In a campaign in which there are so many debates, a single engagement rarely makes much difference this early in the process. Relatively few will watch a debate on a minor cable network more than three months before the first vote is cast (Sorry, MSNBC). Moreover, as we've seen repeatedly, in a debate with a plethora of candidates, it's terribly difficult for one candidate to stand out positively. (Gaffes are another story.) It's also hard to go on the attack - since the result is likely to hurt the attacker as much as the target and help the other candidates. The result is that frequent multi-candidate debates freeze a race - helping the front-runner immensely.

That's what's happened so far this year, as the debates have enabled Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani to consolidate their leads. And, on one level, there's no reason for tonight's New Hampshire Democratic debate to break the pattern.

Still, it is the first debate of the fall - the beginning of the home stretch before Iowa and New Hampshire. The aficionados will be tuning in. And it comes at a time when there's a sense that Clinton is beginning to pull away. What's more, NBC's Tim Russert is the moderator and with his debate experience (more extensive than that of any candidate), he may be able to coax some dramatic or revealing moments.

So, there's a decent chance that tonight's face-off will produce some news. Here are four angles worth watching for:

1) Will anyone go after Clinton? There were signs in the last debate that some members of the field were ready to attack the front-runner. The attack is unlikely to come from Barack Obama or John Edwards (too risky) but instead from Joe Biden or Chris Dodd, who are back in the pack. If an attack comes, the question is: Will it stick? It depends, of course, on the substance of the critique and how it's couched. And it depends, of course, on item 2 . . . .

2) How will Hillary respond? Attacks on women candidates from aggressive men frequently backfire because they create sympathy for the candidate being criticized. In the past, especially with Rick Lazio in 2000 (with Russert again as the moderator), Hillary has turned parries into positive defining moments. If that keeps happening, the debates will keep helping her campaign.

3) Can Obama or Edwards get something going? Neither of the principal challengers had benefited from the frequent debates so far. Edwards has put in some good performances but has been buried by a press corps anxious, as always, to turn things into a two-person race. Obama has faced a different problem. He hasn't been able to put in any kind of performance that has come close to generating the excitement he created in his 2004 convention speech and occasionally on the stump. Sixty-second answers don't play to his strengths.

The key for both will be to be engagingly thematic, rather than programmatic - to soar above the field and Hillary. Edwards needs to keep pushing his populist themes, particularly when they separate him from his "elitist opponents." Obama needs to stop talking biography and agenda and start painting a picture of what an Obama-led America would look like that stands in sharp contrast to what the country would resemble, should any of his opponents prevail. Obama needs to make his effort a crusade, not a traditional campaign. Talking about an America that picks up the mantle of Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King (yes they're from a different era but voters know them) is one way forward. If Clinton is going to stand for the Clinton tradition – not that she has much choice -- let Obama claim a nobler tradition. More stirring rhetoric would help too, built around the use of action verbs. It's been a terribly prosaic campaign (and one of Hillary's weaknesses is that there's never been a more prosaic candidate). It's time for some poetry.

4) Will there be a breakthrough moment for anyone outside the "Big 3?" They can all dream. But it's terribly unlikely.

(Steven Stark also writes the The Tote Board for the Boston Phoenix)