I ran into former New Hampshire Governor Jeanne Shaheen last night at LaGuardia. She was leaving New York after doing some fundraising for her Senate campaign (I was headed back to Boston after another day at Bloomberg Radio). Talking to her got me thinking about how the dynamics of this election has changed since the "surge" began in Iraq. For the New Hampshire Senate race, once Shaheen jumped in the other potential Democrats who had a chance to compete with Republican Senator John Sununu (Swett and Marchand) dropped out. Shaheen only barely lost the last time she took on Sununu, so it appeared like a lock for the Democrats to take that seat in 2008 with Shaheen as their standard bearer, what with the GOP reeling from the bad news coming out of Iraq. Now, though, the atmosphere has changed. The "surge" is working (forget about the whys and wherefores, whether it's the extra troops, the new strategy by Petraeus, the turning of the Sunni tribes against Al Qaeda, the decision by Sadr to lay low, or a combination of all of those factors, the domestic political reality is that there is now a perception of success in Iraq rather than failure...here is one example of what is happening). Iraq is no longer the top issue. The Bush Administration, while still low in the polls, is no longer the focus of the race. This means that each local race (for Senate, House seats, Governor's offices, etc.) is now about local issues and, importantly, the strength of the Presidential ticket.

Which brings me to the latest from that race. This ABC News/Washington Post poll of Iowa shows that turnout is the key, with Obama holding a slim lead over Clinton, and Edwards well within striking distance. Another Iowa poll shows Edwards in the lead. In New Hampshire, the latest WMUR/CNN poll of the Democrats, conducted by the UNH Survey Center, shows Clinton still in the lead, but Obama is close and Edwards still has a shot. With Iraq off the table, Edwards now has a real chance to steal this thing from the front runners. Remember that Iraq was Clinton's liability and Obama's advantage (although national security was Clinton's advantage and Obama's liability). Take away Iraq and national security as top issues, then you return to domestic issues, which has always been the main arena for Edwards. If Edwards can win in Iowa, expect a surge (pardon the pun) in New Hampshire.

On the GOP side, the charges and counter-charges are flying as it is now clear that any one of at least four, and maybe five, different candidates could come away with the nomination. Tony Blankley says all the vitriol aimed at the front runner of the week could lead to a brokered convention. Rich Lowry marvels at how Giuliani continues to drop. In fact, in the latest national poll, Huckabee has gained a tie with Giuliani. Huckabee is leading in Iowa, but here in New Hampshire, I find the resurrection of John McCain to be most interesting. Look at the numbers in that WMUR/CNN poll on the GOP side. Romney still has a solid lead, and Huckabee went from nowhere to be a contender. But it is McCain who is really on the upswing. Once upon a time he was the front runner, then his campaign started to sink. But now it is back on the rise. With endorsements from the Union Leader, and even the Boston Globe, in his pocket, he can offer himself as the compromise candidate. A social conservative, but not tied too closely to the evangelical community, a fiscal conservative without the personal baggage of a Giuliani or the perception of flip-flopping that dogs Romney. Right about Iraq first, now and always. The toughest guy in the race, bar none (just ask his North Vietnamese captors). These perceptions are working for him now, as the negative stuff (wrong on campaign finance reform and immigration reform) fade into the background.

Social conservatives may have found their candidate in Mike Huckabee. Who, then will be the alternative? New Hampshire and South Carolina may give us the answer. If not, Blankley may just have it right.