Hillary: lose to win?

There's an interesting article from the Guardian about Iowa's retail politics being tough on Hillary. She could very well lose both Iowa and NH. What happens then? Dick Morris had an interesting theory back two weeks ago. It's that Hillary has to lose to win. Here it is:

There is only one way for Hillary to shift the focus onto Obama or John Edwards: lose. By losing in Iowa and New Hampshire, she makes the key question not her veracity but Obama’s or Edwards’s ability to win. Democrats are going to be reluctant to nominate someone they know so little about as Obama and will wonder if the nation is ready for an African-American candidate (it is) or for a man who has been senator for 104 weeks before running for president (it’s not). They will also wonder about nominating Edwards, who lost twice in 2004. When the question becomes viability, not credibility, Hillary is in a league of her own with her ability to bring new female voters to the polls.

This is absolutely right if Obama wins, but not if Edwards wins. Edwards is the "safe" candidate, the default candidate, the John Kerry candidate. Hillary better hope Edwards doesn't win Iowa.
The campaigns exchanged more rhetoric over foreign policy:

Obama had asked rhetorically why “the national security advisor, the secretary of the navy for Bill Clinton, the assistant secretary of state for Bill Clinton” had endorsed him. “I just think that it’s kind of a silly question,” Clinton responded today. “I mean, honestly it’s a silly question. We have hundreds of people’s support. … This is not a campaign between lists of advisers. This is a campaign between real people with experience and qualifications to be president on Day One.”

“Obviously we demonstrated that that wasn’t accurate," Clinton said, alluding to a list produced by the campaign last night, which First Read reported on earlier. "But really that’s not the point. You can have lists of people who are advising you but what matters is who’s sitting behind the desk in the Oval Office, and who’s ready to be president on Day One.”

It's a great response. This is the meat-and-potatoes of the campaign right here, with the candidates attacking precisely where each other is vulnerable.