The smart money — not to mention the latest polls — gives an edge to Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee in tonight’s Iowa caucuses.

But take a couple hundred thousand Midwesterners, pack them into gyms and libraries and town halls on a frigid Iowa night, add a heaping measure of peer pressure to the equation, and, well, anything can happen.

Here are five unlikely results you that shouldn’t be shocked to see when the final precinct tallies come in:

1) John Edwards Wins Going Away

No one in presidential campaign history has ever worked a state like John Edwards has worked Iowa. No one. But for a brief hiatus for the 2004 general election, Edwards has been campaigning there non-stop since early 2003. He’s answered more questions from more voters at more diners and summer cookouts — in every last corner of the state — than Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama combined. (more…)

The NPR debate (transcript) was a good one this afternoon. Not that it was a great debate, per se, but it was a lively intelligent discussion. And the NPR moderators could all teach Wolf Blitzer a lesson or two on how to rein in blabbering candidates and steer a discussion.

The debate dealt with just three topics — Iran, China and Immigration — a long-form format that served the Iran topic best.

It’s remarkable how badly the new NIE has wrongfooted senator Clinton, who has bet hard that hawkishness toward Tehran would serve her best in the general election should she make it to that promised land.

Signing on the Kyl Lieberman amendment, however, could prove fatal to her campaign.

Senator Biden hit Clinton hard for her tepid commitment only to slow a “rush to war” with Iran:

BIDEN: Terminology matters. I’m a great admirer of Senator Clinton. It’s not about not advocating ‘a rush to war.’ I’m advocating no war. A rush to war means that war, taken slowly, going slowly, is possible. I’m advocating no war, no justification for war.

Clinton also took sharp questions from moderator Steve Inskeep:

INSKEEP: Senator Clinton, as some of your opponents have noted, in September you voted on a resolution involving the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, which, among other things, called them proliferators of mass destruction. In view of this latest intelligence estimate, which says Iran’s nuclear program was stopped in 2003, do you believe that’s still true?

SEN. CLINTON: Well, there were other purposes for that resolution. It does label the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization, and there is evidence that they do support Hamas and Hezbollah, as Senator Obama just said, and in addition have, until recently, been supplying weapons and technical advisers to various factions within Iraq….

Clinton filibustered on for a bit about the benefits of turning up the heat before Inskeep redirected:

INSKEEP: Forgive me, are the Revolutionary Guards proliferators of mass destruction?

SEN. CLINTON: Well, many of us believe that.

This is jaw-dropping. The nation’s intelligence community just issued a consensus report declaring there is no nuclear weapons program in Iran. Yet Clinton still believes Iranian Revolutionary Guards are WMD proliferators?

Talk about faith-based intelligence.

This is great.

Seriously. This guy is the best sound-bite politician in the business. Check out his latest gem: blasting Bush for saying president Musharraf hadn’t “crossed the line” and was still committed to democracy.

“What exactly would it take for the president to conclude Musharraf has crossed the line? Suspend the constitution? Impose emergency law? Beat and jail his political opponents and human rights activists? He’s already done all that. If the president sees Musharraf as a democrat, he must be wearing the same glasses he had on when he looked in Vladimir Putin’s soul.”

Delaware doesn’t bring any electoral college bounty, but who better than Biden to play the enforcer role?

If you missed it you really didn’t miss it. Ooof. What a lousy debate — starting with the CNN moderators. Why have voters ask questions if Suzanne Malveaux is just going to tack her own question on the end? Garbage.

Quickly: Clinton looked caffeinated tonight. She was back on her game and was prepared to dish it as well as take it. Her line about having an “asbestos pant-suit” on for the occasion was pretty funny. All the squabbling in the beginning really didn’t amount to much. Edwards seemed eager to continue the attack, but the spontaneous booing by the crowd of any Clinton slights really made even invidious comparisons hard to pull off.

The only exchange that was worth a damn was Obama and Clinton sparring over Social Security payroll taxes. (You know it a dreary debate when the best moment comes in an exchange about tax arcana.) Obama called Clinton on her ridonckulous assertion that people making over $95,000 a year — and therefore earning above the payroll tax cutoff — are “middle class.”

The crowd booed him for comparing her prestidigitation to that of Giuliani or Romney — but the point was fair — and spot on. The top six percent of money earners are not middle-class. They’re not. A lot of people in the $100k to $200k bracket are wheelhouse Democrats — and party funders — which I suspect is why Hillary is so unwilling to go there. But her parry was weak, and a rare clumsy moment in an otherwise polished performance. So score one for Obama.

Watching the two of them go at it is a little high-school though. Obama’s the cool smart kid. Clinton’s the savagely smart, kind of insecure one. She couldn’t help but begin her retort by correcting Obama for having repeatedly talked about a “tax cut” by mistake — “First of all,” she said, “I think you meant a tax ‘increase.’ Because that’s what it would be.” Gimme a break.

I think the best night was had by Biden, who continued to show a depth of knowledge surpassing that of the other candidates. Dodd and Richardson always talk about being experienced, but Biden is actually bringing that experience to bear in his answers.

It’s impressive that he spoke to Musharraf and Bhuto before Bush did this week. That’s meaningful. His answer on Supreme Court nominees was also impressive. Richardson ticked off his talking points. Biden actually knew what he was talking about when he referred to the 14th amendment and the right to privacy. He also dressed down Malveaux for her question-jacking. Well done, sir.

To sum up: Hillary had one notable stumble, but otherwise was sharp. Edwards’ boo birds defused his attack. Obama looked good — though after criticizing Clinton so sharply on the drivers license issue, you’d think he’d have had a sharper answer of his own. Biden keeps making a case for himself over Richardson as a dark horse.

UPDATE: Yglesias nails CNN’s ‘gotcha’ game.

This clip is all you really needed to watch of the Democratic debate last night.

We see Hillary lamely blaming the National Archives for the Bill Clinton orchestrated attempt to suppress documents that might actually shed some light on what First Lady Clinton’s policy role was in that White House.

This is the first time I’ve seen Hillary genuinely flustered — just making it up as she answered. Fumbling on about the 20 million pieces of paper at the Archives, topping it off with this lame bit of technocratic mumbojumbo about how the “Archives will move as fast as its circumstances and processes demand.”

This artless Clintonian dodge was clearly Barack Obama’s best opening.

And he starts strong, with a jab about Cheney-esqe secrecy and an effective upper-cut: “not releasing these records — a the same time, Hillary, that you’re claming this [time in the White House] as the basis of your experience — is a problem.”

But then Obama — who earlier jokingly compared himself to Rocky, with Hillary, implausibly, as Apollo Creed — pulled his punches. He shadow boxed for the next two minutes with high-minded platitudes about bringing people back into the process, blah, blah, blah, inflicting no more damage and tiring everybody in the audience out.

Fortunately for Hillary, this fight night was a spit decision. Edwards and Obama both had good showings — defusing each other’s appeal. Worse, Chris Dodd also woke up. And Joe Biden lit up the stage with his novel arguments about Pakistan — and of course his line of the night about Rudy Giuliani:

“There’s only three things he ever mentions in a sentence: a noun, a verb, and 9/11.”

How did your senators vote on war with Iraq?

A quick reminder of how Democrats with presidential stars in their eyes cast their lots:

Bayh (D-IN), Yea
Biden (D-DE), Yea
Clinton (D-NY), Yea
Daschle (D-SD), Yea
Dodd (D-CT), Yea
Edwards (D-NC), Yea
Graham (D-FL), Nay
Kerry (D-MA), Yea

And then there’s Hillary’s hook, line, and sinker speech (YouTube):

Saddam “has given aid, comfort and sanctuary to terrorists — including al Qaeda members…. This is probably the hardest decision I’ve ever had to make. [Smiles.] Any vote that might lead to war should be hard. But I cast it with conviction!”

If you’re a Dem or an Independent, there was a lot to like on stage last night in New Hampshire.

Hillary was impressive. Forceful. Distinguished. Presidential. She did an artful job deflecting tough questions without seeming evasive. And her blanket refusal to answer hypothetical questions worked wonders. At one point the crowd even started to applaud when she rebuffed Wolf Blitzer. She looked like the frontrunner and she sounded like she _believed_ when she would say “when I am president.”

Obama was also on the top of his game last night. He was far more relaxed than in his overly coached kickoff performance. He’s one smart dude — and clearly has policy chops that compensate for his lack of Washington experience. His efforts at playing peacemaker on stage added a magnanimity to his performance that none of the other candidates could match. It does seem that he is learning the ways of Washington, however. The mother of a veteran teed up a question about why her son shouldn’t have the right to get healthcare in any hospital of his choosing. Obama prattled on into a Kerryesque stemwinder on the ins and outs of the VA system and economies of scale and blah blah blah. Bill Richardson then swooped in with a home run swing, saying that all veterans should get a “Hero’s Health Card” granting them the best care at any facility of their choosing.

Joe Biden showed up tonight. His passion on the issue of Darfur and his defense of his war appropriations vote really set him apart. He came off as the smartest, toughest white guy in the room. I wouldn’t be surprised to see him get a big bounce in New Hampshire polls.

Bill Richardson. Another resume candidate who shined. Richardson was less nervous, although he still seemed antsy up on stage. But the governor managed to propose some of the most progressive policies — out of Iraq, full stop; an Apollo energy program to reduce greenhouse emissions drastically — in language that seemed smart and aggressive. He’s a tough-minded problem solver; and he carries an aura of decisiveness that sets him apart from the Senator’s club.

John Edwards. He threw some punches tonight and seemed a bit over-eager to start inflicting damage. He didn’t hurt himself, but his blows were merely glancing. And they provided Obama his chance to flaunt his diplomatic skills, and gave Hillary several chances to pull back and turn the whole evening into a commercial for the Democratic platform — look, we disagree on a few specifics, and we’ve had our differences in the past, but Democrats are all for healthcare. Democrats are all for ending the war. Listen to the Republicans tomorrow night and you’ll hear a defense of more-of-the-same. It’s a good thing Edwards’ path to the White House isn’t paved through the Granite State, because I don’t think he won too many new fans tonight.

Dodd, Gravel, Kucinich: Dodd is a good man with great experience, but he just doesn’t have a presidential presence. Kucinich clearly bettered Gravel as the anti-war candidate, a reflection both of a better night from Dennis and a decent into irrelevance by Gravel.