Mundt: Mark Halperin, we'll start with you. Who do you see as the winners from these past two days?

Halperin: This is going to sound, maybe, a little bit corny, but I think actually the main winners are the people of Iowa because I thought that in both debates you saw all the candidates the way they really are. I think no one was faking or trying something different.

They generally portrayed themselves as who they are out on the campaign stump. Iowa is famous for getting to see the candidates in person, but for a lot of people this will be their main exposure to the candidates.

I thought they all did pretty well, and I thought they all were true to form.

Mundt: Candy Crowley, your thoughts?

Crowley: I think that's exactly right. I also think, though, if you come out of a debate where everyone did reasonably well, at this point on the Democratic side, I’d say that benefits Barack Obama because Barack Obama has the right trajectory at the moment.

He seems to have been gaining some steam in the poll. A bad debate would not have been great for him. So this kind of keeps in place that movement. On the Republican side, I’d sort of say the same thing for Huckabee, although I will say that Fred Thompson sort of came alive.

It's sort of the first time that the people said, oh, there he is. So I thought he did well and that may have helped him a bit.

But in general, I think the people with the right momentum at this point come out the winners having done, what Mark said, which is all do reasonably well.

Mundt: Mark Murray, there was Fred Thompson right in the center of the stage, sort of the tallest guy in the room right there. Do you think that he also saw a bump up because of the way he looked?

Murray: I don't know if there's necessarily going to be a bump up in the polls, but for the last few months on the campaign trail, since he had his announcement that he was finally getting in the presidential race back in September, he's been on the trajectory downward.

And that's shown in the polls and also in buzz and actually people who were even covering his race. And whether or not a debate will give him a bounce here in Iowa or even nationwide is to be determined, but he did for the first time in a long time steal the spotlight, and not necessarily steal the spotlight but actually make his presence known.

And for a guy who is 6'5", it shouldn't be usually that hard, but we did see that yesterday in the GOP debate.

Mundt: This was a situation where the candidates had their last opportunity, and it seemed like they all understood that this was a moment not to attack each other, not to make cutting remarks toward each other, but to focus very simply and clearly on message.

Crowley: I think that's exactly right. What was interesting to me is I do think that they're sort of call, because you have three things going on. First, that truism that Iowans don't like a lot of negativity,

That they're really nice people, and they want to hear a positive message. Second, you're three weeks out from the Iowa caucuses, and that's always a time when you traditionally want to go positive anyway.

But working against that is the fact that it's a really, really close race. And so the typical response to that would be to go after your opponent. So I thought they were sort of caught in this box.

I'll be interested to see the next three weeks --

Murray: I think the format also helped to kind of have a focus on the issues. A lot of times we in the press and the national press really like conflict, contrast, gotcha moments, and these last two debates really didn't provide that. But sometimes what we like in the media, voters in Iowa and elsewhere don't like at all.

So what we saw were concentrations on a lot of issues that often don't get a whole lot of time on the campaign trail.

One of the issues of today's Democratic debate was China.

On the Republican side, talking about what they would do on the national debt is something that really hasn't come up a whole lot in past debates.

So while some in the national media see these as snoozer issues, this debate provided a nice contrast to some of the others for Iowans who really care about these issues to really focus in on them.

Mundt: David Yepsen said in "The Des Moines Register" this morning, lackluster to describe yesterday's debate.

Do you think that he was looking at that as a reporter and maybe a little less as a voter?

Murray: Exactly. I mean what we always want in our leads are clear contrast or conflict. That's what a lot of news often is.

And yesterday's debate really didn't provide that at all. Today's debate a little bit more, but still not the huge knives are out on Barack Obama or Mike Huckabee. We weren't able to write any of those types of stories.

Crowley: There were some subtle things, but you really had to have followed the campaign all along and know. There was John Edwards talking about what we actually need in Washington is someone who is willing to stand up to the big corporations and the lobbyists. Well, that's right at Hillary Clinton. We had Hillary Clinton saying, well, we some people think change is about hope and some people think you can fight your way into change, and that was toward Edwards and Obama. But you've got to look to see that if you're the average voter at this point.

Mundt: Mark Halperin, contrast the tone and style of the two debates.

Halperin: I thought they were very similar. Again, I think the format drove a lot of that. There wasn't really the obvious opportunity for engagement, and I think in both cases it was really a bit of a game of chicken.

You can be sure that most of the candidates came in with some potential attack lines and prepared to be attacked, but no one wanted to go first in either debate.

To go first to break the format, which would have been required, to be negative first I think was too big of a risk. As close as things are, as big as the stakes are here in Iowa, no one wants to make a mistake and lose the nomination. They'd rather try to fight their way through it.

And you've got a lot of people on the Republican and Democratic side who feel that they can do very well in Iowa without taking any big risks.

Crowley: You know, the other thing that I thought was great -- because I cover Democrats, when I watched the Republican debate, I thought, wow, because the conversation is just so much different on the two sides.

And you saw that today in the Democratic debate. Just look at taxes as a for instance.

You had every single Republican going, listen, we're going to cut taxes. I mean taxes need to stay low.

We need to give the money back to the American people. And what did you have today?

We are going to get rid of those tax cuts for the rich. We're going to get rid of them for corporations. So in many, many issues, you could just go down the line. If you're an independent out there, you're thinking, oh, okay, the contrast begins.

Mundt: Although among the candidates themselves, if you've made that decision, you know, I’m going to vote Democratic or vote Republican, there are a lot of similarities. It really comes down to nuances when you're talking about inside any one particular party, isn't it?

Murray: Well, on the Republican side, there actually are a lot of clear issue contrasts, for example, you look at the debate on immigration.

You have John McCain and somewhat Mike Huckabee, not as recent, but Mike Huckabee was seen as people who favor comprehensive immigration reform. The others don't. On the issue of abortion, you have Rudy Giuliani on one side and Republicans on the other.

So on the Republican side, there are a lot of issue contrasts. On the Democratic side, as the axiom goes, they agree on almost 97, 98 percent of everything.

What's different are what they try to represent with the character leadership questions that today's moderator got to on the Democratic side. What they represent seems to be what distinguishes the Democratic candidates more than the issues themselves.

Mundt: Is that because of the Democratic party and its relative position of strength that it has now in national polls? When you ask voters who they would rather see this office, a good percentage of voters say I would be comfortable with a Democrat in office.

Crowley: I think in general it's because they agree on most of the issues. I mean I really do. Look, this is a great time to be a Democrat. There's no getting around it. But I think Mark hit on something, and that is in the Democratic race, the question really is mainly about electability.

I think voters look at these guys. Every single poll shows that most Democrats are really happy with their choices, that in fact they think all of them would be good presidents or most of them, at any rate. So it comes down to a couple things, and one of them is electability and the other is that whole thing -- and you heard this today in the debates -- and that is who can best bring about this change. It's all about change. Everybody wants to change mostly in the same way on the Democratic side. Who can best do that; and that's what it's getting down to.

Halperin these races are not symmetrical. They're both competitive but they're not symmetrical. I think one of the big differences is if you said to the Democrats of Iowa or nationally here are your six leading candidates, the six who debated today, five of them are going to drop out and your nominee is going to be the other one, most Democrats I think would say great, we'll take any of the six.

A lot of them have a favorite, but they feel pretty good about all six of the people who debated. On the Republican side, that's not the case. They're looking for one person who they think can go in and be a strong general election candidate and a strong president, and that puts their party in a bigger scramble than the Democrats are in.

Mundt: So talk a little bit about where we are in Iowa, and we should probably look out to the rest of the country too, maybe not necessarily as a result of yesterday's Republican debate but just at this particular point, a few weeks out. We have Mike Huckabee who has risen considerably in the past few weeks. Mitt Romney, the gap seems to be growing a little bit. Are there -- is Huckabee emerging here or are we seeing voters who are still a little uncertain about who they're going to end up choosing?

Murray: I think the polls are pretty unanimous that there is a Huckabee surge, and when you actually polled on people whether or not it's soft or strong support, it's actually strong support that he's actually getting from a lot of Iowa's caucus goers. What is probably the most interesting thing that's going on right now is that those who are actually surging in Iowa, Mike Huckabee on the Republican side and Barack Obama to a smaller degree on the Democratic side, that the polls in Iowa are actually starting to shape the polls nationally and also the polls in New Hampshire and South Carolina. And a closer and tighter Iowa race has made New Hampshire and South Carolina in national polls a whole lot tighter. And that's actually been really interesting.

Mundt: Is that because there's just simply more coverage of Mike Huckabee coming from Iowa?

Halperin: Sure. It shapes the sensibility of national reporters. And I think, you know, we sometimes I think maybe overanalyze things a little bit, but there's certainly an effect from the Iowa polls. But I think also Mike Huckabee has just been seen more and he's had a chance to expose himself, not on the level he has in Iowa but nationally he's -- through media appearances mostly, but some campaigning, he's been able to expose himself. And whatever it is that Iowans are finding pleasing about Mike Huckabee, I think people in other states are too.

Mundt: I want to look at some tape. The candidates were asked a little bit about what they could realistically accomplish in their first year at the white house, and so we'll look at a couple of these.

Obama: I will call in the joint chiefs of staff and tell them they have a new mission, which is to in a responsible, careful way, end this war in Iraq and bring our combat troops home. I will initiate the kind of diplomacy that's necessary to stabilize the country and the region as we're pulling out. Number two, I’ll call in my new attorney general to review every single executive order that's been issued by George bush. And any of those that have undermined our constitution or subverted our civil liberties are going to be reversed. Number three, we're going to have an open conversation with all the key players in the health care arena to make sure that we are moving forward on a plan to provide coverage to every single American and to save money so that we can actually afford it over the long haul.

Huckabee: I like the laundry list that everybody has had, and I would agree that every one of those things is important. The reality is none of that's going to happen till we bring this country back together. I think the first priority of the next president is to be a president of all the United States. We are right now a very polarized country, and that polarized country has led to a paralyzed government. We've got Democrats who fight Republicans, liberals fighting conservatives, the left fights the right. Who is fighting for this country again? And somehow, we've got to quit even fighting among ourselves as conservatives and as Republicans and start putting the better interest of this nation. If that doesn't happen, we'll get none of these things done. We've got to be the united people of the United States. And a president has got to somehow remind us that we're a great resilient nation that has to stick together to solve all of these problems.

Mundt: Comments coming today from Barack Obama and also from Mike Huckabee. Panelists, looking at what they had to say, they're two very different comments coming from those individuals, obviously thinking about their constituency and the voters who are undecided. How close do you think either one of those candidates are to what Iowans are feeling and then projecting from there to the rest of the country, what Iowans are saying in polls that they want? I'll start with you, Mark Murray?

Murray: Well, the thing that I actually took away from those clips mostly is that Mike Huckabee in his remarks really adopting the tone and rhetoric of Barack Obama. And as there's been this Republican food right in their race for the presidency, here's a guy who actually tried to be above the fray. And whether or not that's what Iowa Republicans are looking for, because they're pretty conservative as Republicans go in this country, he really did kind of set himself apart from a lot of the bickering back and forth that we've seen earlier in the race between Giuliani and Romney, et cetera. Barack Obama, on the other hand, what was really interesting, if you go back to the first debate of this entire cycle that my network had in Orangeburg, South Carolina, he was asked this question about if there were two or three nuclear attacks in this country, what would he do. And Barack Obama in his first debate basically said, well, I just want to make sure that people in this country were taken care of and safe. And Hillary Clinton then pounced and said, well, I would actually retaliate and use the force and whoever did this, you know, would basically get it. And people watching the debate scored that for Hillary Clinton. And there in that answer Barack Obama, here was a guy who you can see has now gone through almost ten debates where he was tough, defiant, talking about what he would do as commander in chief. You can really see in that clip how, at least on national security issues, where people and his opponents would say where he's the most inexperienced, where he's really really improved and has tried to act like commander in chief.

Crowley: Yeah, I think you saw Mike Huckabee doing his presidential demeanor in that. I think they both addressed their party's concerns. On the Republican side, it's so divided. I think Republicans are tired, first of all, of, you know, the party fighting over fiscal conservatism or social problems. So you've got him addressing that. We have to bring this all together. We have to bring the country together. What do you have on the Democratic side? I think all of them today, if I’m not mistaken, began the war. That's what started this Democratic drive. That's what's going to finish this Democratic drive, no matter how it ends up. So they addressed the war first, all of them, because that's where the core of the party is and that's what started the elections last time around in '06.

Mundt: It was the effort of "The Des Moines Register" to focus on a number of issues besides the war, and it's of course impossible to entirely do that, and it came up. Mark Halperin, your thoughts?

Halperin: The most important thing to Republican about the caucuses is organize, organize, organize, and get hot at the end. I've seen, not just in the debates but in the media appearances and then in Los Angeles earlier in the week with Obama and here in Des Moines yesterday with Huckabee, those two guys have their voices. The candidates who finish strong I think are going to win the caucuses and probably be the nominees. The ones who are speaking authentically about what their vision of America is matches the mood not just of their party but of the wider electorate, and I think those two clips very well chosen because you saw there a distillation of two confident, aggressive candidates who are clearly natural and comfortable in what they're saying, and more of a centrist message, not a partisan message, a message about reaching out and, in Obama's case, talking about some things with more centrist positions that he has learned over time. And I think they are unmatched today in their fields in having found their authentic voices. If they keep it up for the next three weeks, they will be difficult to beat.

Mundt: On this question of capturing the mood of America, there were a few issues that came up where on the Republican debate you saw some candidates speaking in one direction and others against it, or just -- you know, on the other side, the Democrats, as we said earlier, we saw nuances of opinion but we saw generally a lot of agreement, issues like universal health care, issues like global warming and the environment and some of the things that we need to do as a country. Where do you get a sense of the mood of electorate on an issue like universal health care and how the candidates on both sides are coming down on this?

Murray: For the first time in a long time, when you actually look at public polling, universal health care and whether or not even people would say that they like to actually have their taxes raised to pay for health care in this country, you're starting to see a majority of Americans nationwide so that they'd be for something like that. That's a big change from even when Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton were trying to enact universal health care back in the 1990s. So if you're looking at that, the Democrats as of right now, December of 2007, seem to have the country a little bit on their side. The question becomes what happens ten, eleven months from now, and things can change. As we saw just a year and a half ago as we were heading into the 2006 midterms, early 2005 it looked like the Democrats, no way they'd be able to take back the senate and the house, and then come November 2006, they did. So a lot can happen in nine or ten months.

Crowley: It's also, you know, I think is a basic premise. Americans think everyone should have health care. I think that's where we are as a nation right now. The question that will be settled over the next ten months, after the caucuses, after the primaries is how do you go about that. I'm not sure at this point that the polls reflect with specificity what Americans are willing to do for that.

I think if you look at Hillary Clinton’s health care plan, which mandates health insurance but allows you to keep the health insurance you have if you like it, is a reflection of their worry that the proposal that she did back in '93, that the big problem was that a lot of people are satisfied with their health care coverage. So that's something that has to be taken into account, but as a general principle, Americans believe everyone should be covered and everyone should have health care.

Halperin: I think if you're someone who wants a big health care bill passed, your best bet is a Republican president. Counterintuitively, I think there's going to be large Democratic majorities in congress. I think it's going to be very difficult for an all Democratically controlled government in Washington to pass something big, and I think these Democrats know that. They're promising a lot on health care because they know that's the mood of their party. But again, I think if you elect a Democratic president as this country does, I think it will be difficult to pass anything big. It will probably start out something more incremental than they're all promising now.

Mundt: They were all promising a lot today and yesterday, that's for certain. Coming out of Iowa -- in a few weeks the caucuses take place. The candidates are obviously not only talking to Iowa voters right now, but they're talking to voters in New Hampshire and South Carolina. I think Rudy Giuliani who has a strategy that's more focused on those states is certainly trying to speak directly to those voters. How do you see the campaigns shifting in their focus coming out of Iowa and beginning to look at another slice of the electorate? Halperin: I think Iowa, again, as I mentioned before, the asymmetry between the races, Iowa is much more important in determining the Democratic nominee than the Republican nominee. First place in Iowa for the Democrats is worth a lot. I think the biggest question on the Republican side is what is third place worth. Is it worth anything since most of the campaigns -- I think all of the campaigns assume Huckabee and Romney will finish first and second. From here New Hampshire will matter for both parties. After that the asymmetry continues. Florida and Michigan are very important for the Republicans, probably won't be contested by the Democrats. And of course, for both parties, South Carolina will be big. So things will come fast and furious. But Iowa and New Hampshire have maintained a lot of first-in-the-nation influence, maybe as much or more than ever.

Crowley: I think that's true. I think there's this old adage there's three tickets out of Iowa. I think there's two tickets on both sides at this point. I think you can see by looking at the itineraries of the Republican candidates that most of them have moved on. This is a Huckabee-Romney race here. I think third is just by default. I think on the other side that these Democrats are well aware that if you do not stop Hillary Clinton here, you're not going to be able to stop her anyplace else. And even then, there's no guarantee they can stop her, but they can slow that sort of inevitability. She's on her march, you know. But I think in the end it will come down to wherever she places in this, unless it's third -- let's she places second -- it still becomes there is Hillary and there is not Hillary, and I don't think there's room in that for a third, although I think three of them will go on and probably more. I just think practically speaking there are two tickets out of Iowa on both sides.

Mundt: Do you think that understanding about Hillary Clinton’s position and the way the other Democratic candidates need to chip away at it will lead perhaps precariously to negative campaigning in the final weeks, or is that a no-no and they will not touch it?

Crowley: You know, I think that's a big question. I think what the Clinton campaign has found out is that she's not helped when she goes out and takes out after those candidates. I mean she was doing fine. Everyone expected that things would tighten up. I don't think they really expected it could get like this at this point. I don't think they expected Barack Obama would be going this way and Hillary would be at least sliding back. So I think what they found is when she's going after somebody, it plays into stereotypes of who Hillary Clinton is: That she'd say anything to get elected, that she's mean, that she's cold, all those things. So I kind of expect that the Clinton campaign is going to go back soft. They've got an ad out today with her mother talking about the great assets that her daughter has and how she would have voted for her even if she wasn't her daughter. So I sort of see them going that way.

Murray: And you even saw Hillary Clinton today in the debate emphasizing a lot of the personal. That kind of matches to what that new ad they have with Dorothy Rodham talking -- kind of emphasizing the sweet and sensitive side that, you know, Hillary Clinton -- for Iowans to get to know a different side of Hillary that they've never gotten to know before. But the thing is that negative ads are going to come. It's true in almost all political races, no matter where the state. Sometimes some of them are more negative than others. But come December 29, December 30, 31, Iowa TV stations and television channels are going to be inundated with negative advertising. We've already seen it. Mitt Romney unveiled the very first one going after Mike Huckabee on immigration. It was pretty soft as negative ads go, but they're coming.

Mundt: Romney. Romney was at one point doing very well in this state, and things have shifted. Mark, how does Mitt Romney come out of Iowa and move to New Hampshire?

Halperin I think if he wins Iowa, which I think he probably had to do before when he had a lead and he still has to do, I think the rise of Mike Huckabee will be the best thing that ever happened to him. I think national the focus is going to be on the Democratic race more than the Republican race here. Had he won Iowa by the 20 points he was leading by before, I don't think he would have gotten much of a bounce out of here. People would have said, well, he spent a lot of money there. No one seriously challenged him. On to New Hampshire. Now if he wins Iowa even by a point, I think he will get a bounce out of here and I think he'll be in a very strong position in New Hampshire where his poll position has not deflated the way it has in Iowa.

Mundt: And he has a strong organizational team.

Halperin and he's from a neighboring state, and he also had a checkbook. One of the things that's going to come into play here at the end is we don't really know how much money the campaigns have. There's all this focus early in the year on who is raising what and who has what in the bank. We don't really know. It's possible that he will have a significant financial advantage in New Hampshire, in South Carolina, in Michigan, in Florida if these other campaigns are not raising a lot of money right now.

Mundt: Any other thoughts on Mitt Romney?

Crowley: I would just say that the people that are most supportive of Romney -- I’m sorry. The people that are most supportive of Huckabee at this point are Fred Thompson, John McCain, and Rudy Giuliani. I mean they would love a Huckabee victory out of here because it throws the race into chaos. It moves it to New Hampshire where they've taken their campaigns. And it weakens Romney. So those are the strongest supporters right now of Mike Huckabee.

Murray: The race is so chaotic. It kind of goes back to the asymmetry that Mark was talking about either. The Democrat race is kind of settled. You kind of know either Hillary ends up winning Iowa or she doesn't, and we can see the repercussions from future contests. The Republican race is so unsettled right now that he who wins Iowa, somebody else might end up going to win New Hampshire. Somebody else could go win South Carolina. And then maybe lo and behold Rudy Giuliani’s February 5 strategy is the smart card. We're not going to know until that point, but it is so unsettled right now. It's really hard to be able to look at the map and the calendar and be able to see someone wins here and someone wins there and it's all over.

Mundt: Could it actually go to the -- we have just a few second left.

Murray: I hope not.

Crowley: I sincerely doubt it.

Mundt: Quick question. Just a few seconds left. I think, Mark, you said earlier, you were talking about the importance of Iowa going into the future out of this. Candy Crowley and Mark Murray, does Iowa four years from now still play a significant role?

Crowley: I think so. I think we hear talk all the time of, well, this isn't fair, we need to have regional primaries and we need to bring Michigan in or Florida, and it always ends up back in Iowa.

Mundt: Mark?

Murray: You saw the Democratic candidates ask this very question, and they all answered in the affirmative. And I would seriously doubt that any future candidates in 2012, 2016 would answer any differently. Will there be some tinkering to the calendar system to kind of avoid the front-loaded calendar that we saw this time around? Perhaps. But that's down the road, and I think Iowa is probably here to stay for quite a while, at least in its first place.