We finally have our traditional first test of the candidates. So what do the Iowa results mean? It's hard to say. The keyword of the night was "change". Do any of the new top-tier candidates really represent that?

It appears Obama rode in on a wave of young, energetic voters who are fed up with the status quo. So did Howard Dean, until he got torpedoed in Iowa. There are also reports of Republicans crossing over to support Obama. Is this because of his message of unity, or is it sabotage? If Obama stumbles, will the youth vote migrate to another camp, or give up in disgust and sit out the election like they usually do?

Clinton must be in shock at the moment. Her decline can be traced back to when she gave several different answers to the same question in the Oct. 30th debate. And her vote on designating Iran a terrorist operation didn't help. Despite all that, it's as if she didn't see this coming. Maybe when you micromanage every aspect of a campaign with such efficiency and precision, it's a good idea to stick your head up and sniff the wind every now and then.

If she starts making major adjustments now, will it make her look weaker and more indecisive? Also, does her finish mean that people aren't comfortable with the idea of a woman as president, or just not comfortable with Clinton? Is there an element of Clinton fatigue? At any rate, this is by no means a fatal blow. She is still in it to win it, and has as good a chance as any of the top three finishers.

Edwards did well considering his campaign finances. He did it by going out and knocking on doors and looking people in the eye and promising to fight for working people and protect America from a hostile corporate takeover. But he didn't get unanimous support of labor unions, which should be his bread and butter. Will his funding problems hinder his ability to build on his strong showing in Iowa?

There are also a couple of issues with his decision (out of necessity?) to go with public funding. He was limited to spending only about $3 million in Iowa, and it will be even less in New Hampshire. Clinton and Obama are estimated to have spent $20 million each in Iowa, and they are still flush.

Edwards has other problems with the FEC, which recently ruled that donations made through ActBlue, Edwards' primary fundraising mechanism, are not eligible for federal matching funds. If this is upheld, it will cost Edwards around $4 million.

Another Edwards problem with the FEC is that several recess appointments have expired leaving only one current sitting member, and the Senate is blocking new Bush appointments. Without a quorum, it's not clear whether one member can legally release matching federal funds.

Despite all these obstacles, Edwards pushes on, enhancing his image as a fighter. Will that be enough in New Hampshire and beyond?

As for the Republicans, is the Huckabee win a signal that the sleeping Christian conservative right is resurrected? Will Karl Rove join his campaign? Is the GOP base abandoning national security in favor of conservative family values?

And what about poor Romney, who spent $30 million for a somewhat distant second place finish?

And ol' Fred. Will his surprising third-place finish put fuel in the red pickup for a race to the finish line? Or will he plod along until Feb. 5th and save face with a huge win in Tennessee, then call it a day?

And what about the record turnout? Is America finally awaking from the long national nightmare? Who benefits from high turnout?

At any rate, it suddenly got even more interesting last night.