The debate’s ferocity set a new standard for Democratic combativeness.

What America saw tonight was all of the pent up opposition research from Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards spill out on stage as if from a giant, perforated spleen at the Republican National Committee.

Already, Democrats with loyalties in this race and some who remain neutral have fretted to The Bourbon Room that the biggest winner tonight was the likely Republican nominee (Edwards said it would be John McCain). Yet other Democrats found the debate tense but mild when compared to Democratic campaigns of yore.

The debate will test what the campaigns have been unwilling to test on the airwaves — the effectiveness of direct, personal attacks on each other. Every perceived weakness came under assault and each candidate left the stage more bloodied than he or she arrived.

The debate’s greatest contribution was the time alloted for lengthy rebuttal. This gave the debate some of its most sizzling intensity and allowed for dramatic policy contrasts (such as on universal health care, trade and approaches to economic stimulus).

Winners and losers can’t be tabulated based solely on the debate performance.

If they could be, Edwards would again emerge as the clear winner. His crisp, passionate specificity again outshone Clinton and Obama. This is undoubtedly the kind of joust Edwards desperately needed in Iowa, where he still had a fighting chance to win the nomination. If this debate happened in Iowa, Edwards could have contrasted himself against the aggressively nagging and negative Obama-Clinton interplay that dominated the first hour of tonight’s debate (of course, this kind of debate would never have happened in Iowa which is always why Edwards never actually had a chance in this race).

Sadly for Edwards and his diminishing band of supporters, his performance tonight, while cogent, will probably most be remembered for providing either comedic relief or a welcome respite from the Clinton-Obama sniping. The debate could boost Edwards in South Carolina, but since he’s so far behind here it’s unlikely to propel him to victory.

The key question, then, is if Edwards rises who suffers? Clinton or Obama? The Bourbon Room surmises the votes will most likely come from Clinton.

And that’s not because Obama beat Clinton. I’d call their battle a draw on points. But if Edwards rises as a result of tonight’s strong performance, he will more likely take support from Clinton because the arc of the debate highlighted her deep ties to lobbyists, her support for the Iraq war and, in general, the exaggerated criticisms she or her husband have leveled at Obama. Also, on issues where the three did not argue - such as poverty, Dr. Martin Luther King’s legacy, and Toni Morrison’s musings on the blackness of the Clinton presidency — Obama and Edwards were more confidently and naturally eloquent. Clinton didn’t stumble in these moments, but Obama and Edwards out-performed her.

Obama probably lost ground on health care because “universal” vs. “non-universal” polls off the charts with core Democrats (they want universal and, at bare minimum, the fight to START with the goal of universal coverage).

Clinton probably lost ground on Iraq and the stimulus. On the war, criticizing Obama for voting for war funds doesn’t make him a pro-war. Plenty of other anti-war liberals have voted to fund the troops fighting the war. That doesn’t make them pro-war. It makes them accountable to powerless volunteers who didn’t ask to fight the war, merely to have the equipment to prosecute it as best as they can. On economic stimulus, Clinton was first to unveil a comprehensive plan. But that plan did not highlight tax rebates. Hillary said they were held in reserve to avoid tempting congressional Republicans to reopen that debate over extending the Bush tax cuts. As Hillary must know, that was going to happen anyway. Also, many economists fear her call for a five-year freeze on mortgage loan interest rates will drive up the cost of future mortgages and thereby further delay any rebound in the housing market.

Edwards lost ground on trade and the bankruptcy bill, but since these issues are largely peripheral, the damage was less severe.

In summary, Edwards gained tonight. And since he and Obama sounded more like “change” than Hillary, his rise will probably take more from Clinton on Saturday than from Obama.

Obama held his own in the toe-to-toe fight with Clinton. The underdog, which Obama is nationally, always wins when the favorite hits hard and he doesn’t crumble. Also, Obama sounded more high notes among likely African American voters in South Carolina’s primary (where their turnout could easily exceed 50 percent) .

Clinton scored points but took several stylistic hits (drawing the occasional boo) and oddly acted as if Obama was more of a threat now than he was in Iowa or New Hampshire. She also appeared uncomfortable defending her husband’s recently aggressive line of attack on Obama (no one compares Bill Clinton to Michelle Obama or Elizabeth Edwards in the surrogate wars).

In summary, Edwards gave his candidacy a boost. Obama took Clinton’s best shots and survived. Clinton acted as if she hadn’t won the last two contests and regained her aura of inevitability and combativeness suits the challenger better than the front-runner.

Net winner by a slim margin: Obama.

The Bourbon Room caught up with Rory Reid, son of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and head of Hillary Clinton’s Nevada campaign, and senior Obama adviser David Axelrod to discuss Saturday’s Nevada caucuses.

Reid: “Anyone who tells you knows what turnout is going to be is lying because nobody knows. We believe Democrats are energized and this is an exciting process for Nevada Democrats, but we just don’t know how that is going to translate on caucus day. Hillary Clinton has a strong identity in Nevada and has attracted a lot of support because of her work on Yucca Mountain (the nuclear waste repository the vast majority of Nevadans don’t want) and her push for an economic stimulus bill that will help southern Nevadans deal with the mortgage crisis. We feel very good about where we are in this campaign.”

Axelrod: “I’ve always felt that we were fighting from behind here because she has most of the establishment with her. We’re the challengers, we’re the insurgents, we’re taking on the party establishment. I’ve heard (turnout) estimates from 25,000 to 100,000 so it’s almost impossible to predict. There’s no voter history here. But I do believe she has structural advantages here that are formidable and we will have to overcome them.”

Handicapping Saturday’s Nevada caucuses would be difficult under the best circumstances. Considering the turbulence of the fight for the Democratic nomination so far, predictions about Nevada are riskier than any wager in a state famous for them.

The biggest variable here is turnout. No one knows what it will be. In 2004 energized Democratic turnout was 9,000 for caucuses that everyone knew would have no affect on the race because John Kerry was clearly en route to the nomination.

A long time ago, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, one of the biggest players in Nevada capturing its coveted third-in-line status among early caucus and primary states, said turnout could be as high as 100,000. Talk about betting the farm. There are about 412,000 registered Democrats here and a 100,000 turnout would constitute caucus attendance of roughly 25 percent of registered Democrats.

I am not aware of a precedent anywhere in American history of a state achieving turnout that high in its first competitive presidential caucus. Most Nevada pros are assuming caucus attendance will follow the Iowa model, in which about 10 percent of registered Democrats participated when Iowa’s nominating caucuses first became competitive and nationally meaningful.

Considering the energy and excitement this race has generated among Democrats, it wouldn’t be illogical to assume turnout could be as high as 15 percent of registered Democrats. If you accept the 10 percent to 15 percent turnout model, you would then expect between 41,000 and 62,000 Democrats to participate. But there are other factors that could keep turnout down, among the distractions embedded in a three-day Martin Luther King Jr. holiday weekend; confusion about where to caucus, and the simple lack of a caucus culture that motivates people to take an hour out of their Saturday morning to attend.

All this makes campaigns uneasy because the only thing more nerve-wracking than bad polls numbers is poll numbers you can’t trust because you can’t confidently create a reliable turnout model. That’s where the Clinton and Obama camps find themselves now.

He has participated in all debates to this point but now….the Des Moines Register/IPT have banned him from the stage, along with Mike Gravel. He is upset, he says he meets the criteria that the Des Moines Register required and wants to know why they are stopping him now.