Four years ago, I wrote that it looked like Howard Dean was going to coast in Iowa because his competitors shied away from direct attacks in what was their last scheduled debate.

Of course, that was way off. His rivals just didn't want to attack him themselves, while everyone was watching. Attacks were just done through with surrogates instead.

And so, Huckabee has no reason to be sanguine after yesterday's confrontation-free debate.

And it will not be surprising if today's Dem debate is a polite affair as well.

But the attacks will come. They will likely be lame, and trivial and silly.

Ironically, this will be more true on the Democratic side, as evidenced by the recent attacks of Obama's past (and freely admitted and repented) drug use.

Democratic candidates have put on the table far more detailed policy proposals than their Republican counterparts. Yet the Republican skirmishing has been far more issue-based.

With pretty much everyone in the GOP still geared up to spread the good times beyond Iraq, they are left with harping on supposed differences on immigration, taxes and abortion (and perhaps a bit of differentiation on personal religious belief.)

Meanwhile, Democratic candidates -- particularly Clinton and Obama -- are mainly stressing personal differences as they try to claim the mantle of electability.

Because the issues Republican candidates stressing are so far removed from the top priorities of most voters, perhaps their skirmishing is worse for their party's brand.

But Democrats should recognize that many people still lack a firm grasp of what they are offering the American people in terms of vision for the country.

As a close race heats up, more people are going to start to tune in.

Seeing a lot of petty attacks, instead of policy disputes that educate people about critical issues, will do little to solve this party-wide vulnerability.