these people. They cannot tell us who’s going to live and who’s going to die. We have to make a change.”

For weeks, Edwards has used Nataline’s story as a tragic example of the corporate greed that he’s been railing against, as he’s made taking on drug and health insurance companies a primary platform of his presidential campaign. But it wasn’t until the night of the Iowa Caucus that the Sarkisyan family, at home in Southern California, first heard Edwards talk about Nataline in his nationally televised speech. The next morning, they reached out to the Edwards campaign, wanting to know what they could do to support the former North Carolina Senator. By the early afternoon Hilda was speaking with Edwards’ wife Elizabeth, who invited the family to New Hampshire. The family took a red eye flight from L.A. and were picked up at the Manchester airport Sunday morning by Edwards campaign staffers. All three Sarkisyan’s spoke about their battle with their health insurance company, including father Grigor, who picketed the company’s headquarters while his daughter lay dying of liver failure in the UCLA hospital. The company finally conceded and agreed to “make an exception” and pay for the transplant, but a few hours later Nataline died. Many in the crowd  on Sunday were brought to tears.

Afterward, in remarks to the press, Edwards somberly called it one of the most extraordinary events he’d ever done, and promised to continue his populist assault. “I’ve been fighting and beating these people my whole life,” said the former North Carolina trial lawyer, who made a name and millions for himself defending the victims of medical malpractice and corporate negligence.

The Edwards campaign was clearly thrilled that the Sarkisyan's chose to join them and not Obama or Clinton, both of whom have mentioned the tragic story, and staffers were quickly calling it an indication of the campaign's increasing momentum, and the candidate's ability to relate to voters.  Edwards, who gave what is generally being seen as a strong performance at Saturday night’s debate, still has a lot of ground to make up if he wants to compete in New Hampshire following a second place finish in Iowa. The latest polls still show him trailing Obama and Clinton by double-digits. In order to compensate, he and Elizabeth have just embarked on a second 36-hour “Marathon for the Middle Class” campaign tour, following a similar round-the-clock blitz during the last days of the campaign in Iowa.

EXETER, N.H.--In the dwindling days of the race here in New Hampshire, Obama is selling himself in every stump speech as the only candidate who can "build a coalition for change."

It usually includes Republicans, Independents and first-time voters. At today's rally in Exeter, however, I noticed a hitherto unacknowledged member of the alliance:

By Karen Breslau 

WINDHAM, N.H.--At Mike Huckabee's clam chowder fest here this morning, the Huckster took on a heckler, who started screaming shortly after he started his speech.

Huck tried to shut the guy up with the standard line: "Let's hear it for free speech." When he started screaming over the cheering crowd, though, the good minister got serious. "Don't make me send Chuck back there," said Huck, pointing at action star--and martial arts pro--Chuck Norris, who's stumping with Huck. Windham's finest soon hauled the heckler out and Huckabee went on with his stump speech.

Or, more accurately, it's his audiences that are hot and bothered. (The senator himself actually keeps pretty cool during his speeches.)

Appearing before 950 New Hampshirites--and almost as many journalists--this morning at the Palace Theater in Manchester, he earned not one but two standing ovations, the latter starting with constant, seated applause and crescendoing over the last three minutes of his speech. That's really, really rare. According to a reporter who travels with the campaign, these were the first and second "sustained, full-participation" standing O's he'd seen at a regular Obama event in recent months. (Scattered supporters often stand, and most folks get up at the start and end of a speech.) I've covered every candidate in the field, and this was definitely different. "It's building," he added. Thirty people were turned away at the door.

That said, one of the big points of discussion among the politicos up here is the lack of a sizable Obama bounce in post-Iowa polls of the Granite State. The most reliable surveys show a tie, which the Clinton camp constantly compares to Kerry's 17-point surge in 2004 and Gore's 7-point bump in 2000. Asked this morning about the discrepancy, Obama communications direction Robert Gibbs demurred. "I'm paying attention to the poll on Tuesday," he said, implying that, as in Iowa, most likely-voter models don't yet represent the voters (Independents, youngsters) who will likely cast ballots for his candidate. We'll see if that pans out. It certainly seems like Obama is closing as strongly as--or stronger than--he did last week.

A more comfortable topic of conversation? Clinton's claim in last night's debate that Obama represents "false hope," which Obama enthusiastically mentioned in his remarks. Obama's top strategist, David Axelrod, was eager to tell anyone who would listen that "in my 30 years in politics I've never seen a presidential candidate make the case against hope." Gibbs agreed. "It's a surprising comment coming from somebody who wishes to lead the country, to limit what Americans can hope for," he said. They might as well have been making moose-ears and sticking out their tongues.
 
Pressed to say whether hating hope was like hating motherhood and apple pie, though, Gibbs held his fire. "I think it's entirely possible," he said, "to be against hope and still like apple pie."

And you people said you were willing to fight.

Hey all, 

With the Republicans largely taking off to prep for tonight's FOX News debate, I'm going to devote the day to the Dems. First up is Obama in Manchester and Exeter, followed by Clinton in Hampton and Edwards in Derry. It'll be Stumper's last look at the field in the field before Tuesday's all-important primary, and I'll post as frequently (or infrequently) as the Wi-Fi gods allow.

I'll tackle the GOP tomorrow.

Thanks for reading,
Andrew
 

A round-up of this morning's must read stories. Short and sweet.

THE NEWSWEEK ROSTER:

Cover: Can Obama Go the Distance? (Richard Wolffe)
Exclusive Obama Interview (Richard Wolffe)
The Pilot vs. the Preacher (Evan Thomas and Holly Bailey)
The Huckabee Problem (Howard Fineman)
How Tomorrow Became Yesterday (Jonathan Alter)
An Obama-Carter Reality Check (Ellis Cose)
The GOP--Grand Old Pulpit (George Will)

THE BEST OF THE REST:

Sharp Clashes in Hectic Days Before Primary (Adam Nagourney, New York Times)
In This Race, Independents Are the Prize (Jeff Zeleny, New York Times)
Clinton Machine Shaken by Setback (Karen Tumulty, Time)
Obama's Rise Dismays Clinton Supporters (Alec MacGillis, Washington Post)
Iowa Postcard: Mammoths (Ryan Lizza, New Yorker)
A Brave, Lonely Dissent (Hendrik Hertzberg, New Yorker)
As Voters See Less of Giuliani, He Drops in State Polls (Julie Eilperin and Alec MacGillis, Washington Post)
Scratch an Independent Bloomberg and Get a Democrat, Positions Show (Nicholas Confessore, New York Times)
Fresh from Loss in Iowa, Romney is Buoyed by Big Win in Wyoming (Sasha Issenberg, Boston Globe)

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.