Democratic bigwig Rep. Rahm Emanuel on Bush’s comments (see posts below) suggesting that Democratic Senator Barack Obama wanted to appease terrorists:

The tradition has always been that when a U.S. President is overseas, partisan politics stops at the water’s edge. President Bush has now taken that principle and turned it on its head: for this White House, partisan politics now begins at the water’s edge, no matter the seriousness and gravity of the occasion. Does the president have no shame?

Actually, to many voters (including many independent voters and some Republicans, if you read the polls) the answer to that question is increasingly — and sadly — self-evident.

Democratic Senator Joe Biden was even more blunt. You can read his comments HERE.

UPDATE: The New Republic’s Christopher Orr:

I’m struck by how politically foolish this assault appears to be. Bush attacking Obama, and Obama counter-attacking Bush, while John McCain sits on the sidelines, is a disastrous dynamic for the GOP. The more Obama can frame this race as him vs. the most unpopular president in modern history, the easier a time he’ll have in the fall.

RJ Matson, The St. Louis Post Dispatch

EDITOR’S NOTE: The headline of our post on the Zogby poll and the lead paragraph were wrong due to part of another post not being properly erased, although the rest of the post was correct. The poll shows Senator John McCain and NOT former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney holding on to their narrow leads.

The Moderate Voice apologizes for and regrets the error. Here’s the proper version:

A new Zogby poll shows Democratic Senator Hillary Clinton and Republican Arizona Senator John McCain in the lead in their parties’ respective primaries in New Hampshire — but the two front-runners are ahead by such narrow margins that Tuesday night could again be a night of surprises:

Republican John McCain lost a little ground to Mitt Romney, as Mike Huckabee picked up some ground on the momentum of his victory in the Iowa caucuses. Democrat Hillary Clinton held even and retained a slight edge against the advancing Barack Obama in the wake of Obama’s win in Iowa, the latest Reuters/C–SPAN/Zogby telephone tracking poll of likely New Hampshire primary voters shows.

Democrat John Edwards also remained steady at 20%, well back of Clinton but within striking distance. But partial polling after Iowa suggests some slippage may be in the offing for both Clinton and Edwards.

On the Republican side, you have see:

McCain at 32 percent
Romney at 30 percent
Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee at 12 percent
Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani at 9 percent
Rep. Ron Paul at 7 percent
Former Senator Fred Thompson at 3 percent
Rep. Duncan Hunter at 1 percent

On the Democratic side you see:

Clinton at 32%
Obama at 28 %
Former Senator John Edwards at 20 percent
Gov. Bill Richardson at 7 percent
Rep. Dennis Kucinich at 3%
Senator Joe Biden at 2 %
Senator Chris Dodd at 1 %

The details are eye-opening:

McCain’s lead continues to be based on the strength of support among independents, where he holds a 42% to 29% over Romney, with no other Republican winning more than 10% support among this group. Among moderates, McCain’s edge dropped from 53% support to 48% support after yesterday’s polling was added to the Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby three-day rolling average, while while Romney also lost some ground, dropping from 24% to 22%.

So McCain is the favorite of independents.

Meanwhile, Romney’s edge over McCain among mainline conservatives – the largest voting bloc in the GOP - increased from one to five points.

It sounds like conservatives are settling on Romney to stop McCain — and Huckabee. Or are they?

Huckabee’s bounce from the Iowa victory comes among those who consider themselves “very conservative,” where he jumped from 21% to 28% when just yesterday’s post-Iowa caucus polling is folded into the mix. However, Romney still leads in the category with 33% support. McCain wins 20% among the very conservative.

So in New Hampshire, at least, it doesn’t seem as if conservatives are totally listening to talk show host Rush Limbaugh and the GOP establishment, which wants to stop Huckabee.

There are some other details in this poll, including about the Demmies. But here’s the most interesting:

While 64% of likely voting New Hampshire independents said they were planning to vote in the Democratic primary, about 36% said they would vote in the GOP contest – an 8-point swing in favor of the Democrats compared to just one day earlier.

As in Iowa, younger Democrats favor Obama over Clinton, but his advantage is not now near where it was in Iowa. Likewise, Clinton retains an Iowa–like edge among older voters, but she also has a smaller edge here than in Iowa. Edwards is a solid third in all age groups.

So if you look at the trending, the rhythm and the ongoing narrative of media coverage, it suggests that it’s unlikely New Hampshire voters will vote to stop Obama. More likely, it’ll either be a nail biter or they’ll vote for Obama.

A Clinton loss in New Hampshire looks likely if you pencil in these factors.

On the Republican side, the story continues to be Romney more so than McCain. He has not just not gotten endorsements in the state, but the state’s newspapers have denounced him for essentially being dishonest and changing so many of his positions (well, this is the year of “change”).

Will that override the desire of some voters to stop Huckabee? You can see by info in the poll that conservatives are split. Huckabee is too far down in the polls to likely pull this one off.

Whoever wins the GOP primary in New Hampshire will be the anti-Huckabee candidate — and will likely get support from the Republican establishment to squelch the Arkansas Governor’s challenge to the GOP’s party and ideological elite.

And so after months of stump speeches, mind-numbing debates and a tsunami of navel-gazing by an omnipotent punditocracy, we now have a small measure of how voters actually feel about the 2008 presidential field.

As in a really small measure.

Some 350,000 or so Democrats and Republicans — a record but still less than 15 percent of the state electorate — showed up at party caucuses in frigid and snow covered Iowa last night.

The caucuses are basically a media-driven event and this statistically insignificant, overwhelmingly white and disproportionately rural bunch of voters wield far too much clout. Note further that exactly one victorious Iowa candidate - George W. Bush in 2000 - has ever gone on to win the presidency in the same year since Jimmy Carter put the caucuses on the national map in 1976. Even then Carter finished second behind that perennial favorite, “Uncommitted.”

None of that particularly matters, however, because the results and orders of finish will resonate loudly in the run-up to the New Hampshire primary next Tuesday:

(1) Obama: An historic triumph for an African-American whose message resonated with men and women, young and old, rich and middle class — and perhaps most importantly, independents.

(2) Edwards: His populist appeal wasn’t nearly enough despite non-stop campaigning and he actually didn’t do as well as in 2004. Unfortunately, the man with the $400 haircut probably won’t last into the spring.

(3) Clinton: Events are spinning out of control — and may even be out of her control — after a disastrous finish that shattered her aura of inevitability.

(4) Richardson: Barely still in the race — for a vice-presidential nod.

(5) Biden: Over and out. Being an experienced candidate meant squat in the end.

(6) Dodd: Ditto. Being a virtuous candidate meant squat in the end.

(1) Huckabee: A triumph for the Onward Christian Soldiers crowd and a disaster in the making for the GOP because, if the New Man from Hope is the nominee, he almost certainly will be crushed no matter who the Democratic candidate is. That includes Obama.

(2) Romney: A humiliating finish considering that he had to win Iowa and spent more time and more money there than any candidate. Many voters saw Mitt for what he is — a phony.

(3.) Thompson: A not half bad showing if not exactly a momentum builder for a man who is barely in contention and will be out of it sooner than later.

(3) McCain: The un-Romney is still alive but not well after a poor showing.

(5) Paul: A respectable finish, but still very much an also-ran.

(6) Giuliani: So what that America’s Mayor skipped Iowa? Ha, ha, ha, ha.

While the numbers are insignificant and Iowa certainly isn’t representative of the U.S. as a whole, the call for change from both Democratic and Republican voters was resounding and the convincing victories for Obama and Huckabee are sure to shake — and in their own ways threaten — the party establishments.

Perhaps even more dramatic is that, while Iowa was a state tailor-made for Huckabee, it was anything but for Obama — which after his victory raises the prospect that if he can prevail in New Hampshire and then South Carolina the nomination may be his to lose if Clinton cannot mount a convincing comeback in the 20-state “Super Duper Tuesday” primaries on February 5.

Can Obama become only the second Iowa winner to take the White House? What seemed improbable is less so today. And while the caucuses are just the first stepping-stone in the nominating process, albeit a process that has become increasingly front-loaded, there is an aura of Democratic inevitability.

An accumulation of small signs suggest a strong third or fourth place finish in Iowa today for Joe Biden to keep his candidacy alive. If not, it’s over.

County leaders and mayors have been endorsing him, and, perhaps sobered by the death of Benazir Bhutto, crowds have been coming out to hear what he has to say about Pakistan and other worrisome parts of the world as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

“Barack does a room, Hillary does a room, I do the same room and I win,” Biden told Roger Simon this week. “I have absolute confidence in that. The question is: Do I get in enough rooms?”

In debates, the Senator’s 34 years of experience get “Joe is right” responses from most of the other candidates. His confidence and command on TV are presidential, but the polls have him stuck in single digits.

Iowans, known for surprises in their caucus results, will have to give Biden more than that to keep him viable. If they don’t, there will be one less voice of experience and sanity on the campaign trail.

Cross-posted from my blog.

Both ABC News and Fox News are running into a buzz-saw of political anger due to decisions bigwigs are making over limiting the number of candidates that they’ll allow in joint appearances or debates.

But the big raging issue is whether Fox News is taking special pains to cut campaign-contributions-rich Rep. Ron Paul out of the New Hampshire Republican debate when Fox is allowing actor Fred Thompson (who polls lower in New Hampshire) to participate.

At the heart of this issue are two bigger issues:

(1) In a democracy, shouldn’t voters have a chance to choose between different ideas and candidates — including some who may not have double-digit polling numbers or even get a double-digit percentage of the vote? What if a candidate has shown that he has incredibly enthusiastic supporters and a huge campaign bankroll. Does it smack of censorship?

–Washington Monthly:

I’m not even close to a Ron Paul fan, but I’m certainly willing to concede that Fox News shouldn’t stack the deck like this.

(2) How DO you set criteria in debates? Should debate and/or candidate group appearances have qualifying conditions that are applied unemotionally to see who gets to use the limited air time?

The candidate this will most impact is Republican Rep. Ron Paul, whose stands fly in the face of standard Republicanism, annoy the “mainstream” (read that “traditional”) Republicans in debates and whose small polling numbers are matched by wildly enthusiastic supporters and a big fat campaign bankroll. The AP:

ABC and Fox News Channel are narrowing the field of presidential candidates invited to debates this weekend just before the New Hampshire primary, in Fox’s case infuriating supporters of Republican Rep. Ron Paul.

The roster of participants for ABC’s back-to-back, prime-time Republican and Democratic debates Saturday in New Hampshire will be determined after results of Thursday’s Iowa caucus become clear.

Fox, meanwhile, has invited five GOP candidates to a forum with Chris Wallace scheduled for its mobile studio in New Hampshire on Sunday. Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and former Sen. Fred Thompson of Tennessee received invites, leaving Paul of Texas and Rep. Duncan Hunter of California on the sidelines.

The network said it had limited space in its studio — a souped-up bus — and that it invited candidates who had received double-digit support in recent polls.

In a nationwide poll conducted December 14-20 by The Associated Press and Yahoo, Thompson had the support of 11 percent of GOP voters and Paul was at 3 percent. Paul’s support is at 6 percent in a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll conducted in early December.

So if the criteria of double-digit in the polls is used here, Paul would not qualify. BUT:

Paul was tied with Thompson for fifth in New Hampshire in the most recent Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll, each with the support of 4 percent of likely voters. Among all New Hampshire voters, Paul led Thompson 6 percent to 4 percent, but that was within the poll’s margin of error.

Jesse Benton, Paul’s spokesman, said it was a “big mistake” not to include Paul, especially given Paul’s recent success in fundraising. He said the campaign has been trying to reach Fox News to get an explanation for the decision, but its calls had not been returned.

“There very well might be some bias,” Benton said. “Ron brings up some topics that aren’t very popular with Fox News, as in fiscal responsibility and withdrawing from the war in Iraq … that does leave us scratching our heads a little bit about whether it was deliberate. Based on metrics, I don’t see how you can possibly exclude Dr. Paul.”

Some livid Paul supporters are distributing e-mails calling for a boycott of Fox advertisers.

A Fox representative did not immediately return calls for comment about the complaints.

Paul has been invited to a GOP forum that Fox News is sponsoring in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, on January 10, Benton said.

So it is a ticklish subject.

But IS Paul being shafted?

Josh Marshall convincingly makes the case that in the case of the upcoming New Hampshire debate HE IS:

Paul’s supporters lay most of their claim to a place in the debate on his mammoth fundraising numbers. To me, the bigger issue is that Paul is consistently outpolling Fred Thompson, who is being allowed into the debate.

He shows a chart, then writes:

Paul’s support (red line — 6.2%) and Thompson’s (blue line — 3.1%) are both pretty anemic. But Paul isn’t that far off from Mike Huckabee (green line — 11.5%). And the key fact is that the excluded Paul is outpolling the included Thompson. So there is simply no objective criteria by which you include Thompson and exclude Paul, who by the way has vastly outraised Thompson.

It was unclear to me until just now whether the real factor here was the NH GOP or Fox News, the sponsor of the debate. But the state party is now calling on Fox not to exclude viable candidates. So, it’s not them. Or if it was, it isn’t now.

So, it’s all about Fox News. Paul’s out because he’s not a Fox News Bush-clone. Say whatever you want about the guy, Fox News shouldn’t be able to silence him because they don’t like his views.

The fact is, there have been few political movements like Paul’s — and Paul’s supporters and even some outside analysts argue that his support may not show up in traditional polls since he’s reportedly getting many first time voters.

In the case of ABC’s debate, Republicans and Democrats who want be on it should meet one of three benchmarks (this is still from AP story):

[Place]first through fourth in Iowa, poll 5 percent or higher in one of the last four major New Hampshire surveys, or poll 5 percent or higher in one of the last four major national surveys.

ABC News anchor Charles Gibson said the criteria were actually quite inclusive. He defended the network taking the initiative in effectively narrowing the field at a point when no actual voters had cast a ballot, except for Iowa caucus-goers.

“You will have had a year’s politicking,” he said. “You will have had, I think by count, about 641 debates. You will have had national polls and state polls and one state’s vote. I think that’s pretty indicative.”

But the question remains: SHOULD funding be a criterion as well? If so, what implications does it have? If not, what implications does THAT have?

But there is a light at the end of the tunnel about this debate. By early January, the extent of Paul’s support will be clear ….big or small.

The New York Times blog notes that Paul isn’t the only one being impacted by the new rules. It’ll also slice out two of the most outspoken voices in the Democratic Party:

The criteria could potentially sideline several of the Democrats, including Senators Christopher J. Dodd and Joseph R. Biden Jr.

David Chalian, the ABC News political director, said that the network was seeking to provide the “best conversation and debate between the candidates who really have a chance to become the nominee.”

According to the Wall Street Journal’s Washington Wire, Paul’s supporters are launching an organized campaign against Fox:

Republican Rep. Ron Paul and his supporters are targeting the Fox News network today after an Internet discussion spread during the weekend that the cable network wasn’t giving the Texas lawmaker a seat at the table for a New Hampshire forum scheduled two days before the state’s Jan. 8 primary.

The Associated Press reported last Thursday that the New Hampshire Republican Party would be sponsoring a forum at St. Anselm College in Goffstown, N.H., with Fox News host Chris Wallace moderating the discussion.

Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, John McCain, Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson were the only candidates listed as participants, and so the Paul supporters mobilized.

This morning, Washington Wire received a mass email from an independent Paul supporter calling on his considerable online organization to write to Fox employees and protest the decision. The email listed the addresses of about 60 Fox employees, from press contacts to hosts Bill O’Reilly, Shepard Smith, Neil Cavuto and Brit Hume.

“Has Fox News Excluded Ron Paul From the Pre NH Primary Forum?” the email said, “Fox News cannot just stifle public opinion. debate and impact a primary election by excluding Ron Paul just because they don’t like his message of freedom and liberty,” the email said (typos included). Some of the emails were posted on this Web site, and supporters are asked to “be respectful” in their email missives.

The key questions become:

–What are the criteria?
–Who’s being excluded?
–Is there anyone who is being included who does not meet the criteria?
–Should there be a clamor in the future for special consideration given to candidates who raise X amount of campaign funds?
What if someone just pledges to use his/her millions on a campaign? Should that count or should the criterion be money RAISED from voters?

But, as Marshall notes, Paul’s exclusion from the New Hampshire debate does raise some eyebrows.

Meanwhile, the LA Times blog, in a post that needs to be read in full (it has too many links to include here and is quite detailed) says some things about Paul’s supporters that have been noted by weblog owners:

Understandably, neither side apparently wants to incur the online wrath of Paul’s passionate parishioners, who scour the Internet around the clock and descend like locusts on any opportunity to praise Paul or right perceived wrongs on any website or blog they can find.

…..The mainstream media — or msm — are a particular target of Paul’s vociferous followers, an eclectic mix of libertarians and disaffected Republicans, Democrats and, until now, non-voters. Outspoken to say the least, they disregard stories like (HE GIVES LINKS)…. They believe that major newspapers and broadcast networks have conspired to pay insufficient attention to Dr. Paul, a 72-year-old ob-gyn and 10-term House member, citing his low numbers in polls, which Paulites believe are self-fulfilling frauds designed to cause voters to invest their votes in more traditional candidates with a seemingly more realistic chance of winning.

But no amount of attention seems sufficient for Paulites, who complain when there is no coverage and then complain again about any coverage they do get. Watch the comments section below.

They gather in chatrooms and more than 1,200 meet-up groups across the country to paint signs, write letters, organize marches and protests, support each other and otherwise promote the Ron Paul Revolution, which they believe will arrive when primary voting starts.

Read it in its entirety.

SOME OTHER WEBLOG OPINION:

Read the rest of this entry »

(AP Photo by Evan Vucci)

Joe Biden is sort of like the anti-Obama. He’s deeply entrenched in Washington, is a firm believer in the process and has a boatload of national legislative experience.

So will that help him make an impact in Iowa?

Well, if you ask Joe Biden…

DES MOINES - - Joe Biden is talking. “Barack does a room, Hillary does a room, I do the same room and I win,” he says. “I have absolute confidence in that. The question is: Do I get in enough rooms?” […]

He poses a possible outcome for caucus night. He says he is just making the numbers up, but it seems clear he has thought about them.

“Let’s say I end up with 15 percent, Barack is at 20 percent, Edwards is at 22 percent, and Hillary is at 26 percent,” Biden says. “That would be a big victory for me.”

I can see the logic in that scenario, but not with this analysis…

He savors that for a moment. “Barack spends as much as Hillary and has all that organization and all that hype! And he gets beaten by Hillary by six points!” Biden says as if his fictional numbers were not fictional.

Six points wouldn’t be that big of a deal for Barack. Double digits would be. Let’s all remember, few knew who this guy was a little over a year ago. Now he’s beating every single Republican candidate in national matchup polls. So I think he has some staying power past Iowa.

In any event, will Biden by the spoiler? Well, he’s been one of the highlights of the debates recently since he’s drawn a clear distinction between himself and the front runners on foreign policy. But now the race seems to be shifting to the economy so that may hurt him.

Also, what’s next for Biden after he places 4th in Iowa? Does he really think that will catapult him? It appears the only person he’s really upsetting is Bill Richardson. And Edwards has 3rd place locked down tight. If anything, the surprise of the night seems like it will be coming from Edwards’ camp, not Biden’s.

We shall see…

(Cross-posted from Donklephant)

Here’s a special original 2008 presidential campaign poetic commentary by TMV’s favorite poet, Michael Silverstein, aka Wall Street Poet.

In this very odd caucus and primary season, we may soon have a folksy small state governor selected by the Republicans, and as this poem (in the style of “Casey At The Bat”) suggests, perhaps even a Democratic nominee picked at a convention where the winner is not known in advance…

A Donkey At The Bat

By Michael Silverstein

It looked to be a shoe-in for the Clintons and their team
They had the key endorsements and a well financed machine
The White House, in their thinking, was their just desert, their right
But when Obama came on strong they knew they’d have to fight.

“We’ll know the party’s candidate with the coming of first snows”
That was the word we all long heard from all the party pros
But after early contest votes, with early counting done
Two front runners now led the field instead of just the one.

Behind these two contenders was a bunched up second tier
They’d try to get their points across but no one cared to hear
In years past this discouraged crew would just throw in the towel
But this time they just did the math and stuck around to howl.

The leading pair still garnered the most delegate support
But not enough to nominate, on that they came up short
So Biden, Edwards, Richardson continued to debate
And even Al Gore saw a chance and started losing weight.

Oh, somewhere there are Democrats who still know how to win
And somewhere blue state heroes rise above the food fight din
They might appear this summer, but more likely what we’ll see
Is just a donkey’s version of reality TV.

If they issued grades for deportment, the six Democratic Presidential candidates who took part in today’s Iowa debate would all have earned A’s. No bickering, backbiting or mud slinging.

The good behavior started at Reagan airport en route when Hillary Clinton apologized to Barack Obama for her now-departed New Hampshire co-chairman’s snide statement on Obama’s “drug use” and carried over onto the stage as the candidates, for the most part, gave crisp answers on the issues with a minimum of reaching around to pat their own backs.

If there was a transcendent moment, it came after Joe Biden’s defense against charges of racist comments when Barack Obama went beyond politics to create a moment of grace.

“I’ve worked with Joe Biden, I’ve seen his leadership,” Obama said. “I have absolutely no doubt about what is in his heart and the commitment that he has made with respect to racial equality in this country. So I will provide some testimony, as they say in church, that Joe is on the right side of the issues and is fighting every day for a better America.”

Everyone on the stage today seemed capable of restoring sanity and good sense to the Oval Office.

Cross-posted from my blog.

It’s on - watch it HERE or on C-SPAN3. The debate is moderated by the Des Moines Register’s editor, Carolyn Washburn, and sponsored by the DMR and Iowa Public Television.

PREVIEW

The Fix: Debate Preview
CNN Political Ticker

LIVE-BLOGGING

Ed Morrissey of Captain’s Quarters at Heading Right
Michelle Malkin
AMERICAblog
NY Times - ‘The Caucus’

It was kind of a jolt when CNN played “news alert” music and flashed news about the players implicated in the steroids controversy during the debate. Do you think the news channels that are carrying the steroids report live are breaking in with updates from the debate?

MSNBC First Read
ABC Political Radar

3:25 pm ET: Closing thoughts — Obama had the best line, bringing Clinton onto his team as an adviser. A “wow” moment that halted the laughter. Clinton seemed to get back into her groove for much of the afternoon — good, strong close for her. Edwards though wins on my scorecards — he was relentlessly on message, sounding strong, and making a very good case to keep this a three-person race.

Fox News: Democrats Tackle Budget Problems at Final Debate Before Iowa Caucuses

Read the rest of this entry »

“It’s always easier the second time around,” goes the lyrics of the old song. But while that may be true in love and romance, it is certainly not the case in presidential politics.

And that is not good news for Republican John McCain and Democrat John Edwards (or for that matter, Democrats Joe Biden and Dennis Kucinich) who are making second tries for the White House in 2008 after failing to win their party’s nomination on their first attempts.

I actually heard most of this one while I was out running errands. As a Democrat who is dubious of the new NIE, I am not happy with our candidates’ insistence that the military option be “off the table” with Iran. I hope I don’t have to cast my first vote for a Republican presidential candidate in November of 2008.

You can download and listen to the 2-hour debate from NPR: Iran Sparks Fireworks at Democratic Debate. You can also listen to several brief audio “highlights.”

Debate Transcript

NPR Debate Fact Check

TNR’s The Stump: A Lousy Format for Hillary at the NPR Debate

Chris Cillizza of The Fix gives us NPR’s Democratic Debate: Winners and Losers

CNN Political Ticker

NY Times: For Democrats, a Strained Debate on Immigration

The Caucus Blog of the NY Times Live-Blogged It

Tonight’s Debate is at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) and is hosted by CNN and the Nevada Democratic Party. The moderator is CNN’s Wolf Blitzer. The debate will be broadcast to the paying folks on CNN at 5 p.m. PT (8 p.m. ET) while non-paying folks like me might get to see it on C-SPAN in a day or two. Watch it online HERE.

PRE-DEBATE ARTICLES:

CNN
AP via MSNBC: Clinton faces another debate after rough patch
WashingtonPost’s The Trail: Spoiling for a Fight
WP’s The Fix - Wag the Blog Redux: What Should Hillary Do?
NY Times’ The Caucus: Candidates Tested on Courage

Chris Dodd, John Edwards and Mike Gravel were “the only mainstream presidential candidates to answer the specific policy questions that may not have been stamped as ’safe to talk about’ by a pollster,” said Project Vote Smart president Richard Kimball.

Fox News: Dems Prepare for Showdown at Las Vegas Debate
Big Tent Democrat at Talk Left
THE NOTE: Happening in Vegas
CBS News: Pre-Debate Spin Begins
WP: The Silver State’s Golden Opportunity

DEBATE LIVE-BLOGGING:

CNN Political Ticker
Washington Post’s The Fix (?)
NY Times’ The Caucus
MSNBC First Read
ABC Political Radar
AMERICAblog: Dem Debate Live blog & Open Thread

How did drivers licenses for illegal immigrants become the dominant issue in the Democratic nomination process? This is one of those stupid distractions that the media LOVES….they can’t get enough of this issue.

AMERICAblog - Round 2

Michelle Malkin

Holly says:

Bill Richardson might as well declare his candidacy for Senate right now because he’s digging a deep hole in which to bury his VP hopes.

Holly says:

Dennis, Get Out! You don’t belong in the debates or this race.

Holly says:

This bit where the candidates sit in the chairs reminds me of The Dating Game.

POST-DEBATE ANALYSIS:

AP via WP

I’ll leave the analysis to my fellow TMV bloggers!

MISCELLANEOUS: CNN has opened State Political Tickers as follows:
IA Political Ticker
NH Political Ticker
SC Political Ticker

MEANWHILE, ELSEWHERE IN THE WORLD, THERE ARE EARTHQUAKES IN CHILE AND A CYCLONE IN BANGLADESH

It was crystal-clear at tonight’s debate who the perceived front-runner was for the 2008 Democratic Party presidential nomination.

They ganged up on her:

With just over two months until the first primary contest, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s Democratic rivals aggressively challenged their party’s front-runner here Tuesday night, accusing her of being dishonest and of emboldening President Bush to declare war against Iran.

Former senator John Edwards (N.C.), lingering in third place in most polls, took the lead in attacking Clinton as Democrats gathered for the fourth of their six official debates. He mocked Clinton for voting to designate Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist group, and all but accused her of being corrupt.

Voters, Edwards said, “deserve a president of the United States that they know will tell them the truth, and won’t say one thing one time and something different at a different time.”

But if Edwards was going for her jugular (with no sign so far that his tougher tactics are really working in terms of a huge increase in poll numbers), Senator Barack Obama seemed to turn aside the pundits’ pre-debate advice and confirm that he does INDEED believe in a less-personal, less-demonizing form of politics (which is why he probably will not get the nomination). The Washington Post again:

Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) — under pressure to take sharp aim at Clinton — criticized her directly for not releasing her correspondence as first lady. But he kept his cool demeanor, describing her tendency toward secrecy as simply “a problem.”

The most telling exchange came minutes before the debate ended, when Clinton declined to answer repeated questions about whether she supported New York Gov. Eliot L. Spitzer’s proposal to allow illegal immigrants to obtain driver’s licenses, after earlier suggesting that she did. Edwards pounced, arguing that Clinton had offered evasiveness when Americans want honesty and consistency from their leaders. “What we’ve had seven years is double talk from Bush and Cheney, and I think America deserves us to be straight,” he said.

So it’s clear Edwards, who in 2004 insisted he wanted a loftier form of politics, has revised his playbook to do what the conventional wisdom says is needed to win (do whatever it takes). The New York Times noted that Edwards had seemingly morphed into the debater that some had urged Obama to become:

The tone of the debate, which was sponsored by NBC News, had been established before the candidates walked onto the stage at Drexel University in Philadelphia, when Senator Barack Obama of Illinois proclaimed in an interview over the weekend that “now is the time” to begin drawing tough distinctions with Mrs. Clinton.

He did so almost immediately, accusing Mrs. Clinton of “changing positions whenever it’s politically convenient,” pointing to the North American Free Trade Agreement, torture and the war on Iraq. “Now, that may be politically savvy, but I don’t think that it offers the clear contrast that we need,” Mr. Obama said. “I think what we need right now is honestly with the American people about where we would take the country.”

But for all the attention Mr. Obama drew to himself coming into the debate, he was frequently overshadowed by former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina, who — speaking more intensely — repeatedly challenged Mrs. Clinton’s credentials and credibility, and frequently seemed to make the case against Mrs. Clinton that Mr. Obama had promised to make.

USA Today’s piece covered the debate and had this tidbit:

One Clinton supporter viewed her competitors’ attacks as good news. “My granddaddy used to say, ‘If you get kicked in the rear, that means you’re out front,’ ” said Bill Gray, a former Philadelphia congressman and one of the state’s most prominent African-American politicians.

One of the most interesting accounts is on the New York Times blog (which is an excellent newspaper weblog):

It’s not only Republicans who are obsessed with Hillary Rodham Clinton, but the Democrats too. She was central to virtually every question and every answer for a good part of the debate.

At several points, she sounded firm but did not take a firm position. This was most striking in the final moments of the debate on the question of whether illegal immigrants should be able to get drivers’ licenses.

Her supporters will likely say that the evening was evidence of a savvy, experienced pol who will give herself room to maneuver and not commit to something that might come back to bite her; her detractors will say it was evidence of her trying to be all things to all people. Some might call it “general-election mode.

And this:

What of the much-anticipated Obama offense? He was better at pointing out Mrs. Clinton’s muddled answers than he was at disagreeing with her. In other words, he seemed more comfortable when he raised questions about whether she was being evasive. One example: when he jumped in to say that if she was going to use her period as First Lady as evidence of her experience, she needed to open up those records from her White House years.

Still, he has an amiable quality about him that seems to resist the whole messy business. That might raise questions about how tough he would be in the Oval Office.

And what was the reaction from our vantage point here in San Diego, America’s Finest Fieriest City?

This is purely subjective (as all blog reaction is) but here are some observations from this independent voter:

1. For a debate, it was a lively one but was still Snoozeville. Part of that is due to the excruciating format of the debate with often-smirking moderators. Someone emerging from a time machine from 1960 would not think they were watching the Kennedy-Nixon debates without Kennedy and Nixon. Another reason it was zzzzzzzzzz is that most candidates seemingly rush to verbally puke-up scripted statements provided to them by their handlers (who should back off and handle them less). Or perhaps it was due to gadfly candidate Alaska Senator Mike Gravel’s absence.

2. Hillary Clinton increasingly comes across as smart, professional, competent, sturdy and even (yes) likable on television. Republicans who are praying for her to be the candidate may perhaps find they are making the same mistake made by Democrats who prayed that Ronald Reagan, a man they felt was an old fogey has-been, grade-B movie actor and a too-conservative-and-out-of-the-mainstream California governor, would run against the (ever-hapless) President Jimmy Carter. The fact is, Clinton is LEARNING and IMPROVING with each appearance — becoming a more effective television communicator. (Update: See links below because many others DISAGREE with this assessment.)

3. Barack Obama comes across as smart, likable but, increasingly, as someone who may need a bit more seasoning.The charisma he has as a speaker is absent during debates.

4. John Edwards says all the aggressive words, has the body language and the looks but still seems to be not as effective on the tube as he is said to be in person or in the courtroom. An underachiever in 2004…an underachiever in 2007. His negativity makes some points but also grates.

5. Dennis Kucinich continues on the path to being the favorite poster-boy for the Democratic Party’s far left. His comment about Bush having possible mental health problems on Iran is as reprehensible as some of the things far right talk show hosts say about Democrats. If he had been a Republican saying that about a Democrat, many Democrats would be up in arms but since political consistency means little in 21st-century America, he’ll probably be applauded in some quarters for implying Bush might need a shrink.

6. Senator Joe Biden continues to emit an aura of someone who marches to his own drummer and, if people don’t like it, they can take his drumstick and shove it…Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd is thought-provoking and makes valuable points but comes across on TV as a spokesman for an AARP ad (image matters in communication)… Governor Bill Richardson remains the most non-telegenic candidate and the sloppiest in terms of exceeding his time limit and seeming to be giving “canned” responses. It’s a pity because he is one of the most intelligent political leaders on the national scene. Richardson is to centrist politics and governors what actor Nathan Lane is to Broadway — and he is to television debates what Nathan Lane is to movies.

GO TO THESE LINKS FOR SOME REACTION FROM BLOGS OF DIFFERING VIEWS:

Marc Ambinder, Crooks and Liars, Riehl World View, Talk Left (live blogging), Kevin Drum, My DD, Slog (live blogging), Tennessee Guerrilla Women, Sharon Cobb, Lonewacko, E Pluribus Unum (gives Edwards very high marks and provides a ton of like-minded links), Huffington Post (live blogging), The Crossed Pond (thinks Hillary flopped), Unlikely Words.

UPDATE:

–The Politico’s Roger Simon says Clinton bombed bigtime.

–Ed Morrissey says not that only did Hillary do poorly, but her answer on the immigration issue means that’s the issue the Republicans will use against her.

–No More Mister Nice Blog has the best line:

All of the Republican candidates for president believe that the greatest threat America faces is a Hillary Clinton presidency — and apparently all but one of the Democratic candidates for president agree.

–Firedoglake says going negative on Clinton is a mistake.

–Pop culture thinks it was “swallow the leader.”

–Starked DC

–Andrew Sullivan says Clinton lost the debate and Edwards won. Key quotes:

The obvious loser was Senator Clinton. Her constant calculation, careful parsing, avoidance of direct answers to direct questions: all these were reminders of a pure politician. She’s obviously capable, extremely intelligent, and so hollow you could almost hear the focus-grouped platitudes echo within her. She also lost that new-Clinton benign smile, that newly poll-tested glow. Instead we got an occasionally droning, lecturing, and unrelenting stream of tight-faced opportunism.

….The winner was clearly Edwards. He was concise, aggressive, completely right about Clinton and always on point. He seemed unafraid to take her on, while Obama was still playing a too-careful defense. If I were to give an instant sum-up of the debate - and I’m a blogger so it’s my job - it would be that Clinton’s profound weakness as a general election candidate was pretty badly exposed. And the main alternative just about survived as a credible presidential candidate.

–skippy

Tonight (Tuesday) at 9 PM ET at Drexel University in Philadelphia PA, televised on MSNBC and live-streamed at MSNBC.com

Previews:

MSNBC Analysis: What must Obama do?
MSNBC Analysis: Is Iran the top issue in this debate?
MSNBC First Read’s First thoughts: Debate at Drexel
MSNBC First Read: Obama, Edwards, Clinton Oppose Mukasey for AG
MSNBC First Read: Richardson’s Closer in IA?
MSNBC First Read: Clinton’s counterpunch?
MSNBC First Read: Biden wants focus on foreign policy
MSNBC First Read: What are the politics of hope?

Live-Blogging:

MSNBC’s First Read
Chris Cillizza’s The Fix (Washington Post)
The Caucus (NY Times)
AMERICAblog Democratic Debate Open Thread 1
AMERICAblog Democratic Debate Open Thread 2
AMERICAblog Democratic Debate Open Thread 3
http://www.americablog.com/2007/10/democratic-debate-open-thread-iii.html

SORRY FOLKS! Shortly after I put up this post, Time Warner Cable went down and I lost both my Internet and sub-basic cable TV package!

Guess What? Trying to watch on MSNBC.com gets the response: “Sorry. This video is unavailable.”

With the drip, drip, drip subtlety and perhaps even some of the pain of waterboarding, a growing number of politicians seem to be finally realizing that the use of torture is not only thoroughly un-American, it is morally abhorrent, and are speaking out about it.

Can there be any doubt, as I wrote not long ago, that there is no darker stain on the Bush presidency — and on America at the start of the new millennium — than the top-down approval of the use of torture and this secrecy-obsessed administration’s systematic efforts to justify its use on the one hand while denying that it approved its use on the other?

Actually, yes.

With too few exceptions, the silence inside the Beltway during years of torture revelations from Abu Ghraib to the Rumsfeld Gulag to Afghanistan has been one giant silent scream and has compounded the shame that I have felt over a country that I bleed red, white and blue for.

So what has now changed?

* The drumbeat in the American town square against torture has grown louder.

Credit is due Andrew Sullivan, who has blogged about the horrifying similarities between the Gestapo’s use of Verschärfte Vernehmung, enhanced torture techniques that would leave no visible marks, and the CIA’s embrace of these techniques, as well as the tortured Nazi-like explanations of the White House and Justice Department in trying to justify their use.

* The administration’s Orwellian parsing has collapsed under its own weight.

The proverbial straw that broke this camel’s back was an October 4 New York Times investigative report that found while the Justice Department publicly declared torture to be “abhorrent” in a 2004 legal opinion, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales then issued a secret opinion that endorsed the CIA’s use of hard-core techniques like waterboarding that the agency had cherry-picked from the cookbooks of Soviet and Saudi dungeon masters.

* Discomfort over the refusal of Gonzales’ designated replacement to say whether he believes that waterboarding constitutes torture.

What looked like a slam-dunk nomination has instead become a long overdue moment of moral clarity as a small but growing number of senators say they are troubled by Michael Mukasey’s equivocating over a technique condemned by U.S. military leaders, human rights organizations and prominent Republicans including Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham.

Mukasey’s waffling before the Senate Judiciary Committee came in response to a question from Dick Durbin, who then sent the nominee a follow-up letter with the signatures of all his fellow committee Democrats. Republican Arlen Specter then asked Mukasey to clarify his position, as did presidential candidate McCain and Graham, himself an Army lawyer.

Now four other presidential wannabes — Senators Clinton, Obama, Biden and Dodd — say they will vote against Mukasey if he doesn’t denounce waterboarding, and no amount of Rovian parsing on the part of the White House is going to bail out the nominee.

Congressional Democrats already have blocked confirmation of two other nominees to lesser posts — John Rizzo, who had endorsed torture, as general counsel of the CIA, and Steven Bradbury, author of the secret legal opinions on interrogation, as head of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel.

The White House whines that Mukasey has been put in an untenable position, and there is indeed some political grandstanding going on here. But I also would say that a long overdue day of reckoning has arrived.

When the definitive history of the sad affair known as the Iraq war is written, a meeting on September 27 between Iraqi Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi, the country’s most influential Shiite politician, and Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, the most respected Shiite religious leader, will be a mere footnote.

That meeting, widely viewed as a last-ditch effort to jump start a dialogue among Iraq’s warring factions, ended with the two men issuing a joint statement expressing support for the endeavor.

But few people were listening, and there is a better chance of the ribbon being cut on a $700 million-plus abomination known as the American embassy in Baghdad — which at this writing is months behind schedule and unsafe to occupy — than there being genuine nation-building.

Which, to cut to the chase, means that the Surge, which was designed to give Iraqis the breathing room to sort out their differences, is d-e-a-d.

This is because as no less authority than Mister Surge himself, General David Petraeus, has said early and often that without political reconciliation there can be no military victory.

Please click here to read more at Kiko’s House. And here for an update on some surprisingly developments regarding the Haditha massacre.

UPDATE - More substantial coverage from AP via Washington Post.

UPDATE - AP via New York Times Debate Coverage

Miami Herald Pre-Debate Article

UPDATE - According to The Washington Times:

Panic in the press room

“Are we going to have audio?”
“Vamos a tener audio?”

Reporters who didn’t speak Spanish were already anxious about the translation devices that didn’t quite fit in our ears. (Porque soy de California, yo hablo un poquito Espanol.)

But 90 seconds before the forum began tonight, the Media Room had no sound - not in Spanish, English or French. Nada.

Spanish- and English-speaking reporters in the room erupted in a panic, sending University of Miami staff scrambling to try and fix the feed. What most reporters heard for the first 16 minutes of the debate was static - both from the closed television feed and from the translation device. … (MORE)

You can watch it HERE

They are at the University of Miami in Coral Gables, Florida. I understand enough to know that the candidates are being asked about Cuba and Fidel Castro.

MSNBC article

I’m not seeing live-blogging.

So who are the political “feel” good candidates and in what order?

Gallop has the answer. And it’s good news for Barack Obama but in a general election not-so-good for Senator Hillary Clinton.

Using a “feeling thermometer” rating scale, Gallup recently tested the public images of several of the Republican and Democratic candidates running for president in their respective parties. Of these, only one — Barack Obama — stirs up warm feelings in a majority of Americans. However, Rudy Giuliani, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and John McCain are all close to Obama in favorability. Clinton’s image is the most polarized of this group: nearly as many Americans say she leaves them cold as say they feel warmly toward her.

It gives us this graph:

Despite wide variation in the visibility of the various candidates, their mean thermometer ratings — based only on respondents who could rate each candidate — fall in a narrow range between 45.7 degrees and 55.6 degrees, including five who earn mean scores above the 50-degree mark. None are wildly popular among the public at large, and none are terribly unpopular.

But there is MUCH MORE — and that’s where Ms. Clinton’s vulnerability seems to emerge.