It is not as if the earnest Iowa caucus ballot-casters are unerring in predicting our next president. In fact, their track record is more remarkable for surprising the national electorate than in prognosticating the ultimate choice.

To be sure, Sir Bubba spun his way through the Hawkeye State, biting his lip in “deep” sincerity, talking incessantly about none other than himself, and lying through his teeth that Hillary was the best “thing” that could happen to our country.

Yet the entire Clinton machine – which included 5,000 volunteers who drove voters to and from their homes, multimillions of advertising (read, propaganda), Hillary’s bogus claim of “experience” that morphed into her opponent’s claim of “change,” and even her Restylane and Botox makeovers, not to mention the constant appearances of her mom and daughter and her oh-so-moderate tone of voice – was not enough.

Who trounced her? Now this is the irony! Two people who believe exactly as she does – two other Socialists who want to tax you to your eyeballs, nationalize healthcare, open our borders, and make nice to our terrorist enemies!

What did the winner of the Iowa caucuses, Sen. Barack Obama, have that Hillary lacked? Umm...how about credible authenticity, a genuinely soft voice, an ad during Christmas that included his attractive family instead of the “gifts” that Hillary’s queenly and imperious self promised to bestow upon our nation?

What did the second-place winner, former Sen. John Edwards, have that Hillary lacked? How about passion, a spouse who didn’t bite her lip but spoke from her heart, and a commitment to the concerns of Iowans that Hillary had no clue about?

Now it is on to the New Hampshire primary, where Hillary will have to battle not only increasingly negative media scrutiny – including from the NY Times’ formidable Frank Rich and Pulitzer Prize winner Maureen Dowd (for her scathing coverage of Bill Clinton) – but also from her old Hollywood pals who have mostly abandoned her.

And that is not to omit an electorate that is growing increasingly aware that she is spectacularly ill equipped to be president – by virtue of her lack of experience and also her ignorance about foreign policy.

Yet another blatant example of how clueless Hillary is about foreign policy, she recently told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer how much she lamented the assassination of Benazir Bhutto in Pakistan and that, “If President [Pervez] Musharraf wishes to stand for election, then he should abide by the same rules that every other candidate will have to follow.”

Small problem here: Musharraf was already elected president last October! Now shouldn’t the woman who has proclaimed time and time again that she is “ready to take office from day one” have known about the election of a person who occupies one of the most important positions on earth in terms of America’s foreign policy and national security? Clue: Musharraf is our ally and Pakistan has nukes.

This indefensible gaffe was no surprise to longtime Hillary watchers like me. As a New Yorker, I watched Hillary get elected and then reelected to the U.S. Senate – with, I admit, a good degree of horror and foreboding. She was elected the first time because the liberal voters in New York embrace “victims,” and Hillary, after Monica, was the ultimate victim. The second time was because Hillary had no viable opponent. In essence, it was a “gimme!”

It turned out that my horror and foreboding never materialized. Why? Because Hillary has done nothing of note during her seven years in the senate – no significant legislation, no bold initiatives, no emblazoning speeches, and no memorable or trailblazing foreign or domestic policy positions.

For her, the senate has always been just a way station to her grander plan to return triumphantly to the White House where, as president, she can appoint her liberal husband to the Supreme Court and actualize the dreams that her mentor at Wellesley, Saul Alinsky, imbued her with – to turn the United States of America into a Socialist paradise.

Now that the Iowa voters have heard her and her husband out and repudiated both of them, she has to fight the momentum of the guy who trounced her, Sen. Obama.

No doubt, she will do this in the only way Clintons know how, i.e., vicious opposition research, which she has already demonstrated in going public about Sen. Obama’s kindergarten pronouncement and his self-admitted young-adult drug use; intimidation (read Kathleen Willey’s book for Exhibit A); defamatory-to-the-opposition push-pull last-minute phone calls to potential voters; and also by enlisting her leftwing media cronies to slant things her way.

“I’m in it to win it!” Hillary told the public when she announced her presidential aspirations. This is the one time that Hillary spoke the truth. Winning – and power, and the abuse of power - is everything to her.