Once every four years, the country looks to Iowa as a political indicator for the rest of the nation. After watching the Democratic debates on television, I couldn't pick a candidate.  Barack Obama was inspirational, but his ideas seemed superficial. John Edwards was a fighter, yet his southern gentleman shtick rubbed me the wrong way. I was pretty sure that Hillary was an unfeeling automaton, but she seemed right for the role.  One of the advantages to living in Iowa is the unequaled access to party candidates. John Edwards claims to have visited every county in Iowa, while Obama spent

New Hampshire voters made it clear yesterday: the race for the Democratic presidential nomination comes down to a choice between change and experience. And that is no easy choice.Researching candidates' stands on the major challenges facing the country, I've been struck by how little substantive difference there is between the Democratic candidates. And if, as it seems now, the Democratic race has narrowed to Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, that race pits Clinton's years in the White House and Senate against Obama's important emotional connection on the issue of freshness and youth.Clinton's critics keep asking "what experience"? That simply means

"The Choice," a lengthy, perceptive piece in the January 28 New Yorker outlining the differences in how Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama view the role of the president.To Clinton, writes George Packer, "the presidency is more about pushing difficult legislation through a fractious Congress than it is about transforming society." Obama, on the other hand, has said: "It involves a vision for where the country needs to go ... and then being able to mobilize and inspire the American people to get behind that agenda for change.""A senator," wrote Packer, "must convince fifty to sixty fellow-politicians; a president must rouse three