United States:The early primaries are likely to cull the crowded field, writes Denis Stauntonin Washington
Over the next few days, crucial talks that could determine the political direction of the US for years to come will take place in one of the most remote and sparsely populated corners of the country. These negotiations will not be held around a conference table but at thousands of dinner tables throughout Iowa, which holds the first presidential caucuses on January 3rd.
Although Iowa voters have been flooded with messages, TV ads and personal visits from candidates of both parties for months, polls in 2004 showed that more than 40 per cent of caucus-goers made up their minds in the final week before the vote.
Political scientists and campaign staff believe that family conversations over the Christmas holiday may prove more important in determining the election result than all the personal appearances, celebrity endorsements and mutual mudslinging that have gone before.
Iowa's vote is always influential but in the first presidential race without an incumbent president or vice-president since 1928, it is more important than ever, and, for Democrats, it could determine the nominee before the primaries even begin.
A victory in Iowa for Hillary Clinton could allow her to sweep New Hampshire, South Carolina and other early-voting states before February 5th, when up to 20 states with half the US population between them, will vote on what is being called "Super-Duper Tuesday".
For Barack Obama and John Edwards winning Iowa is essential if they are to challenge Clinton for the nomination and in Edwards' case, a poor showing there will almost certainly mean the end of his candidacy.
The Republican race is more complicated, partly because national front-runner Rudy Giuliani has all but ignored Iowa, banking on the big states that vote on February 5th to sweep him to the nomination. Iowa could decide who emerges as the main challenger to Giuliani - Mike Huckabee or Mitt Romney - although former front runner John McCain is hoping that a good result in New Hampshire on January 8th will reignite his run for the presidency.
The confusion within the Republican race reflects the fracturing of the coalition that has proved so successful in recent years but now looks vulnerable as its constituent parts - evangelical Christians, fiscal conservatives, national security hawks, and libertarians - struggle to find common cause.
Low morale among Republicans and President George Bush's deep unpopularity ought to boost Democrats in 2008 but a rapidly shifting political landscape and changing priorities among voters could wrong foot either party.
The fall in US casualties in Iraq and the apparent success of the new military strategy there in reducing sectarian violence has helped to calm public anger about the war. Most voters remain opposed to the adventure in Iraq and want US troops to come home as soon as possible but recent polls show that voters' attention is turning away from the war towards domestic issues.
The healthcare crisis, which has left 47 million Americans without health insurance and millions more underinsured, is a good issue for the Democrats and all three of the party's leading candidates have promised a radical reform of the system.
As the subprime mortgage meltdown continues, however, management of the US economy could become the most compelling issue in the 2008 race. House repossessions are soaring and in states as diverse as Florida, North Carolina and Michigan, entire streets of newly built houses lie empty, becoming prey to vandals.
It remains to be seen how badly the mortgage crisis damages the overall economy but if the US tips towards recession, restoring prosperity and protecting jobs could become the hottest issues in the campaign.
Despite Bush's diminishing authority, which is manifest in Republican rebellions on Capitol Hill and in a growing willingness among officials, from the intelligence agencies to the justice department, to question the administration's policies, he remains "the Decider" until he leaves office in January 2009.
The president can not only veto legislation - something he is increasingly willing to do - but can influence the presidential election by announcing a major troop withdrawal from Iraq next summer, helping to neutralise the war as an issue for Republicans.
Until this month's admission by US intelligence agencies that Iran halted its nuclear weapons programme in 2003, many in Washington were convinced that 2008 would be the year Bush launches his third war.
That prospect has now receded and some of the president's allies are even urging direct talks with Tehran on a range of issues, with the possibility of a "grand bargain" that could include a US security guarantee for Iran.
The Middle East peace talks that began in Annapolis last month represent another opportunity for the president to dilute the toxic effect of Iraq on his legacy. Bush has not yet shown any enthusiasm for becoming directly involved in the talks but if progress is made in the coming months, he could play the key role in closing a deal.
Any good news Bush generates over the next year could, however, be overshadowed by a flood of revelations about the conduct of the "war on terror" as Democrats in Congress conduct inquiries into everything from the torture of foreign prisoners to the interception of phone calls made by US citizens.
Whoever succeeds Bush in the White House will almost certainly inherit many of the problems he created, including an enduring American presence in Iraq, the open moral sore of Guantánamo Bay, and the diminished standing of the US in the world.
