Today we watched Chris Matthews, Meet the Press, Face the Nation, and Sunday Morning with Stephanopolous. Of course, the imminent Iowa caucus and the quickly following New Hampshire primary were the main topics of conversation.

Interestingly, the two panels on today's shows - Matthews and Stephanopolous, were what I would call "mainstream" panels. For example, Chris Matthews show included Andrea Mitchell, wife of Alan Greenspan and long time NBC foreign affairs reporter, and both Joe Klein and Howard Feinman of Time and Newsweek. The only "radical" on the panel was Norris, of NPR. (I hope everyone understands what I'm saying here.)

On Stephanopolous, the panel extras included David Brooks and Donna Brazile. Donna Brazile, Al Gore's former campaign manager, and occasional participant on the panels for this show, was the token "liberal" on the panel - but you didn't see anyone from the Nation magazine, which you occasionally see on Stephanopolous' show. It would be interesting to know what kind of bureacracy has access to that decision making process. Perhaps it was all just a fluke, but I suspect not.

I typically don't like to admit that George Will is an Illinoisan, but he did make some interesting comments today on the Stephanopolous show. In response to a comment by David Brooks (Oh geez, I think I suffer from David Brooks overload - if John Edwards gets in and takes on the corporations, the first thing he should do is demand less David Brooks!) that the "republican establishment (all 4 of them, according to Brooks himself) is behind Romney," Wills stated that the "republican establishment died in 1964 when Goldwater got the nomination over Stratton.

When Steph asked him if Reagan hadn't revived it, Wills said, no, that Reagan had the philosophy of, as the 4 people in the republican establishment call it, of "fusionism" which allied the small government, free market conservatives with the social conservatives. That, according to Will, was not a revival of the true Republican. That tells me that the Republicans are becoming more and more split.

There were two themes that emerged from the discussion about the Democrats - John Edwards surge and who benefitted in the response to the Bhutto assassination. Everyone that was in Iowa, agreed that something was happening in rising response to Edwards' aggressive campaign. Last week, Dan Rather, on Matthews, predicted that Edwards would win the Iowa primary. He very well could.

Edwards himself was interviewed on Face the Nation, and his wife, Elizabeth was interviewed on the Today Show. That indicates that the networks think that something is going on. Edwards is campaigning very well, and he has that hands on experience of actually having been thru the Iowa caucuses (although Hillary went thru it with Bill) probably does give him an edge. I still think that the newness of Obama gives him an edge.

Obama was interviewed on Meet the Press. He gave an excellent interview. Huckabee was also interviewed on Meet the Press, but he was wacko compared with Obama. Obama is very intelligent, and was intent on coming off as presidential, which I thought he did. But Edwards says he's fighting for us, and that "hoping" that we can fix the mess with the way out of proportion powerful corporations by talking it out with them isn't realistic. That message is attractive.

Hillary was interviewed by Steph. She gave a good interview. I just have a hard time believing she is going to win. In fact, Hillary herself is now downplaying expectations in Iowa, saying that she isn't going to predict the outcome of Iowa - a long way from her statements months ago about "when she was president." She had to spend a lot of time talking about Bill.

As far as the discussion about which candidate benefitted in the aftermath of the Bhutto assassination, as far as I can tell, Edwards wins that one. McCain and Hillary both talked about how they knew Bhutto personally, but what good did that do to Bhutto? If they knew her so well and liked her so much, why didn't they work harder to insure that she was safe?

Edwards actually had the sense to call the U.S. Embassy in Pakistan, and that lead to an actual phone conversation with Musharref. That seems to be the most direct action of any of the candidates. Huckabee blew his surge in Iowa by completing blowing his response in a number of ways regarding the Pakistan situation. He now is trailing in the polls in Iowa. I thought Obama gave a very good answer in response to questions about Pakistan, but he didn't talk to Musharref. Edwards wins on that one - helping his surge.

There was a lot of talk about what Iowa is going to mean. I do think that if the vote comes down to a 33 1/3% split among the three leaders, with one coming out a few votes ahead and the losers a few votes behind, it may not be defining. If one candidate wins by any kind of distinguishable margin, that is going to mean a serious bounce forward. In any case, I agree with all of the commentators that it is going to be an interesting week.