Today: The Iowa Straw Poll

Today is the the Iowa straw poll in Ames, where Republicans will compete for the support of party activists. IowaPolitics.com has a special blog up, giving running updates. Mitt Romney is heavily favored to win the event, and his top three opponents — Rudy Giuliani, John McCain and Fred Thompson — are not even participating. The contest is between the other candidates, for second place.

Sunday Shows Tomorrow: Three GOP Candidates, Post-Straw Poll

The Sunday chat shows tomorrow will feature three Republican candidates: Fox News Sunday will have Mitt Romney, who is expected to easily win today's straw poll. ABC's This Week will feature Mike Huckabee, and CBS's Face The Nation will host Sam Brownback. Question: Will either of the latter two have been forced to drop out due to a poor showing today?

Ron Paul's Wife Hospitalized In Iowa

Carol Paul, wife of Ron Paul, was hospitalized this morning just before voting was to begin in the Iowa straw poll. The Paul campaign said there is no great danger. "She appears to have stabilized and is awaiting treatment," the campaign told CNN. "Dr. Paul is with her and will arrive at the Straw Poll when the situation permits." This takes Paul out of the straw poll activities until he can arrive, so he must rely on the work of volunteers working on his behalf — and there appear to be many of them.

Obama Take On The "Black Enough" Questions

Barack Obama opened his speech yesterday to the National Association of Black Journalists with a joke: "I apologize for being late, but you keep asking whether I'm black enough — so I strolled in." Obama later addressed the "black enough" questions head on. "What it really lays bare is that if you appeal to white folks, there must be something wrong," he said. "There's also a fear. (We) don't want to get too excited about the prospects because we might get defeated again."

Gavin Newsom Endorses Hillary

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom announced yesterday that he is endorsing Hillary Clinton for president. Newsom told the San Francisco Chronicle that he respected Clinton as a policy wonk. "I like Barack (Obama) and admire him ... and (John) Edwards as well ... but I never was able to have a discussion of the issues with the same depth, the same understanding, that I have had with Hillary Clinton."

Gravel Vid Blasts "Chess Game" Foreign Policy

Mike Gravel's campaign has posted a video claiming the Bush Administration is treating foreign policy as if it were a game of chess and furthermore that it is cheating at that game. The visuals – including stop motion animation of chess pieces moving across a board, fireworks, and foreign lands – are set to a solo piano music as text fades on and off the screen. The video takes perhaps a little less poetic license to comprehend than his earlier videos because the message is at least clear, however oddly presented. After starting with the phrase "Chess Anyone?" it proceeds to lay the case against Bush, claiming that by even pretending to play a chess game it is "cheating" at the game. Gravel also mixes metaphors by asking "the people" to "end 'board game' decision-making'/ On the world stage." Take a look:

Okay, there's now been yet another unsightly turn in the battle over Rudy's claim that he was at Ground Zero as much, if not more, than "most" of the 9/11 recovery workers.

Now a top Rudy ally and longtime Rudy loyalist -- Giuliani's former deputy mayor, Joe Lhota -- has stepped up to defend him. How? Well, Lhota says that by criticizing Rudy, first-responders are revealing that they don't understand that it's the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11.

From today's Associated Press piece on the flap:

A former deputy mayor, Joe Lhota, said the critics are politically motivated and wrong.

"They're taking their anger out in the wrong direction," Lhota said. "He was literally there four and five times a day; he did anything but run away.

"They're losing sight of the fact that this country, and this city, was attacked on that day by terrorists; it's their fault."

Yeah, so if you criticize Rudy in any way for anything relating to his 9/11 performance, you don't understand that the terrorists attacked us on 9/11. Rudy's September 11 performance is sacrosanct and inviolable. To criticize Rudy's 9/11 performance in any way is to fundamentally misunderstand the true and enduring significance of what happened that day. Not only does Rudy own that day; he's also sole owner of the right to interpret it.

There's little doubt that Lhota was made available to the media by the Rudy team. So is it the campaign's official position that his first responder critics don't understand who attacked us on 9/11? Maybe some reporter will ask the campaign this question. And was he really there "four and five times a day?" Also worth asking.

Down, down, down.

Romney Faces High Expectations For Straw Poll
Mitt Romney is heavily favored to win tomorrow's straw poll in Ames, thanks to his strong Iowa organization — plus the fact that Rudy Giuliani, John McCain and Fred Thompson are all skipping the event. But in a way, this means he has to really win — indeed it looks like Rudy Giuliani's camp is already driving up the expectations for Romney. A small plurality would give an appearance of weakness. And if he were to actually lose, he would be in serious trouble.

What About The Absentees?
How many people will actually vote for Giuliani, McCain and Thompson. They have no organizations actively bringing people to Ames, so it can't be that many. But if enough people show up on their own and get their candidate to surpass participating candidates, it would definitely benefit them — and force some others out the door. Which leads us to...

Who Will Drop Out?
Will any candidates do so poorly that they have to drop out? Mike Huckabee and Sam Brownback are in their own two-man race within the wider race, competing for the same Christian right voters. Huckabee has already said he'll likely have to drop out if he doesn't do well — and the Club For Growth has responded with an attack against him going into the caucus. If Sam Brownback does top him, it could be the end. Tommy Thompson seems like another obvious choice, as well.

Iowa Gov Vows To Be First, Keep Caucus In January
Governor Chet Culver vowed to keep his Iowa's caucuses in January and before the New Hampshire primary should it move in reaction to South Carolina, even if that means changing a state law that says the caucus must be eight days before any other contest. "The bottom line is Iowa will have the first caucus in the nation and we’re going in January," he said. The Des Moines Register reports that other state officials are already talking about Dec. 10 or 17 as possible dates, however.

Ron Paul's Guerilla Supporters Set Out To Hustle Romney Camp
The New York Times reports on a flyer being distributed by some Ron Paul supporters, urging people to hitch a ride with Mitt Romney's campaign — which is providing bus travel and paying for people's $35 tickets — and then go in and vote for Paul supporters. Paul spokesman Jesse Benton said the campaign has no connection to the fraudulent tactic. “We can’t tell our supporters what to do or not do,” Benton said, noting that direct collaboration with autonomous volunteer groups could get into uncertain territories of campaign finance laws, involving in-kind contributions.

Former Arizona Congressman Bashes McCain On Massachusetts Radio
Former Congressman J.D. Hayworth (R-AZ) appeared on Boston talk radio — with transmissions going into New Hampshire — subbing in for right-wing talk host Jay Severin. Hayworth pronounced McCain's campaign pretty much dead. "What was the lead at one point? Thirty-five percent? And now, suddenly, with a top-heavy staff and the exact opposite of the type of fiscal discipline that the senator advocates in terms of public policy, on the political side, now just too little."

DNC Plugs "None Of The Above" In Straw Poll
Chastising Republicans for poll results that show a plurality of Republican caucus goers, 23 percent, are uncommitted and actually picked "None Of The Above," the Democratic National Committee has launched a new website — www.ImWithNoneOfTheAbove.com, an obvious parody of www.ImWithFred.com — along with corresponding newspaper advertisement highlighting the reasons for None Of The Above's stunning popularity. However, None Of The Above was actually once a popular Democratic candidate in the caucuses, where caucus-goers can choose uncommitted delegates. None Of The Above beat Jimmy Carter in Iowa in 1976, but his campaign failed to gain momentum and he disappeared from the scene – before possibly reemerging this cycle.

The controversy over Rudy's claim that he's spent as much or more time at Ground Zero as "most" of the recovery workers has ballooned into a full-fledged campaign issue, with the Edwards and Rudy campaign now trading blows over the remarks.

As noted below, the Edwards campaign hammered Rudy today for the assertion, charging that Rudy's determined to "exploit the memory of 9/11 for political gain."

Now Giuliani campaign spokesperson Katie Levinson has struck back:

"For John Edwards to lecture Rudy Giuliani about September 11 is laughable at best. This is, after all, the same guy who thinks the 'war on terror' is simply a bumper sticker," she said.

Nobody lectures Rudy about September 11, you see, because he owns it. In fact, he is September 11. He and the disaster have merged into one.

With regard to the Rudy campaign's dismissal of Edwards' repudiation of the "war on terror" phrase, perhaps it's worth recalling these Rudy remarks from back in March:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani said Thursday it was a mistake to coin the term "war on terror" because it allows enemies to redefine the United States incorrectly as a nation that prefers war...

Giuliani told a gathering of newspaper reporters that "America is seen as a country by too many that wants to have war, or exercises its power too much, pushes its weight around too much."...

"America is just the opposite kind of country," he said.

None of the other Dems, incidentally, has weighed in on Rudy's remarks today.

Earlier today we noted that in a radio interview Rudy had tried to walk back his comments about the recovery workers, calling them "heroes" and suggesting that he "emphathized" with them.

Now the International Association of Fire Fighters has issued another statement hitting Rudy scorchingly hard over his attempted walkback. Key quote:

"Giuliani has succeeded in becoming a multi-millionaire on the backs of those who perished that day -- going from a guy who reported that he only had $7,000 to his name in his 2001 divorce filings, to a multi-millionaire --- and it's despicable."

Full statement after the jump.

Read more »

Could this be the most perfect expression of WINO-ism yet?

As you know, the GOP's WINO caucus is home to those Republicans who are Waverers In Name Only when it comes to Bush's war policies -- they are said to be "wavering" in their support for those policies, but won't vote for anything that would force a change in those policies.

With that in mind, let's take a look at this video of GOP Rep. Jim Ramstad. It was filmed by Americans Against Escalation in Iraq, and captures Ramstad talking to constituents about the war:

As you can see, early on Ramstad says, "I agree with Harry Reid." He's talking about Reid's frequent demand that Iraq benchmarks have "teeth." Ramstad seems to agree with Reid that some kind of punitive measures are required to force progress in Iraq. So Ramstad is wavering in his support of Bush's approach, which is opposed to such teeth, right?

Yet just a few seconds later on the very same tape, Ramstad declares what he's going to actually do: Support the Salazar-Alexander bill, which doesn't contain any real teeth at all. In fact, Reid himself denounced this same bill recently as follows: "There's not a single tooth in that proposal."

So first Ramstad agrees with Reid that we need some kind of teeth, but then immediately goes on to declare his support for a bill that Reid himself says is toothless. In 60 seconds or less, Ramstad went from calling for teeth to declaring support for something that has had all its teeth knocked out. In 60 seconds or less, he went from waverer to WINO. Wow!

Relatedly, it's worth pointing out that the Salazar-Alexander bill is fast gaining momentum as September approaches. Indeed, it is emerging as the last refuge for WINO Republicans, and GOPers are busily laying the groundwork for it by talking up how much bipartisan support it has. Of course, all it will do is give nervous GOPers a way of saying they voted against the war without forcing a real change of course in any meaningful way. So perhaps it's fitting that it has the support of the ultimate WINO.

We've just got done interviewing Wayne Hoffman, the spokesman for freshman Congressman Bill Sali, who generated a whole bunch of controversy for denouncing a recent Hindu invocation in the Senate and criticizing the election of a Muslim to the House.

The spokesman clarified Sali's remarks, insisting that his boss is not a bigot, and that he does not — emphatically not — think non-Christians should be barred from serving in Congress. Any notion that Sali has any problem with Hindu or Muslim officeholders, Hoffman insisted, is "far from the truth, far from reality."

More after the jump.

Read more »

Tomorrow is the big day in Ames, the Iowa GOP straw poll. No actual delegates will be awarded, but the candidates will be working hard to bring their supporters to the event and win over uncommitted Republican activists through a strong showing. Some things to look out for:

1) Mitt Romney is heavily favored to win, thanks to his strong Iowa organization. In factt, his three main rivals — Rudy Giuliani, John McCain and Fred Thompson — aren't even contesting the the event as a result of his seemingly inevitable victory. But in a way, this means he has to really win. A small plurality would give an appearance of weakness. And if he were to actually lose, he would be in serious trouble.

2) Assuming Romney comes in first place, who comes in second and below? Mike Huckabee and Sam Brownback have been competing for the same Christian right base vote, so whoever loses that particular two-man race within the race will be in big trouble. And if Ron Paul does poorly, it could give us a hint that his Internet-driven campaign can't actually deliver real supporters to vote for him. Will the nativism of Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter have any attraction?

3) How many people will actually vote for Giuliani, McCain and Thompson. They have no organizations actively bringing people to Ames, so it can't be that many. But if enough people show up on their own and get their candidate to surpass participating candidates, it would definitely benefit them — and force some others out the door. Which leads us to...

4) Wil any candidates do so poorly that they have to drop out? Mike Huckabee has already said he'll have to drop out if he doesn't do well — and the Club For Growth has responded with an attack against him going into the caucus. If Sam Brownback does top him, it could be the end. Tommy Thompson seems like another obvious choice, as well.

5) News updates can be found at IowaPolitics.com, the Des Moines Register's Politics section, to name two good local sources. Plus there are some right-wing blogs that are sure to hard at work: Iowa Presidential Watch and Iowa Voice, among others.

The Rudy campaign has just appointed its new campaign chair for New York City: Rudy Washington, an African American and former deputy mayor in the Giuliani administration.

Washington, it should be noted, was hospitalized just weeks after the attack with a respiratory ailment and was in the public eye again last year after his claim for health benefits was appealed by the city (though it promptly reversed that decision).

It's also worth noting that Team Giuliani announced the campaign appointment of a 9/11 sufferer in the midst of a day of searing controversy over Rudy's comments about 9/11 rescue workers, which are being denounced far and wide as insensitive and worse. Of course, Washington was also one of Giuliani's most trusted aides back in the day.

Rolling Stone has a new profile out of John Edwards -- with the central premise that his being white and male represent a huge disadvantage in the Democratic primary:

If he weren't rich, handsome and so well married, you might feel a little sorry for John Edwards. Never before in the 231-year history of our republic have the inalienable traits that Edwards possesses -- his fair skin and a Y chromosome -- been anything but a prerequisite for presidential politics. Today, his race and gender stand a chance of derailing his campaign altogether. "There's a lot of democrats who would like to make history," says Markos Moulitsas, founder of the influential online forum Daily Kos. "The party is anxious to nominate a black or a woman," agrees Dick Morris, the former adviser to Bill Clinton. "You have to sign off on either of those two options before you even get to voting for Edwards." Indeed, Edwards has been all but eclipsed by the celebrity candidacies of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama: He ranks a distant third in national polls, and his $12 million cash on hand is barely a third of Hillary's and Obama's hauls.

The article goes on to say that there is a large possibility that Edwards could clinch the nomination given his strength in Iowa. It also references national polls showing him fairing much better than both Obama and Hillary in the general election.

Forget Iowa for a moment. Hillary and Mitt Romney are enjoying wide leads in their respective races in New Hampshire, although both contests continue to develop from wide and divided fields of opposition, according to a new poll made jointly by the Democratic firm Hart Research and the Republican firm McLaughlin & Associates. The numbers:

The Democrats:
Clinton 36%
Obama 19%
Edwards 15%
Richardson 12%

The Republicans:
Romney 33%
Giuliani 17%
McCain 16%

What these numbers mean is that Hillary's performance in New Hampshire turns out to be mirroring the national polls much more than her performance in Iowa, where she is locked in a struggle with John Edwards and Barack Obama. What this means is that Hillary would benefit immensely if current primary date jockeying results in New Hampshire leapfrogging Iowa to become the first state.

With Rudy's 9/11 rescue worker comments all over the place today, it's only fitting that we draw attention to an absolutely must-read article about Rudy and terrorism in this week's Village Voice.

The story -- by Wayne Barrett, longtime Giuliani scourge and co-author of Grand Illusion: The Untold Story of Rudy Giuliani and 9/11 — methodically demolishes Rudy's record as a Churchillian 9/11 hero. Barrett lays out what he calls five "Big Lies" underlying Rudy's campaign and overall image, and systematically destroys each one.

"Giuliani's terrorism biography is bunk," Barrett writes. "As mayor, his laser-beam focus was street thugs, and as a prosecutor, it was the mob, Wall Street, and crooked politicians. He can't reach back to those years and rewrite such well-known chapters of his life."

It's a very long, detailed piece, but we've got a summary of all its key points after the jump.

Read more »

So this morning, Rudy gave a radio interview where he tried to contain the damage from his assertion that he'd been at Ground Zero as much or more than "most" of the workers there. Jason Horowitz of The Politicker has the transcript:

"(W)hat I was trying to say yesterday is that I empathize with them because I feel like I have that same risk. And the way I said it, I probably could have said it better, but what I was trying to say was I was there quite a bit, there are people that were there more than me, people that were [there] less than me. There were people there less than me, people on my staff, who already have had serious health consequences and they weren’t there as often as I was."...

"We should give them everything," he said. "I mean they are heroes in my estimation. And what I was trying to say was even those that were there less than me and the reality is that we’re all in this together and I’m there with them and I feel that I have the same concerns that they have."

So, Rudy's still saying he was there more than some workers, clearly. Is he sticking by his claim that he was there as much or more so than "most" of the workers?

A free TPM Lava Lamp to whoever can parse this one.

The Politicker has the audio right here.

The John Edwards campaign becomes the first Presidential camp to hammer Rudy over his 9/11 rescue worker remarks, issuing a statement making a direct allegation against Rudy that you rarely if ever hear from his rivals, Democratic or Republican: He's exploiting 9/11 for political gain.

Here's the just-released statement from Edwards campaign manager David Bonoir:

"Evidently, Rudy Giuliani has taken a break from reality. It is outrageous for Giuliani to suggest, in any way, shape or form, that he did more at ground zero or spent more time there than the brave first responders who worked tirelessly around the clock for many months during the rescue and recovery operation. It seems that Giuliani is determined to take every opportunity to exploit the memory of 9/11 for political gain, rather than honor the incredible sacrifices of our first responders. Enough is enough. "Mayor Giuliani should start answering the serious questions of why firefighters and other first responders didn't have proper equipment and support. The 9/11 Commission and National Institute of Standards & Technology reports have documented the failures of the broken radio communications system, a splintered chain of command and an unprepared Office of Emergency Management under his watch as mayor. These are the questions he needs to answer."

Okay, we've obtained some real live video of Rudy Giuliani's 9/11 gaffe, in which he said that he was "at Ground Zero as often, if not more, than most of the workers," adding that he was "one of them."

The remark has already sparked an outpouring of criticism from firefighters, 9/11 workers sickened by toxins at Ground Zero, and others.

Take a look:

Full transcript:

"This is not a mayor or a governor or a president who's sitting in an ivory tower," he said. "I was at ground zero as often, if not more, than most of the workers. I was there working with them. I was there guiding things. I was there bringing people there. But I was exposed to exactly the same things they were exposed to. So in that sense, I'm one of them."

The comment, which was widely reported earlier this morning but which hadn't been found on video until now, has infuriated many people whose lives were directly altered by 9/11.

For instance, Fire Captain and Giuliani foe James Riches, whose firefighter son died on 9/11, said: "That's insulting and disgraceful. He's a liar. I was down there on my hands and knees looking for my son."

And Battalion Chief John McDonnell, head of the Uniformed Fire Officers Association in New York, added: "I have a real problem with that statement. I think he's really grasping and trying to justify his previous attempts to portray himself as the hero of 9/11."

More searing criticism of Rudy, directly from the rescue workers themselves, is right here.

"That's insulting and disgraceful. He's a liar. I was down there on my hands and knees looking for my son."

-- Fire Captain and Giuliani foe James Riches, whose firefighter son died on 9/11, lashing out at Rudy for saying that he was at Ground Zero "as often, if not more, than most of the workers."

Rudy is running on his alleged 9/11 heroism, but some of the people who were waist deep in the 9/11 stew, and some who even lost relatives, despise the man. How much longer can this media fiction sustain itself?

Just in case you wondered what sort of local campaign coverage campaigns hope for, here's an example of some local West Coast TV, from after last night's debate, that the Edwards campaign dreams of and is featuring on its site:

Two Americas? Try two fundraisers. As it turns out, Edwards and Obama both held fundraisers very nearby to each other last night after the forum. This local spot contrasts them in a way that dovetails pretty neatly with the Edwards message.

And no, posting this vid does not constitute an endorsement of this message. This blog is not saying that this is representative of the Obama candidacy. Rather, the vid is interesting because it's an example of the sort of contrast-drawing coverage that campaigns constantly strive for.

Less than 24 hours after last night's Dem forum on gay issues,

Hillary Clinton is leaving California stronger than when she arrived in Los Angeles for last night's Democratic forum on gay issues. Two influential California politicians strongly associated with gay rights have announced their support for her campaign: San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom and State Senator Sheila Kuehl.

Mayor Newsom famously defied the law in 2004 at the height of the gay marriage debate by offering marriage licenses to same sex couples in San Francisco. Senator Kuehl is the first openly gay member elected to the state senate and is a popular progressive politician.

California has moved the date of its contest up this year, gaining significantly more influence as part of "Super Duper Tuesday" block ofstates that will vote on February 5th. With other major California figures on board, such as Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and Senator Dianne Feinstein, Hillary Clinton has some strong establishment backing behind her for the big event.

Ah, yes -- we assume that GOP Senate leader Mitch McConnell is very happy about this indeed.

The pro-war group Vets for Freedom, the right's answer to VoteVets.org, is running a new ad in Kentucky featuring troops thanking GOP Senator Mitch McConnell for supporting the war in Iraq. Take a look:

Is an ad reminding McConnell's constituents of his support for Bush's war really going to prove all that helpful to him? Doubtful. Recent polls show that a majority of Kentuckians opposed the surge and a strong majority of them want to pull out of Iraq by next year. Of course, that hasn't stopped McConnell, who's ever solicitous of the views of the people who elected him, from going on national TV and falsely claiming that his constituents do back the war.

National Dems, meanwhile, are delighted with the new ads. "This might turn out to be the most successful fundraising tactic the Republicans have come up with in years," one national Dem strategist quipped to Election Central. "There are countless Democrats who will contribute to any group that runs ads reminding Kentuckians that Mitch McConnell supports President Bush on the war."

CNN has now released the Republican primary numbers from their latest national poll, showing Rudy Giuliani continuing to lead — but Fred Thompson is pretty close behind:

Giuliani 29%
Thompson 22%
McCain 16%
Romney 12%

Fred Thompson's people have hyped his undeclared campaign as that of a reluctant politician, constantly unsure about whether he's running even as he travels the country raising money and speaking to conservative activists. And the strategy definitely seems to be working, if his strong second-place position in this poll is any evidence.

In a sane world, this would be an enormous gaffe. Rudy Giuliani is now coming under fire for saying the following yesterday about 9/11 workers:

"I was at Ground Zero as often, if not more, than most of the workers. I was there working with them. I was exposed to exactly the same things they were exposed to. So in that sense, I'm one of them."

Sept. 11 workers who fell ill from Ground Zero, understandably, aren't too happy about this:

His statement rang false to Queens paramedic Marvin Bethea, who said he suffered a stroke, posttraumatic stress disorder and breathing problems after responding to the attacks.

"I personally find that very, very insulting," he said.

"Standing there doing a photo-op and telling the men, 'You're doing a good job,' I don't consider that to be working," said Bethea, 47.

Ironworker Jonathan Sferazo, 52, who said he spent a month at the site and is now disabled, runs a worker advocacy group with Bethea and called Giuliani's comments "severely" out of line.

"He's not one of us. He never has been and he never will be. He never served in a capacity where he was a responder," Sferazo said.

In the aftermath of the attacks, admirers dubbed Giuliani "America's Mayor," praising his leadership in the face of an unprecedented disaster. Detractors, including the International Association of Fire Fighters, which put out a scathing 13-minute video on his performance, suggested he profited politically and financially from the attacks.

"[Giuliani] is self-absorbed, arrogant and deluded," said IAFF spokesman Jeff Zack.

The Rudy campaign's response? To dismiss these critics as a "Democratic front group" indulging in "partisan rantings."

It's unclear who exactly the "Democratic front group" is supposed to be, however. If it's the International Association of Fire Fighters, it's probably worth noting that its New York locals endorsed Rudy repeatedly for Mayor.

Update: Here's some more criticism:

Michael Palladino, head of the Detectives Endowment Association, the union of NYPD detectives, told the Associated Press that the mayor's record can't compare to those who spent 12 months sifting through toxic debris for evidence and human remains.

"As a result of their hard work, many are sick and injured. The mayor, although he did a fine job with 9/11, I don't think he rises to the level of being an equal with those men and women who were involved in the rescue, recovery and cleanup," Palladino said.

Even better, there's also this:

Battalion Chief John McDonnell, head of the Uniformed Fire Officers Association in New York, said: "I have a real problem with that statement. I think he's really grasping and trying to justify his previous attempts to portray himself as the hero of 9/11."

• Video of yesterday's Democratic Human Rights Campaign/Logo presidential forum is available here.

• The organizers hyped the event as an historic first. But as Andrew Sullivan noted about a month ago, the Human Rights Campaign already held a presidential debate on gay issues in the Summer of 2003, which was broadcast live on C-Span. Thus the Human Rights Campaign has managed the exact same historic "first" for two cycles in a row.

• While Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel fully endorsed gay marriage – as the moderators enthused about them – the other candidates dodged questions on the issue. Indeed, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" was actually an apt description of the frontrunners' positions on gay marriage.

• Barack Obama made an interesting statement about the fight for gay marriage rights, discussing how even though his parents' inter-racial marriage was illegal in many states at the time, he would have been a pragmatist in offering advice to the civil rights movement. "I would have probably said it's less important that we focus on an anti-miscegenation law than we focus on a voting rights law and a non-discrimination and employment law and all the legal rights that are conferred by the state," Obama said.

• On marriage, John Edwards said he was on a "journey," hinting that he might one day support it but he just wasn't there yet. Asked why he once cited his faith as a reason to oppose gay marriage, John Edwards drew applause for recanting the statement. "I shouldn’t have said that ... We have seen a president in the last six-plus years who has tried to impose his faith on the American people. I will not try to impose my faith belief on the American people."

• Hillary Clinton was asked directly what was at the heart of her opposition to gay marriage. "I prefer to think of it as being very positive about civil unions," she said to laughter. She then talked about how much hard work went into simply defeating the anti-gay Federal Marriage Amendment — a hint that her true position on the issue might be obscured by political reality.

• Barack Obama, asked why he was so "decidedly old school" on gay marriage despite billing himself as the candidate of change, responded with "oh, come on." "There's a reason I was here first: I've got a track record working on these issue," he said, referring to his having been the first candidate to accept the invitation to the event. He also discussed how he has denounced homophobia not only before gay crowds, but in his 2004 Democratic convention keynote speech, and even in environments like black churches.

• Asked why she hasn't taken measures to repeal the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, Hillary Clinton said that this wasn't achievable under the current administration and she was instead focused on "laying the groundwork" for such a change. She then listed the achievements of the policy, which she said ended the "witch hunt" that threatened gay service members with criminal action if they didn't out other gays. "We have moved a long way on this and other issues, but I think it's important to recall how much an advance 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' was at the time," she said, then proceeding to criticize the current implementation of it and saying it was time to get rid of it.

• Melissa Etheridge referred to a passage in Bob Shrum's book that reported John Edwards once said he was "uncomfortable" around gay men, asking Edwards if he was "O.K. right now" in a roomful of gay people. "I’m perfectly comfortable," he said, and later interjected to correct the record, saying "Can I just tell you — that’s not true. Someone else said it, and it’s not true, it’s not true. It came from a political consultant, and he’s just wrong. Elizabeth and I were both there, and we’ve said it’s wrong." Elizabeth Edwards previously said that her husband was uncomfortable when decades ago a gay man once told her the he wanted to "snake" her then-boyfriend John.

• Dennis Kucinich said how he keeps the Human Rights Campaign's logo — an equals sign — in his office. He then made the aesthetic suggestion that they redesign it, putting the equals sign inside a heart shape, "because what we're really talking about here is human love," Kucinich said. "And there's no power on this earth greater than human love."

• John Edwards incorrectly stated that the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy could be repealed by the president alone, despite the fact that it is part of statutory law, passed by Congress and signed by Bill Clinton in 1993. "Well I think the president of the United States can get rid of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell,'" Edwards said. "I mean, I appreciate the question but..."

• Mike Gravel said that he thought a hypothetical national gay marriage ballot initiative would pass. "I think so," he said. "I think the American people have a really underlying sense of values of fairness."

• Bill Richardson had a difficult moment. When asked if homosexuality is a choice, he stumbled, apparently not understanding the question and saying for a second that it is a choice. He then gave this response: "I'm not a scientist. I don't see this as an issue of science or definition. I see gays and lesbians as human beings ... I don't like to categorize people."

• Courtesy of America Blog, Richardson has now clarified: "I misunderstood the question. Let me be clear — I do not believe that sexual orientation or gender identity happen by choice. But I'm not a scientist, and the point I was trying to make is that no matter how it happens, we are all equal and should be treated that way under the law. That is what I believe, that is what I have spent my career fighting for. I ask that people look at my record and my actions and they will see I have been a true supporter of the LGBT community."

Tonight: The Dems Debate Yet Again
Just a reminder, the Democratic candidates meet in California tonight at 9 p.m. ET, on the gay-themed Logo channel. The debate will be simultaneously streamed over the Web at LogoOnline.com.

New Whackiness From Tom Tancredo
You probably don't need further evidence that Tom Tancredo is, shall we say, eccentric, but make sure not to miss this latest example of his quirky personality on display.

What Happens To The Iowa Caucus? Who Knows?
Iowa Democrats have been giving mixed signals about just what they'll do in light of the changes to the South Carolina GOP primary date, and the expected move upwards in the New Hampshire primary date. Governor Chet Culver said on Tuesdsay, in anticipation of the changes, "Iowa will go first, that is the bottom line." On the other hand, the state Dem Party's communications director sounded much more cautious: "The Iowa Caucuses are scheduled for January 14th, 2008 and we are moving forward with plans for that date."

Thompson Campaign Issues Press Release On Their Unconcern About South Carolina
Fred Thompson's testing-the-waters committee wants us to know it is absolutely comfortable with the newly accelerated primary schedule, despite the fact Thompson has not even declared his is running. In a release titled "Thompson Committee Unconcerned by Primary Schedule," his national political director says that moving the Iowa presidential caucuses into December will only hinder the declared candidates, because "large organizations with detailed political strategies that include roll out dates may find it more difficult to change their playbook mid-game." One wonders if Thompson will get around to declaring his candidacy before Thanksgiving when the first votes are cast.

Hillary Gets In Confrontation With Republican Blogger Over Health Care
Hillary Clinton got into a sharp exchange with a Republican blogger today at the National Association of Black Journalists conference. Clinton was asked why she supports British-style socialized medicine. "Oh man, I can’t answer that in 30 seconds, that was a string of misrepresentations," She responded. "I have never advocated socialized medicine, and I hope all the journalists hear that. That has been a right-wing attack on me for 15 years."

Academics Fundraising Force For Dems, Favoring Obama
The Center For Responsive Politics reports on the rise of academics as a powerful source of campaign cash, increasingly important in the wake of campaign finance reform, and now the industry with the 14th largest amount contributed, more than the petroleum, computer and pharmaceutical industries. Donors working for education institutions gave $7 million to federal candidates and two-thirds of that went to Democrats, with Barack Obama pulling in $1.5 million to Hillary Clinton's $940,000.

Black Congressman Looking At Run For Alabama Governor In 2010
Congressman Artur Davis (D-AL) is considering a run for governor of Alabama in 2010, and even praised term-limited GOP Governor Bob Riley in a speech last night to the Rotary Club of Birmingham. As for the question of race, Davis had this to say: "I firmly believe, and I'm not going to tell you there aren't folks in this state who would look at me and say, based on your color, I'm not going to vote for you. There's not a thing I can do about them because their mommas and daddies made them that way and I can't fix it in one campaign. But, for the substantial number of people in this state who do not make up their minds based on looking at you and looking at your color, I think I would have something to offer them."

Gingrich Bringing Animals To Straw Poll
Newt Gingrich doesn't have a campaign but he will nonetheless be courting supporters at the Ames, Iowa straw poll on Saturday. All of the actual candidates will have different festivities to keep voters at their tents, Romney and Brownback will both have barbecues while Huckabee is offering gigantic watermelons. As Jonathan Martin reports, Newt is playing that game too with the help of some friends from the Des Moines zoo: a baby American alligator, a hedgehog tenrec, a barred owl, a leopard gecko and a bunny.

Here are some more interesting results from the new CNN poll out today:

Do you think the United States is winning or not winning the war in Iraq? Is winning 32% Is not winning 63%

Do you think the United States can win or cannot win the war in Iraq?
Can win 54%
Cannot win 43%

And do you think the United States will win or will not win the war in Iraq?
Will win 42%
Will not win 55%

So let's crunch the numbers. A majority believe we can win in Iraq — up from 46% in March. On the other hand, a majority also think will not win. This leaves 12% of respondents who believe we can win in Iraq, but ultimately will not.

What sort of beliefs does this group hold? How many think victory is theoretically possible, but not worth the trouble? How many think victory is possible, but don't think the Bush Administration is competent enough to deliver? And how many think victory is within our sights, but that it won't happen due to dissent at home?

Barack Obama has made his refusal to accept lobbyist and PAC money a point in projecting himself as a new kind of politician. However, a new wave of news reports today threatens to cloud his efforts to make that case.

The Boston Globe finds that Obama collected hundreds of thousands of dollars PACs and lobbyists during the time he was a state Senator — and when he moved on to federal politics, it only picked up from there, taking in over $1.4 million from lobbyists and PACs for his Senate campaign committee.

The Globe notes that this would run 180 degrees opposite to something he said at a July debate: "Well, the fact is I don't take PAC money and I don't take lobbyists' money ... That's the kind of leadership that I've shown in the Senate. That's the kind of leadership that I showed when I was a state legislator. And that's the kind of leadership that I'll show as president of the United States."

And if Obama's presidential campaign doesn't take PAC money, it's still skilled in the art of giving it. The New Hampshire Union Leader reports that Obama's campaign has set up a PAC in New Hampshire for the purposes of donating money to county Democratic parties — except for the ones whose chairs have endorsed Hillary — giving county parties a clear incentive to support him or at least stay neutral. Meanwhile, his national PAC has donated the maximum $5,000 contribution to both of the state's House members.

And on top of that, the Los Angeles Times and the Reno Gazaette-Journal have both independently picked up on a certain distinction Obama is making: His presidential campaign does not take help from federal lobbyists, but has no problem accepting the help of state lobbyists — even giving them leadership roles in his California and Nevada campaigns.

So should we view these reports as problematic? Or is Obama simply doing the best he can to achieve reform within the system as it is, making some concessions to realpolitik?

Chris Dodd is suddenly a whirling Dervish spinning off attacks on every rival in sight. After blasting away at Obama in a similar vein to Hillary at the debate, he's now opening fire on Hillary over the Associated Press story we flagged below saying that Hillary took nukes off the table in a different context.

This statement is just out from Dodd:

"I was disappointed to learn that Mrs. Clinton, like Mr. Obama, would make such an unwise categorical statement about military options. If nothing else, these kinds of careless statements expose the difference in the candidates' depth of experience and understanding when it comes to the complex world of foreign policy and military affairs.

"The next President will require a level of understanding and judgment unprecedented in our history to keep America safe. With over a quarter of a century of experience helping to resolve conflict around the world, I offer that kind of leadership."

Okay, everyone, let's start parsing...

CNN has a new national primary poll out, testing the Democratic candidates and finding a huge lead for Hillary Clinton:

Hillary 44%
Obama 24%
Edwards 16%

With Al Gore added in:

Hillary 40%
Obama 21%
Edwards 13%
Gore 11%

Gore seems to take pretty much equally from the Big Three Dems. As we've mentioned before, Hillary's persistent national lead has naturally led to a standoff between the leading campaigns, with Hillary's people claiming it means that voters are making up their minds, and Obama's people arguing that national leads are meaningless and that the key primaries are basically dead heats.

Okay, as promised, here's the full exchange from Hillary's interview with Bloomberg News, in which she seemed to take nukes off the table, albeit in a different context from Obama:

HUNT: Senator, you sit in the Armed Services Committee. There were reports this weekend, the "Washington Post" and elsewhere, that the United States is considering a military option against Iran if it won't relinquish any ambitions to nuclear weapons. The "New Yorker" even said that we're considering using nuclear -– tactical nuclear weapons. Should those options be on the table when it comes to Iran?

CLINTON: Well, I have said publicly no option should be off the table, but I would certainly take nuclear weapons off the table. And this administration has been very willing to talk about using nuclear weapons in a way we haven't seen since the dawn of a nuclear age. I think that's a terrible mistake.

Okay, a few quick points. Hillary was clearly ruling out nukes in a very specific situation: Whether to use them against Iran. On the other hand, Obama was ruling them out in a specific situation, if a hypothetical one: Whether he'd use them against terrorists in Pakistan and Afghanistan. So what we now have here is this: One candidate (Obama) ruled out nukes in a specific but hypothetical situation; the other (Hillary) ruled them out in a specific but more or less non-hypothetical one. Readers, you decide how different this is.

Secondly, if you go back and look at Hillary's actual chiding of Obama, she said: "I don't believe that any president should make any blanket statements with respect to the use or non-use of nuclear weapons." She specified "as President," so in this sense this isn't necessarily at odds with what she said as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Nonetheless, she did appear to be making a blanket statement about the use of nukes in a particular situation, something she seemed to chide Obama for doing. Again, readers, you decide the extent of the contradiction here.

At a certain level, of course, all this parsing descends into farce. But the Dem candidates seem intent on forcing us to do this, as part of an effort to exaggerate some differences between them and minimize others, all for different reasons at different times.

All I can say about that, I guess, is this.

Hillary recently chided Obama for ruling out the use of nukes against terrorists in Pakistan and Afghanistan, but here's what she had to say about nukes in an interview with Bloomberg News last year, according to a story just moved by the Associated Press:

"I would certainly take nuclear weapons off the table," she said in April 2006...

"I have said publicly no option should be off the table, but I would certainly take nuclear weapons off the table," Clinton said. "This administration has been very willing to talk about using nuclear weapons in a way we haven't seen since the dawn of a nuclear age. I think that's a terrible mistake."

Hillary recently chided Obama as follows: "I don't believe that any president should make any blanket statements with respect to the use or non-use of nuclear weapons."

Nonetheless, Hillary spokesman Phil Singer is claiming no contradiction. "She was asked to respond to specific reports that the Bush-Cheney administration was actively considering nuclear strikes on Iran even as it refused to engage diplomatically," he said. "She wasn't talking about a broad hypothetical nor was she speaking as a presidential candidate. Given the saber-rattling that was coming from the Bush White House at the time, it was totally appropriate and necessary to respond to that report and call it the wrong policy."

Still, it does appear that she made a "blanket statement" about nukes at that time, even if it was in a different context. As soon as I have the full transcript of her interview, I'll share it with you.

A footnote: The Washington Times pointed out this same 2006 quote from Hillary back on August 3.

With pundits and Republicans — sometimes one and the same — all shouting in unison that the debate is starting to shift a bit towards Bush and the GOP on Iraq, national Dems are taking extra steps to attack Republican members of the House over Iraq during the August recess.

The vehicle: A new radio ad that has just been launched by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee that is set to run in the districts of 12 vulnerable Republicans. "This August we're going district by district to urge Republicans to stop obstructing progress and work with us to end the war in Iraq," says DCCC chair Chris Van Hollen. Give it a listen:

A list of GOPers being targeted by the ad is after the jump.

Read more »

A great catch by Steve Benen concerning the Iowa poll we posted on below: With John McCain getting the support of only three percent of Iowa Republicans, guess who's doing better than he is with that constituency -- Barack Obama!

Turns out that Iowa Republicans were asked an open-ended question about which candidate they supported, and were permitted to choose from either party. And of those Iowa GOPers, nearly seven percent picked Obama -- more than double the number who picked McCain!

Man alive, that's grim. Check out the numbers here.

So it's now a done deal -- South Carolina Republicans have moved up their primary to preserve its first-in-the-south tradition. And right on cue, New Hampshire and Iowa are moving to push forward their contests, too -- perhaps into December, which could mean that Presidential voting for the 2008 contest could start start this year.

Look, this is just nuts. What's to stop this from continuing? National primary day, anyone? Why or why not? Is there any other path out of this madness? Readers?

Update: South Carolina Dems won't move their primary.

So Fred Thompson will be taking his undeclared campaign for president to Iowa for the first time, the Des Moines Register reports. Thompson will visit the Des Moines area on August 17, where he meet with state legislators and conservative activists, as well as attend the Iowa State Fair.

Thompson's visit appears to be a sign that he plans to compete in Iowa. So, a question: If he does compete in the caucus, will he actually call himself a candidate?

Thompson's visit is coming late for a first time, to say the least, especially since the caucus will probably be sooner than most of us had previously expected. In fact, he appears to have made sure to only visit the state after this weekend's Ames straw poll was already done with. Incredibly, however, he still is doing better than McCain in Iowa, beating him in Iowa by four-point margin in a poll released last night, and coming in third in a field of candidates who have been working hard throughout the state.

Read more »