Hillary Clinton highlighted her antiwar efforts and embraced John Edwards’ $9.50 minimum wage as her five-day Iowa blitz drew to a close, a clear signal camp Clinton needed to do more than hop-scotch across the state on a “Hil-a-copter” and dispatch surrogates statewide to tell tales of the “human side” of Hillary.

In Grundy City Thursday, Clinton talked up her Senate votes to bring U.S. troops home from Iraq within a year.

“In the Senate, I’ve been fighting the Bush administration to change course and end the war,” Clinton said. I have voted to complete the redeployment of our forces by December 2008. I have voted repeatedly against continuing to fund the war.”

In response to a question about timetables for withdrawal, Clinton said: “I think we can bring nearly everybody hom, you know, certainly within a year if we keep at it and do it very steadily.”

These remarks left two campaigns – Edwards’ and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson’s – with the impression Clinton was now embracing a full U.S. pullout from Iraq by the end of next year. If so, it would represent a stark contrast with her oft-stated “safe and responsible” troop withdrawal goal that lacks a hard timetable. Not incidentally, the Edwards and Richardson camps see it as a massive position switch more in line with their long-standing calls for rapid Iraq troop withdrawals.

Of the two, only the Richardson campaign complained on the record.

“Senator Clinton’s statement that we could ‘certainly get all the troops out within a year’ is a stunning flip-flop from what she has been saying all along,” Richardson said in a statement. “She consistently has called for leaving troops in Iraq to fight al-Qaida, train Iraqis, and protect U.S. assets. Has that suddenly been abandoned? If so, why has she changed her mind?

“In a September debate, she said that she could not commit to getting our troops out in five years, let alone in one year. Has anything changed about the logistics besides her position in the polls? It is clear that she is responding directly to my latest ad and my statements that she repeatedly has called for leaving thousands of troops in Iraq indefinitely. Rather than defending her position, apparently she simply has changed it.”

Clinton’s camp says there no change in her position.

“Governor Richardson knows that Senator Clinton has been clear and consistent: if George Bush has not ended the war in Iraq, she will,” campaign spokesman Phil Singer said. “As she has said, she would accomplish that by beginning to withdrawal our troops within 60 days after inauguration at the rate of one or two brigades a month. This would mean that nearly all troops could be home within a year.”

Clinton aides say she has not and will not abandon the belief that a “small contingent” of U.S. combat troops would need to remain in Iraq to guard against a resurgent Al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia.

On the minimum wage, Clinton has now proposed legislation to increase the minimum wage to $9.50 and dropped that bill just before Congress adjourned for the year. This last-minute legislative move strongly signals Clinton feels the need to shore up support among working-class Democrats in Iowa and New Hampshire – households that once formed a core part of her base.

Edwards welcomed Clinton’s pre-Christmas embrace of a $9.50 wage threshold, something that for five months he’s called on all Democratic presidential candidates to embrace.

“Just 14 days before the Iowa caucuses, Senator Clinton has answered my call,” Edwards said in a statement. “But changing America demands all of us do even more. In this spirit, I hope she will join me in rejecting the money of Washington lobbyists that is corrupting our system and hurting middle-class families.”

As for Barack Obama, he hasn’t set a target number for the minimum wage. He has advocated indexing increases in the minimum wage to inflation. Campaign spokesman Bill Burton says that approach would increase the minimum wage to $9.50 per hour “as fast” as Edwards and now Clinton propose.

Poll tidbits: The New Gallup/USA Today poll today shows Obama and Clinton tied at 32 percent with Edwards at 18 percent. In four of six of the most recent New Hampshire polls, Clinton has lead with margins from 3 points to 14 points. Also, today’s new Strategic Vision poll in Iowa shows Obama at 30 percent and Clinton and Edwards tied at 27 percent.

Reading between the line in the polls. Edwards announced this morning that uniquely among top-tier Democrats he will be in New Hampshire — NOT IOWA — the day after Christmas for events in Conway, Laconia, Manchester and Salem. This indicates Edwards sees a real chance to win in Iowa and doesn’t want to neglect New Hampshire so he can capitalize on a possible Iowa victory. Of course, with Clinton and Obama in Iowa, Edwards can dominate the New Hampshire media market. But if Edwards were feeling uneasy about the must-win state of Iowa, he wouldn’t dare venture to New Hampshire and leave the Iowa media market to Clinton and Obama.

In a release, Edwards touts 80 paid staff in the Granite State, “eight times the field organizers it had on the ground during the 2003-2004 cycle.” Edwards says he can compete with “anyone’s” field operation in New Hampshire. It’s worth noting that while the Obama-Clinton battle in New Hampshire has ebbed and flowed, one constant in the polls has been a slow Edwards climb since mid-November from the low teens to the high teens. Still, he has yet to break 20 and probably needs to cross that threshold before the caucuses — which may be another reason to hit New Hampshire on Boxing Day.

As this post first predicted Saturday, the news to come out of Iowa would soon revolve around direct engagement by Barack Obama with John Edwards.

It started Saturday over health care and escalated today when Obama, campaigning in Spencer, challenged Edwards’ U.S. Senate record in confronting special interest lobbyists.

Obama said “nobody in this race” has done more to reduce the influence of lobbyists in Washington. “Senator Edwards, who is a good guy, he’s been talking a lot about ‘I’m going to fight the lobbyists and the special interests in Washington, ” Obama said, calling out Edwards in his stump speech for the first time in recent memory. “Well, the question you have to ask is: ‘Were you fighting for (citizens) when you were in the Senate.”

Obama has an admirable record of taking up ethics reform in the Illinois Legislature and the U.S. Senate. Edwards has come to this issue late, adopting a no-special-interest-donations pledge when he launched his presidential campaign after having accepted them as a senator.

That pledge put pressure on Clinton and Obama to minimize political action committee (PAC) donations.

Obama does not accept them, but has used previously collected special interest contributions to his federal leadership PAC to make donations to lawmakers and interest groups in early primary and caucus states. Clinton has and apparently always will accept PAC donations.

These details are not trivial, but they are less important than what Obama’s call-out of Edwards tells us. As The Bourbon Room discussed Saturday, if Obama intensified his engagement with Edwards, it would signal that Obama sees Edwards as a big and possibly bigger threat in Iowa than Clinton. [For all the "fascinating" ramifications of a long-running Obama-Edwards fight, please consult the archives for "A New Level of Engagement"].

On a day when Hillary made it on all three major networks plus Fox and MSNBC, it stands out as doubly significant that Obama spent more time focused on Edwards than Clinton.

There is still a sense in the Obama and Edwards camps that Clinton is struggling and has yet to stop a gradual but visible slide in overnight tracking polls. Hillary’s overt efforts to play up her “human” send an unmistakable signal of internal campaign unease.

The campaign knew from the start Hillary was not viewed as warm or approachable. It sought to compensate by accepting that frame but turning it into a positive by preaching the national imperative to elect a no-nonsense, policy-driven, president “ready to lead on day one.”

Watching Hillary use the coffee sipping patrons at The Drake Diner in Des Moines as a humanizing backdrop and seeing her dispatch friends from New York and Arkansas to “tell personal stories” door to door about her in key Iowa precincts tells you all you need to know about Clinton’s internal polling data.

It appears the Obama-Edwards confrontation will continue.

Edwards must win Iowa, that means responding to every Obama attack and focusing on mobilizing his more reliable caucus-going backers. Obama needs to keep Edwards from over-taking him because an Edwards win deprives Obama of much-needed momentum for New Hampshire and gives Clinton, even if she finishes a close third, a chance to rebound there against Edwards.

If Obama heads to Las Vegas without a win, he will be hard-pressed to offer himself as a dynamic leader with a winning message. Instead, he may start to resemble Morris Udall as the affable and even lovable Democrat who can’t quite ever seem to do any better than second. Not where Obama would want to be.

Herein lies a lesson about how a race can change before your eyes.

A month ago, if Obama finished a close second to Clinton in Iowa it would have looked and felt more like a “win.” That’s much less true now. A second place finish to Edwards would look and feel deflating, even if Obama finishes ahead of a third-place Clinton.

Why?

Because doubts run rampant that Edwards can use a win in Iowa to win in New Hampshire. Those doubts are much less prevalent if Obama wins Iowa. Many inside and outside the Obama camp believe an Iowa victory could propel him to victory in New Hampshire (this is especially true if Edwards finishes second and Hillary third).

The stakes, therefore, are extremely high for Obama and Edwards. By their actions they are telling us they see the race as coming more down to them than a three-way dead heat with Clinton. At this stage, pay the closest attention to what the candidates actually do and say. That will tell you where the race is heading (even more reliable than The Bourbon Room).

Hillary Clinton’s campaign is rushing radio and TV spots to air in Iowa to immediately capitalize on today’s Des Moines Register endorsement.

Radio spots could appear as early as Monday morning and TV spots will swiftly follow.

“Are you kidding, Mandy is already cutting the spots,” Jay Carson, Clinton’s traveling press secretary told me, referring to Clinton media strategist Mandy Grunwald. “We don’t have many days left. There’s no time to waste.”

The Register endorsement praised Clinton’s experience and bipartisan record in the Senate. The paper’s editorial board called her tested, electable and ready to lead from the start.

The radio and TV spots will highlight the Register’s unstinting praise of Clinton at a time when Clinton has shifted away from the “experience” narrative and toward a “change” narrative built around working for change as opposed to (Obama) hoping for it and (Edwards) demanding it.

Team Clinton will also use the door-to-door visits in Iowa from Clinton loyalists from New York and Arkansas for we videos and web ads that may become TV spots during the week between Christmas and New Year’s when the campaign knows it needs to create its most humanizing spots so as not to aggravate Holiday-happy Iowans.

Council Bluffs, Iowa — In her revised stump speech today to kickoff a five-day “Hil-a-copter” tour of Iowa, Hillary Clinton added a new riff to her latest meditation on change.

After repeating the riff she debuted at Thursday’s Iowa Public Television debate that change must be worked for, not hoped for (Barack Obama), or demanded (John Edwards), Clinton added that to achieve necessary “change” a president needed to know “when to stand your ground and when to find common ground. ” Lest anyone miss the point, Clinton added the rhetorical candied cherry. “This is not a dictatorship.
It was safe to assume this was a direct reference to John Edwards. But assumptions usually work out poorly. Clinton staff confirmed Edwards was the target.

Clinton drew (by my count) fewer than 250 people to her much-ballyhooed “Every County Counts ” launch at Thomas Jefferson High School here. Twenty minutes before the event was scheduled to start, the room was nearly half empty. But even when the crowd trickled in to fill the available seats, all the tell-tale signs of advance team “shrinking the room” tactics were well in evidence.

The rows had double-First-Class leg room. The aisles were unnaturally large. Clinton’s podium was shoved into the room. And the press corps and risers were unnecessarily close to Clinton (unless, of course, the idea was to make the room look small and packed on TV cameras). Big swaths of unused space was filled up by three tables of coffee and cookies (who said small crowds are all bad). In characteristic Clinton fashion, the event started late — 30 minutes late this time.

Team Clinton announced the event on Friday and brought former U.S. Sen. Bob Kerrey from neighboring Nebraska (just across the river from here) in to announce his endorsement. Kerrey appeared genuine and that struck me. I well remember his often biting criticism President Bill Clinton’s political timidity.

“Please don’t let us down,” Kerrey implored, speaking to potential caucus-going Democrats. “We are counting on you.”

Then Kerrey, one of those politicians least likely to invoke prayer in public, concluded with this: “I give you my senator and soon, I pray, our president.”

Despite Kerrey’s presence and all the advance hoo-hah of the Hil-a-copter, the event still felt underwhelming — especially since camp Clinton pointed to it as a demonstration of newfound energy.

Clinton gave it her best, promising to bring “perseverance and perspiration” to the Oval Office. “Our campaign is energized, we’re picking up momentum and we’re going all the way to January 3rd.”

On the road to January 3rd, Clinton will no doubt keep an eye peeled for looming Democratic dictators.

Mari Culver, wife of Iowa Democratic Gov. Chet Culver, will endorse John Edwards for president for tomorrow at noon in Des Moines.

The governor will remain neutral. Iowa’s First Lady will say Edwards is tested, inspirational and electable. Edwards will use the endorsement and his cover treatment in Newsweek to buttress his argument that his time has come.

Waterloo, Iowa — The most important development today – by far – was Barack Obama’s decision to take out after John Edwards on health care (even more important than the just announced Des Moines Register endorsement of Hillary Clinton).

“Senator Edwards, he and I have similar plans,” Obama said during a town-hall in Independence , Iowa. “I think he’s done some good work . But he argued, that, you know, ‘Barack, he thinks you can negotiate with insurance companies and drug companies and drug companies. And I think you’ve got to just beat ‘em. ‘ You know what? The key to getting this done is to empower the American people, but you also have to have negotiations and you to be able to listen. Otherwise stuff is not going to happen. So we want to reduce the power of drug companies, insurance companies and so forth, but the notion that they will have no say at all in anything — that’s just not realistic. It’s not true.”

Hours later in Dubuque, Edwards called Obama’s take “fantasy” and that achieving universal health care coverage would take a fight and a fighter willing to make the fight. “We have a different approach and I think voters should know what the differences are,” Edwards said. “There is no way the president of the United States should be negotiating with drug companies and my responsibility as president should be to fight on behalf of America.”

Why does this matter?

Because if the axis in the Iowa race turns less and less on the Obama-Clinton dynamic and more on Obama versus Edwards on policy and politics, the race in Iowa will change dramatically.

Understandably, camp Edwards has chafed at watching as Hillary and Barack have sucked up most of the media space (though not mine, I’ve never counted Edwards out here and have said so over and over…check the transcripts).But now they sense Clinton could be in real trouble and are poised to tell Democrats the time to fight is now.

Based on the reaction in the Fox focus group after the Thursday Iowa Public Television debate, Edwards has reason to hope for (and quite possibly expect) the best.

In their conference call today, deputy campaign manager Jonathan Prince and senior adviser Joe Trippi virtually bristled with confidence, calling Iowa a statistical tie but classifying Edwards as the candidate with new-found momentum (I know, what else would you expect them to say?).Many of us have been on these calls and this one conveyed a need degree of confidence. Before today, Edwards chieftains often spoke abstractly of expectations that “X, Y, and Z will happen.” Today they cited fund-raising, web-traffic and volunteer sign-up activity that bespoke newfound excitement and energy as all three campaigns move into what is universally regarded as the last week when you can really harness new supporters before the crush of post-New Year’s undecideds start making up their minds.

For Democrats in Iowa and the rest of the country, if a debate between Edwards and Obama breaks out on policy and politics, its resolution will have deeper consequences than the current Clinton-Obama debate.

Why?

Because the Clinton-Obama debate is at one level about old versus new in the traditional confines of a long-running Democratic debate about governance. Obama supporters, generally, want many of the same policy positions Hillary espouses, but they want them pursued with an energy and conviction that they believe in, not just because the Clinton “machine” tells them to believe in it or creates a “war room” architecture to achieve it.

The essence of the difference, generally, is Obama supporters want to feel and keep feeling the enjoyment of riding the Obama wave and tell themselves big dreams and big history are possible.Writ large, the Obama and Clinton race has been one of “big dreams” versus “big seriousness,” or “big excitement” versus “big experience,” or “big crowds” versus “big endorsements,” or “big hopes” versus “big inevitability.”

If in Iowa, that choice morphs into an Obama-Edwards conflict, what’s the short-hand? There can be no other: “Big dreamer” versus “Big fighter.” If Iowa Democrats pick the “Big fighter” over the “Big Dreamer” and Clinton comes in third (by no means certain, but definitely possible), then Clinton will have a two-way fight ahead of her in New Hampshire because she can’t afford to ignore either.

Obama, having “lost” in Iowa will have to confront the possible limitations of the politics of hope. And Edwards will have to try to find a way to get undeclared voters in New Hampshire as angry about “corporate greed” as Iowa Democrats were.If he does, the long-dormant “fighter” gene in liberal/progressive/populist politics may come back to life and that could change the face of the race and, possibly, the presidency (as camp Edwards loves to say — populism is driving who in the GOP side? Mike Huckabee. No accident, say the Edwardians).

Today stood out because Obama and Edwards have basically ignored one another the last two months. Reporters have tried tirelessly to provoke Edwards to knock Obama and he’s demurred. Obama has just flat ignored Edwards, training his sights on Hillary and hoping/calculating that Hillary’s Billy Shaheen agony would distract from Edwards’s widely praised debate performance.

What accounts for Obama bringing up Edwards today?

The only answer can be a sense in the Obama camp that Edwards now presents as big, if not bigger, Iowa challenge than Hillary.Team Edwards also believes this to be true. Clinton’s camp is trying to prop Hillary up here with the five-day Hil-A-Copter tour (Obama cracked today he’ll get around on “a magic carpet”).

If Edwards and Obama begin to engage each other more directly in the coming days, you will know that both see Hillary’s numbers declining and her organization coming apart. And that will signal a brand new phase of this race with unpredictable consequences for all involved.

JOHNSTON, Iowa — Quick impressions of early stages of Democratic debate on Iowa Public Television.

Edwards: Looks crisp and confident and has clearly honed his populist message about the role of corporate influence on American political life, his line “corporate power and greed have literally taken over the government,” will stand as one of the punchiest of the day and crystallizes his campaign theme. His fumbling of his desire that this generation leave the nation in better shape than it was found left a humanizing and humorous feeling in the air

Obama: Hit solid notes on root causes of mortgage crisis and willingness to pay for new programs with spending cuts or higher taxes. Didn’t get bogged down in policy fine points, but sounded skilled enough to deal with any lingering concerns about “experience” on core economic issues. Line about 12,000 U.S. corporations on an offshore island representing either the biggest building on earth or the biggest tax scam is likely to be remembered, in part because it was delivered as if not obsessively rehersed (which it probably was).

Clinton: Went straight to glory days of Bill Clinton’s roaring ’90s economy and “fiscal discipline,” playing straight to Iowa Democrats who still fondly recall the Clinton economic years and the balanced budgets and surpluses that came with them (even if the GOP-controlled Congress of that era drove some of the politics and policy toward balanced budgets). Clinton looked a bit tense and sounded a bit more harsh than she probably realized, but that might just be opening debate jitters. Very solid on health care issue, showing she’s ready to debate that issue vigorously in the campaign’s closing days (Clinton camp already prepping attack ads on Obama in New Hampshire on this issue).