“If the most important thing to any of you is choosing someone who did not cast that vote or has said his vote was a mistake, then there are others to choose from."

-- Hillary Clinton discussing her 2002 vote to authorize President Bush to go to war during a campaign appearance in New Hampshire.

As expected, GOP Senators succeeded today in preventing the anti-escalation resolution passed by the House yesterday from going to the floor in the Senate -- the second time in a row the GOP has succeeded in scuttling Senate debate on the "surge." Senate Dems fell four votes short of the magic number of 60 votes they needed for a filibuster-proof victory. The vote was 56-34, with seven GOP Senators defecting to vote with Dems in favor of debating the anti-escalation measure. Update: Harry Reid's statement on the vote after the jump.

Read more »

A month ago, Senator James Webb asked Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice whether it was the position of the Bush Administration that it has the power to take military action against Iran without permission from Congress.

Webb is still wating for an answer. From his speech late yesterday on the Senate floor about today's escalation vote:

"The Administration's view of its presidential authority to conduct unilateral military action against other countries, and particularly with Iran, was documented in President Bush’s signing statement accompanying the original authorization for use of force in Iraq October 16, 2002. I would urge my colleagues to read this language carefully. It states in part, `My signing this resolution does not, constitute any change in the long-standing positions of the executive branch on either the President’s constitutional authority to use force to deter, prevent, or respond to aggression or other threats to U.S. interests…'

"I have raised this language with Secretary of State Rice, as well as Deputy Secretary Negroponte. My question was whether the Administration believes that it possesses the authority to conduct unilateral military activity against Iran in the absence of a direct threat and without the approval of the Congress. I have not received a clear answer from either on that point. And that is troubling."

Tomorrow the Senate will vote on whether to allow the same simple anti-escalation resolution that passed the House today to go to the Senate floor -- but a key adviser to Dem Senate leader Harry Reid says that Dems probably don't have the votes to make this happen.

Reid spokesman Jim Manley tells Election Central that he thinks cloture will garner a Senate vote in the low to mid 50s -- well short of the magic number of 60. Upshot: The Senate may end up failing to do what the House did today -- that is, to have a straight yes-or-no vote on whether it supports escalation. It would be the second time in a row that the Senate has failed to bring a vote on the "surge" to the floor.

"It's difficult to imagine that we're going to get the 60 votes necessary to block a Republican filibuster," Manley says. "But we're hoping to get as strong a majority as possible."

Dems need 11 Republicans to join with them to reach 60. Election Central today was only able to confirm that four GOP Senators -- Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, John Warner and Gordon Smith -- will vote to allow the resolution to go to the floor.

Asked if he was simply trying to lower expectations in advance of the vote, Manley said that his reading was a straightforward one. "They've clearly decided they can take a hit from the headlines and not pay long term damage," he said.

Of course, Dem leaders may be calculating that there's an upside in losing tomorrow -- because it gives them more ammo to paint Republicans as too fearful to debate escalation in the Senate.

As one source close to Reid puts it, "After these guys cast the vote, they're gonna have to go back to their home states and justify their votes. It's a politically perilous place for them to be. They're saying the Senate shouldn't even have this debate. I think that's an untenable position."

Meanwhile, a source in GOP Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's office tells us that he too is confident that Dems don't have the vote to pass the measure.

Tune in tomorrow...

This is funny: It looks as if Mitt Romney has flip-flopped yet again on an issue that's damaging him with conservatives -- his vote for Dem Paul Tsongas in 1992.

According to ABC News' Web site, Romney has now explained his vote for Tsongas -- which has sowed doubt among conservatives about whether Romney is a reliable ally -- in an interview to be broadcast by the network on Sunday. Romney's explanation? He voted for Tsongas against rival Dem primary candidate Bill Clinton because he was trying to boost the Dem he saw as the weakest challenger to Republican President George H.W. Bush. From ABC News:

The explanation came during an interview with ABC's George Stephanopoulos, which will air Sunday on "This Week."

"In Massachusetts, if you register as an independent, you can vote in either the Republican or Democratic primary," said Romney, who until he made an unsuccessful run for Senate in 1994 had spent his adult life as a registered independent. "When there was no real contest in the Republican primary, I'd vote in the Democrat primary, vote for the person who I thought would be the weakest opponent for the Republican."

But it looks as if that isn't how Romney has explained this vote in the past. ABC did a little digging and found that Romney had provided quite a different explanation back when he was hoping to unseat Senator Ted Kennedy in 1994 as a liberal Republican candidate:

But 12 years ago, the Boston Globe reported that Romney was giving a different explanation for his vote for Tsongas.

"Romney confirmed he voted for former U.S. Sen. Paul Tsongas in the state's 1992 Democratic presidential primary, saying he did so both because Tsongas was from Massachusetts and because he favored his ideas over those of Bill Clinton," the Boston Globe's Scot Lehigh and Frank Phillips wrote on February 3, 1994.

Oh, well. It was worth a try, one supposes.

The full interview with Romney will air on ABC's This Week on Sunday morning.

Dem Senate leader Harry Reid has just released a statement on the House vote against escalation and its counterpart in the Senate scheduled for tomorrow:

“The House of Representatives has taken an important step forward by passing a bipartisan resolution in support of America’s troops in Iraq and in opposition to President Bush’s plan to escalate the war. Its members have now fulfilled their basic responsibility to the American people and recorded for history whether they support or oppose the President’s plan.

“The war in Iraq is the most important issue facing this country today, putting our national security, our strategic interests, and the lives of our finest men and women in uniform at risk. The American people deserve to know where every member of Congress stands on the President’s escalation plan. This is a responsibility that transcends politics.

“Tomorrow, Senators will have another opportunity to express their view on the war in Iraq. Americans deserve to know whether their Senator stands with the President and his plan to deepen our military commitment in Iraq, or with the overwhelming majority of Americans who oppose this escalation. Let us be clear: anyone voting ‘no’ tomorrow is voting to give the President a green light to escalate the war.”

The Senate vote is tomorrow afternoon. As of now, four GOP Senators have told us that they'll vote with the Dems. Reid needs 11 GOP Senators to reach the magic number of 60.

Okay, the House just voted on the resolution to condemn escalation -- and it passed 246-182. Only two Dems -- Jim Marshall (GA) and Gene Taylor (MS) -- defected and voted against it; meanwhile, 17 Republicans defied their party line to vote to condemn the "surge." Here are the GOP defectors:

Castle (DE)
Coble (NC)
Davis (VA)
Duncan (TN)
English (PA)
Gilchrest (MD)
Inglis (SC)
Johnson (IL)
Jones (NC)
Keller (FL)
Kirk (IL)
LaTourette (OH)
Paul (TX)
Petri (WI)
Ramstad (MN)
Upton (MI)
Walsh (NY)

The vote is here. More soon.

Here are the latest updates on the movements of the Presidential candidates:

• Ralph Nader has reiterated that he's eyeing another third-party candidacy in 2008, calling Hillary Clinton "just another bad version of Bill Clinton," and said that Barack Obama "hasn't shown that much political fortitude."

• Tom Vilsack appeared on The Tonight Show With Jay Leno last night, and said he doesn't mind jokes about himself at all: "When you are just below the margin of error in polls, anything anyone says about you is important."

• Rudy Giuliani has picked up the support of former Virginia Attorney General and 2005 GOP nominee for Governor, Jerry Kilgore, who will head up his campaign in the state.

• Newt Gingrich has given a rare compliment to a liberal Democrat, speaking about Chuck Schumer's new book: "I think most Republicans ought to look at this. Because it's straight forward, it's tough-minded, it's honest, and while Chuck and I disagree about a lot, this is actually a pretty darn good book."

• John McCain's campaign announced their advisory committee for Florida featuring: Former state Attorney General Jim Smith; Immediate past state GOP Vice Chairman J. Allison DeFoor; John “Mac” Stipanovich, former chief-of-staff to Governor Bob Martinez; And former Jeb Bush aides J. Antonio Villamil and Cory Tilley.

• Pat Robertson's Regent University is scheduled to separately host the pro-choice Rudy Giuliani, as well as Mitt Romney, a Mormon. Giuliani will give a speech on leadership on April 17, while Romney will deliver the graduation address on May 5.

• Chris Dodd is scheduled to tour Iowa this Monday and Tuesday, visiting Des Moines, Cedar Rapids and Iowa City.

• Russ Feingold has sent a letter to Tom Vilsack, praising him for publicly supporting Feingold's proposal to withdraw American troops from Iraq within the next six months. Feingold has made no endorsements, but has so far complimented Vilsack, Barack Obama and Dennis Kucinich.

• Mitt Romney finished his three-day announcement tour last night with a fundraiser in Boston, netting $1 million.

• Sam Brownback has a dubious honor among the Senate's White House hopefuls: He leads the field in missed votes in the Senate.

• Barack Obama has his own distinction among the freshman Senate class of the 2004 election: The highest cost to the government for his world travel, at $28,000 as he has researched issues like AIDs, poverty and the War On Terror.

• John McCain has just sustained an intra-party loss back home in Arizona, with his favored candidate for state GOP Chair losing narrowly to a more conservative activist, who has publicly opposed McCain's stances on immigration and campaign finance.

• John McCain has picked up the support of former Dover City Councillor Matt Mayberry, a well-connected New Hampshire Republican who had previously been supporting George Pataki.

Here's another Republican Senator who intends to break ranks and support Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid's new move to bring an anti-escalation resolution up for a vote tomorrow: Senator Gordon Smith.

Smith's press secretary, R.C. Hammond, tells Election Central that Smith will vote for cloture, despite Minority Leader Mitch McConell's call for Republicans to block a vote.

Smith had previously voted against cloture on the earlier Warner measure, joining with GOPers upset with Reid's refusal to bring up an additional resolution of support for funding of the troops. Smith subsequently signed on to a letter with six other GOP Senators about their determination to bring the Warner anti-surge resolution to the floor.

Dem Senate leader Harry Reid has called their bluff by calling for a vote tomorrow on whether to allow the simpler House anti-escalation resolution to go to the floor. And now Smith has indicated that he'll support it.

That brings our total of GOP Senators who are either likely or certain to support cloture tomorrow to four: Senators Smith, Warner, Snowe, and Collins. By our count, the Dems may need 11 GOP Senators to get to the magic number of 60. More soon.

Okay, we've now heard back from the office of a second GOP Senator who looks close to breaking ranks with the leadership by voting tomorrow in favor of the House anti-escalation resolution going to the Senate floor: Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine.

Jake Ward, a spokesperson for Senator Snowe, tells Election Central that the Senator is likely to vote for cloture on the House resolution coming before the Senate tomorrow.

That brings the total thus far to two GOP Senators who are expected to support cloture. As we reported earlier today, Snowe's fellow Maine Senator Susan Collins, also a Republican, is also expected to vote for the measure to go to the floor.

GOP leaders are urging a No vote tomorrow, arguing that they should be allowed to introduce a competing resolution about war funding -- a move that Dem leaders are blocking in the view that it's merely a diversion designed to prevent a straight yes or no vote on escalation.

It remains to be seen whether Dem Senate leader Harry Reid will be able to muster the magic number of 60 votes tomorrow. Even if all Dem Senators except Joe Lieberman (who's expected to vote against cloture) and Tim Johnson (who's recovering from emergency brain surgery) vote for the measure, Dems still need 11 GOP Senators to come to their side. Stay tuned.

Within minutes, Speaker Nancy Pelosi will deliver a speech on the House floor summing up the three days of debate on the House anti-escalation resolution. Highlights from her prepared remarks:

For four days and three nights, more than 350 Members of Congress have come to the House floor to speak their conscience about the war in Iraq, and the President's escalation proposal. I commend my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for the substance and the tenor of this debate.

There is one proposition on which we all agree: our troops have performed excellently in Iraq. They have done everything asked of them. As the resolution states, "Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect the members of the United States Armed Forces who are serving or who have served bravely and honorably in Iraq."

We owe our troops a debt of gratitude, for their patriotism, courage, and service. As a sign of respect for them, particularly those who have lost their lives in the war, and for their families, I request that we observe a moment of silence.

We owe our troops a course of action in Iraq that is worthy of their sacrifice. Today, we set the state for a New Direction on Iraq by passing a resolution of fewer than 100 words which supports our troops but disapproves of the President's escalation proposal...

The bipartisan resolution today is nonbinding, but it will send a strong message to the President: we are committed to supporting the troops and we disapprove of the escalation.

Our troops are working together to protect America, and we, in this House, must also work together to build a future worthy of their sacrifice.

The passage of this legislation will signal a change in direction in Iraq that will end the fighting and bring our troops home.

The vote will come at around 3 P.M. or 4 P.M. Stay with us. Her full speech after the jump.

Read more »

So it looks as if at least one Republican Senator will break ranks with the GOP leadership tomorrow and vote in favor of Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid's new move to bring an anti-escalation resolution up for a vote. Jen Burita, a spokesperson for GOP Senator Susan Collins of Maine — who is facing a tough reelection in 2008 — tells Election Central that Collins is "very likely" to vote with the Dems on cloture.

Collins was one of only two GOP Senators who sided with Dems and called for the Warner resolution to come up for a vote — which GOP leaders succeeded in blocking. Collins also signed the recent letter demanding that the Senate not go on recess without voting on the resolution. Now that Dem Senate leader Harry Reid called their bluff and announced that the Senate would vote tomorrow on whether to bring the simpler House resolution to the Senate floor, Collins looks like she'll be backing it.

"She did say she's disappointed that Reid isn't allowing more open discussion," Burita told Election Central, referring to the GOP demand that Reid also call a vote on whether a competing GOP proposal being blocked by Dems can go to the floor. "But she's inclined to vote in favor of the motion to proceed, just like she did with the Warner-Nelson-Collins Resolution vote."

So that's one GOP Senator breaking ranks. We'll keep you posted on the others.

CNN's Jeff Greenfield was an aide to John Lindsay, whose efforts to use the New York mayoralty as a springboard to the White House were a flop. Today Greenfield shares some interesting thoughts with The New York Times on why Rudy Giuliani has at least a chance of defying history, which dictates that New York mayors sink into political oblivion after the conclusion of their mayoralties:

“The problem,” said Jeff Greenfield, a former Lindsay speechwriter and now senior analyst for CNN, “is when you think of a mayor you think of someone who picks up the garbage and fills potholes, and the leap from mayor to president is a bridge too far.

“What’s different with Rudy? The obvious answer is 9/11,” Mr. Greenfield said. “It has transformed him into a kind of general in the global war on terror. And 9/11 transformed New York into a sympathetic place. If you buy his story, Rudy applied conservative values and transformed New York. If voters want a leader to transform all the things they don’t like, Rudy can use New York and say, ‘I did this.’ ”

A couple quick points about this. First, Rudy will be perceived as a "general" in the global war on terror only to the extent that the media lets him get away with portraying the fact that he was there on 9/11 as foreign policy experience, which it isn't.

Second, there's a reason why Rudy's association with New York and urbanism may not damage him: His mayoralty was an anti-New York one, in the sense that he was driven by his very visible disgust urban disorder. He's the guy who hated everything about New York that the rest of the country did, and acted on that hatred. I'm not saying this

Statement from Rahm Emanuel this morning explaining why he's voting for the House's anti-escalation resolution:

Mr. Speaker, three years ago, I asked permission to establish a temporary memorial to the fallen in Iraq in Statuary Hall. The Leadership at that time refused, so I began posting the pictures of the young soldiers we've lost outside my office.

I've watched as that grim line of photos has grown past my doorway to fill the corridor. More than three thousand dead. More than twenty thousand wounded.

When I walk by those photos, I see the purpose, I see the pride and I see the promise in their young faces.

They were sons and daughters. Husbands and wives. Mothers and fathers who will never see their kids grow up.

I ask you, how long must this grim line of photographs grow before we acknowledge that this policy is not working?

How many corridors must these memorials fill before we say, 'not on my watch?'

How many more lives must we lose? How many more hearts must be broken?

It is time for this Congress to tell President Bush that his assurances are not enough.

This escalation does not mean stability in Iraq.

It will mean more loss and more photographs in the corridor.

I urge you to vote yes on this resolution.

The vote is today. We'll keep you posted on who backs it and who doesn't.

GOP Senate leaders appear to have settled on a strategy for dealing with Dem Senate leader Harry Reid's call for a vote on Saturday on whether to bring the House anti-escaltion resolution to the Senate floor: They are urging GOP Senators to vote No and continuing to insist on a vote on a competing GOP proposal involving war spending, Roll Call reports.

Yesterday afternoon the brinkmanship in Congress heated up big time, with Reid abruptly scheduling the vote on Saturday in order to force the Senate to break its procedural deadlock and go on the record about Bush's "surge." In response later yesterday, GOP Senate leaders went on record with their opposition to the measure. From Roll Call:

The Republican leadership continued to dig in with their demand that Democrats allow them to offer a vote on a competing GOP proposal. They called Reid’s move wrong on timing, substance and process.

“I’ve repeatedly said since we’ve been involved in the skirmish on this issue that we would insist on having a vote on funding the troops,” insisted Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).

Senate Minority Whip Trent Lott (R-Miss.) called Reid’s latest maneuver “totally unnecessary” and predicted the Saturday vote to press ahead with the House version of the Iraq legislation would fail.

“We could have worked this out in a fair way,” Lott said.

Dem leaders view the GOP's call for a vote over funding as a tactic designed to scuttle a straight yes-or-no vote on whether Senators back escalation, and are for now blocking the GOP proposal from coming to a vote. It's unclear as yet whether GOP leaders have managed to corral all their Senators into voting yet again against allowing an anti-escalation resolution to come to the Senate floor -- something that's growing more dangerous politically as the House very visibly debates its own measure.

Today we'll be trying to document which GOP Senators, if any, will break with the leadership and back the Dem resolution. Things should get very interesting in D.C. today and tomorrow.

Here are some numbers to consider for Dems who fear getting attacked for cutting off funding for the "surge": A new poll finds that an astonishing 54% of Americans would vote to cut off funding for escalation if they were in Congress. What's more, the new poll was done by Fox News. The survey asked: "If you were a member of Congress, how would you vote specifically on increasing U.S. troop levels in Iraq — would you vote for or against funding the increase in troops?" Only 37% said they would vote for funding. Among Independents, the numbers were even more striking: 62% were against funding, and only 30% for funding. If Congressional Democrats do move to defund escalation, a majority of Americans would be on their side.

Here's GOP Rep. Don Young of Alaska on the House floor today, coming out against the anti-escalation resolution. To make his case, Young very portentously attributed the following quote to Abraham Lincoln: "Congressmen who willfully take action during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs, and should be arrested, exiled or hanged." Watch it below:

Of course, as many of you know already, Lincoln never said those words. The quote, which has been recycled endlessly by war supporters, has been thoroughly discredited. Given that the discrediting of this quote has been all over the internet for over six months, we have to ask: Did Rep. Young know that the quote was bogus, but recycle it anyway? We'll never know. He certainly seemed to think what he was saying was very profound.

A top official at a leading Muslim group has just told us that GOP Rep. Virgil Goode's fear that U.S. money may soon be stamped with "In Muhammad We Trust" is rather at odds with the actual history and theology of the Muslim religion. As this expert points out — and as some TPM Readers have noted, too — Muslims don't worship Muhammad. They are monotheists worshiping a single God, called Allah in Arabic — not the individual Muhammad.

"There are many Islamic traditions that reinforce that the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, was a human being, and he should not be worshipped," Ibrahim Hooper, the national communications director of the Council on American Islamic Relations, tells us. So the notion that any Muslim would want "In Muhammad We Trust" written on U.S. money is, to put it charitably, nonsense.

The brinksmanship in Washington is escalating, as it were, over the Senate's coming showdown on escalation. Earlier today, Senator Harry Reid released a statement saying that he was scheduling a vote for Saturday on whether to consider the House anti-escalation resolution, which is far more simple and straightforward than the Warner resolution that Republicans succeeded in scuttling debate on recently.

Now, as we speak, GOP Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is holding a press conference to respond to Reid's challenge. More soon.

Update: Reid says that if his motion to get a Senate vote on the House language is successful, he may cancel the Senate's recess next week, which could shake up the campaign plans of Senators running for President.

"In Muhammad We Trust." That's what GOP Rep. Virgil Goode says that U.S. money risks being marked with — that is, if we don't support escalation of the Iraq war as part of our broader efforts to stave off Muslim domination of the United States in general. "In Muhammad We Trust." Goode, you may recall, sparked a national controversy back in December by saying that the U.S. should close its borders lest it be overrun by frightening hordes of Muslims. To watch Goode's surreal moment on video, click here.

Hillary Clinton is heading to South Carolina this coming Monday for her first Presidential campaign visit to the state, her campaign says. She's planning a town-hall style "conversation with South Carolinians in Columbia, a meet and greet barbeque lunch with local residents in Florence, and will wrap up her trip in Charleston at a ceremony for Dem Rep. Jim Clyburn, who just became the second African American Congressman to hold the position of Minority Whip. Hillary has good reason to head to the state to build support -- in the 2004 Dem primary her rival John Edwards carried South Carolina over John Kerry by 15 points, 45%-30%.

With the House debating escalation and the Senate getting ready to try to debate a new anti-"surge" resolution this Saturday, a new poll just out from Pew finds that support for the war continues to plummet while public skepticism about it continues to soar. The survey finds that a striking 53% of respondents want the troops brought home "as soon as possible." That's up five points in the last month and the highest percentage yet favoring such a pullout in this poll (though a larger sum of those favor a gradual drawdown to an immediate one). For the first time in this poll, a minority -- 47% -- think the U.S. will succeed in Iraq. Interesting footnote: The poll also shows that the Bush administration's war chatter about Iran may be succeeding in scaring the public; 25% of respondents see Iran as the country posing the greatest danger to the U.S.

Dem Senate leader Harry Reid, having proven unable to get the resolution backed by John Warner to the Senate floor, is now moving to get the Senate to vote on the simpler House resolution against escalation. From Reid's office:

REID: THE SENATE WILL VOTE ON IRAQ THIS SATURDAY

Washington, DC—Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid today released the following statement, announcing that the Senate will vote this Saturday on whether to move forward to debate the President’s escalation of the war in Iraq.

“For nearly four years, the Republican-controlled Senate stood silent on the President's flawed Iraq policies and watched as the situation deteriorated into a civil war. The American people have chosen to change course. Democrats have chosen to change course. Unfortunately, Senate Republicans have chosen obstruction. Almost every Republican who expressed concern about the escalation chose to block the Senate from debating the issue.

“Today, Democrats offered Republicans another chance for compromise, suggesting the Senate debate one resolution in favor of escalation and one resolution opposed to escalation. Once again, Senate Republicans refused.

“Democrats are determined to give our troops and the American people the debate they deserve, so the Senate will have another Iraq vote this Saturday. We will move for a clear up or down vote on the House resolution which simply calls on Congress to support the troops and opposes the escalation.

“Those Republicans who have expressed their concern over the Senate’s failure to debate the war in Iraq will have another opportunity to let their actions speak louder than their words.”

Here are a few updates on the movements of the Presidential candidates:

* Sen. John McCain's campaign has hired someone to run his Iowa operation. Matt Strawn, Chief of Staff for Michigan Rep. Mike Rogers and an Iowa native, will run the day-to-day operations in Iowa. He'll work closely with consultants Dave Roederer, Chuck Larson, Karen Slifka and Ed Failor, Jr.

* McCain is also now the target of a grassroots recall campaign in Arizona, where some of his constituents feel he is "shirking his duties as a Senator from the great state of Arizona" by continuing to support the Iraq War. Needless to say, the campaign is a long-shot.

* House Majority Whip James Clyburn, one of the most influential Democrats in South Carolina politics, will not endorse a candidate during the 2008 primaries.

* Sen. Barack Obama has traveled around the world on the taxpayer's dime more than any other senator who took office with him, including trips to Russia, Iraq and Kenya. Obama is a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

* Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani will stop accepting invitations to appear as a motivational speaker. The speeches were reportedly netting him $100,000 a pop. Rudy may still collect fees for upcoming appearances that were previously arranged, and his campaign is consulting the Federal Election Commission on the matter.

* A state senator in North Carolina has introduced a bill to move the state's regular May primary up to the first Tuesday in February, though it does not have much likelihood of passing.

* Elizabeth Edwards, the wife of Former Sen. John Edwards, will deliver the Meredith College commencement address this spring. Her husband will make campaign stops in both Nevada and Iowa on this weekend.

* After a recent bout of Massachusetts pols announcing their endorsements for other candidates, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney announced today that he had the support of 27 state elected officials, including 18 members of the state House of Representatives who signed a letter of support for him. In South Carolina, Romney picked up the endorsements of State Senator Bill Mescher and State House members Chip Huggins, Ted Pitts, and Nate Ballentine.

* New Hampshire will see visits from a bevy of Presidential contenders this weekend, including Sen. Christopher Dodd, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, Sen. Hillary Clinton, Rep. Dennis Kucinich and Cindy McCain, Sen. John McCain's wife.

* Richardson will also be heading to Denver, Colorado next week where he will announce his Colorado campaign team and hopes to raise $100,000.

* Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee opened his national campaign office yesterday in Little Rock, Arkansas.

* Sen. Sam Brownback reintroduced the Truth in Video Game Rating Act yesterday, which would force video game reviewers to consider the entire scope of a game's content before a review is published. Brownback also voted against a spending bill that would have increased the budget of the FBI by $200 million and the veteran's health budget by 13 percent.

* Sen. Hillary Clinton picked up a pair of big name endorsements in New Hampshire following her weekend trip to the state: former U.S. Rep. Dick Swett and veteran strategist Judy Reardon. Swett, a long-time friend of the Clintons, was formerly appointed ambassador to Denmark by President Clinton. His wife, Katrina Swett is planning a Senate run in 2008, and thus staying out of the endorsement primary.

* A reminder: Former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack will be on the "Tonight Show with Jay Leno" tonight.

* Vilsack's successor as the chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council, former Rep. Harold Ford, Jr., is joining Merrill Lynch & Co. as a vice chairman and senior policy adviser.

* The Pennsylvania GOP is looking at freshman Dem Rep. Jason Altmire's 4th district seat as a potential comeback pick up in 2008 now that Allegheny county commissioner Ron Francis has filed paperwork to challenge Altmire.

Great Moments In Fox News Dept. Just how confident are the Fox gang feeling about their new comedy show, The 1/2-Hour News Hour? According to Reuters, Fox execs have ordered a grand total of two episodes of their right-wing answer to The Daily Show. Perhaps the execs think it will flop — after all, the show is built around wooden delivery, thinly-veiled racial humor, and an almost robotic laugh track. Of course, it's always possible that Fox will be so determined to have something up on the air rebutting Jon Stewart going into 2008, that the network will keep it going at a loss. To watch a sample, click here.

Former President Bill Clinton's approval rating is nearly twice that of the current resident of the White House, a new Gallup poll finds. Clinton is viewed favorably by 63% of the poll's respondents -- nearly twice as many as have a positive view of President Bush in some polls. That's Clinton's highest favorability rating since 1998, and near his all-time high of 66% in 1993. Meanwhile, Clinton is viewed unfavorably by roughly the same amount of people who view Bush favorably in some polls -- 35%. Given these numbers, one wonders whether pundits will keep describing the former President as nothing but a liability to Hillary Clinton's Presidential campaign.

A Democratic source has sent us a fundraising invite sent out to elite donors by the Hillary Clinton campaign, and it says that Bill Clinton will be hosting a big fundraising dinner with his wife on March 18. From the invite:

We are excited to announce THE event of this quarter! Sunday, March 18, 2007 will be the first Celebratory Dinner with Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton and President William Jefferson Clinton in support of Hillary’s Presidential Exploratory Committee.

This will be an extraordinary evening and an excellent opportunity for you to invite your friends, family, and colleagues to help build the base of support for Hillary’s campaign. So join us in making history... Sign up today as an Event Committee member and host a table on March 18!

The invitation is attached. Tickets are $1,000, $2,300, and $4,600 per person. Event Committee members are asked to raise $10,000, $23,000, $46,000, $100,000 and up. To join the Event Committee, please complete and returned the attached reply form by fax to ------- or by e-mail to -------@hillaryclinton.com. All hosts who sign up by Thursday, March 15 will be listed on the printed invitation.

The event bears watching, if only because it could contain clues to the various ways the campaign (and Bill Clinton himself) intends to handle the question of how and to what extent the former President should make himself visible on behalf of Hillary's campaign.

Rudy Giuliani made it official last night in an interview with Larry King on CNN:

KING: Are you running or not?

GIULIANI: Yes, I'm running. Sure.

KING: Oh, you are.

Have you -- when would you -- do you make an official announcement or is this it -- here, right now?

GIULIANI: I guess you do...

KING: You just said, "I'm running."

GIULIANI: I guess you do one of these things where you do it four times or five times in a day so that I can, you know, get on your show and about five others.

KING: So you're running?

GIULIANI: Yes, I'm running.

Got that? He's running. Now if only someone could get him to stop telling that joke about announcing in multiple places...

Barack Obama is about to pick up the support of a prominent southern Democrat -- Virginia Governor Tim Kaine:

Virginia Gov. Timothy M. Kaine (D) plans to endorse Sen. Barack Obama for president on Saturday, pledging early support from a Southern Democrat as the Illinois senator begins his campaign for the White House.

Kaine will sign onto Obama's presidential team ahead of the senator's appearance at the Virginia Democratic Party's annual fundraiser Saturday night, according to sources familiar with Kaine's decision. The sources spoke on condition of anonymity because they do not want to pre-empt the formal announcement.

Apparently, Kaine really, really likes Obama:

In an interview with Post editors and reporters last month, Kaine praised the other Democrats running for the 2008 presidential nomination as being part of "a deep field." But he spoke effusively about Obama's personal charisma and abilities.

"Sen. Obama is just in a completely different category than anybody I've ever stood on a stage with," Kaine said in the Jan. 31 interview. "There is just a feeling of, you know, kind of a projection of hope on him from an audience that is just unreal. It's unreal."

Virginia, of course, is a reliably Republican voting state. But the ascension of Kaine and Virginia Senator Jim Webb have made some suggest that it could be at least within play for Dems. The timing of the endorsement is also fortuitous for Obama: He's speaking this weekend at Virginia's high-profile Jefferson Jackson Day dinner, which is expected to draw a far larger audience than ever before.

"It is certainly no criticism, Mr. Speaker, of our troops to say that this was a very unnecessary war. It has always been more about money and power and prestige, than any real threat to us or to our people. And this war went against every conservative position I have ever known. It is time, Mr. Speaker, to bring our troops home."

Hillary Clinton gave a sharply-worded speech about Iran on the Senate floor today -- she got tough with Iran, but even tougher with Bush. To watch an excerpt, click here.

Read more »

Robert Novak's latest column identifies a strategic dilemma Hillary Clinton faces which we first noted here days ago: The question of how far the campaign should go in attacking Barack Obama. Novak writes:

Supporters of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) are truly worried about Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.). He is showing signs of being a genuine phenomenon who could sweep through the primaries and take the Democratic nomination. The question for Clinton strategists: Should they attack Obama?

As we noted here before, the Hillary camp first looked as if they were inclined against going after Obama; their responses to the Illinois Senator's criticism were notably muted when compared with their response to John Edwards' veiled attacks. But yesterday, with Obama's message about Iraq seeming to start to resonate, Hillary's people upped the force of their response a notch or two — something that suggests Novak might be on to something in his suggestions of concern among Hillary supporters.

Whether Novak is right or not, one of the most interesting things to watch in this campaign will be the varying ways the Clinton camp decides to deal with this "genuine phenomenon," as Novak calls him.

"Just as you'd cap troops at 100,000, you'd say that within 18 months, the funding for all the troops would be gone. It basically uses funding power to force the phased withdrawal.

just as you'd cap troops at 100 thou, yo'd say within 18 months funding goe...through...it's basically uses a funding power to force the phase withdrawal....basically...no one's for cutting off troop money for funding in the field. you're gonna limit to 100,000 now. which forces withdrawal to commence. then require that fu

"No one's for cutting off funding for troops in the field. When you cut off funding, it forces withdrawal to commence."

"The whole issue is a Constitutional one. The President is at the height of his Constitutional authority as Commander in Chief. Congress is clearly at the height of its powers with the appropriations process. Congress can say, `We will fund this war," or "We will stop funding it completely." Everything in between is a grey area. Just as Congress did in Vietnam, you can clearly say, `No funding for troops above a certain level.'

peter shear, also involved, basically dem foreign policy establism...by the way, people...the whole issue is a const one. the pres is at height as const auth. congress couldn't say, oh, take this hill or abandon that hill. but congress clearly at height of its const power at approp proc...congress can say, we will fund this war or stopp funding competely for this war. everything in between is greay. but you clearly can say....like...they put troop celing in place. you can clearly say, no funding for troops above a certrain level. we're big supp of that...

we would cap them at 100,000 which would stop h

OFF: I certainly think that it would be fair to point out that, you know, the senate is not the senate has kind of given up. we dont think that makes sense...we're always gonna be pointed substantively but not personally...I just dont think. it's what they want us to do. hillary wants us to be nasty. their negs are in 40s. they want us to be neg...if they do that I'm happy to let them...I dont think voters like that. I think voers want a healthy debate on the issues. and they shouldn't it 's not good for progress.

Attention, loyal readers: I think I've found the most perfect illustration yet of the emptiness of the GOP charge that the media's reporting on Iraq is "liberal." Check it out right here. We'd love to hear your thoughts.

It's called The Gavel -- and it's right here. Take a look.

"I don't know that we have a perfect person running for President of the United States, but I think in life you make mistakes and then you do the best you can to learn from them and grow."

— Rudy Giuliani, in an interview with Radio Iowa. Rudy was responding to some recent comments by Mitt Romney's wife, Ann Romney, that made light of Giuliani's previous divorces. Ms. Romney had pointed out that her husband Mitt, a Mormon, was the only top-tier Republican candidate who has "only had one wife."

"I don't know that we have a perfect person running for president of the United States, but I think in life you make mistakes and then you do the best you can to learn from them and grow."

— Rudy Giuliani, in an interview with Radio Iowa, brushing aside recent comments by Ann Romney that made light of his previous divorces by pointing out that her husband Mitt, a Mormon, was the only top-tier Republican candidate who "only had one wife." Polygamy, though forbidden by the Chuch of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints of which Romney is a member, has historically been associated with the religion.

Via Atrios, Al Franken is now officially in the race to unseat GOP Senator Norm Coleman of Minnesota. On his announcement video, he says: "I've spent most of my life as a comedian. Minnesotans have a right to be skeptical about whether I'm ready for this challenge and wonder how seriously I would take the responsibility that I'm asking you to give me." Watch the rest of his announcement here:

Franken's campaign Web site is here.

Here are a few updates on the movements of the Presidential candidates:

* Former Sen. John Edwards' campaign took further shape today as he named Beth Leonard as his New Hampshire campaign director. Leonard, a veteran political operative, formerly worked in the White House press office of Tipper Gore and ran get-out-the-vote operations for the DSCC during the 2006 elections.

* In a move unusual for a candidate who has to compete in the Iowa caucus, former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack, speaking in San Francisco yesterday, said that the nation's renewable fuel needs cannot be met by corn-based ethanol alone. Vilsack's energy plan, the first by a Democratic candidate to contain specific proposals, also includes tax incentives to improve technology for producing other types of ethanol. Iowa currently leads the nation in the production of corn-based Ethanol.

* MSNBC and The Politico are teaming up to sponsor a Republican presidential debate on May 3rd that will be held at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library.

* Sen. Barack Obama's official campaign name will be "Obama for America," rather than the more conventional "Obama for President."

* The California state legislature voted yesterday to move the state's primary up from June to February, a move that could significantly increase the California primary's importance, unless other large states such as Illinois, Texas, Florida and New Jersey -- who are considering such a move -- do so as well.

* Relatedly, officials in Alabama are considering moving their state's primary up from Feb. 5 to Feb. 2 in a move that would run afoul of rules put forth by both the RNC and the DNC.

* Sen. Christopher Dodd made The American magazine's list of the top ten most economically literate members of Congress.

* The AP has a rundown of Sen. John McCain's efforts to court Christian conservatives who he has alienated in the past, including his hiring of David Rexrode, who organized evangelicals for the Bush/Cheney '04 campaign. The biggest upshot for McCain, according to the article, is that the Religious Right is also skeptical of the other top tier GOP candidates, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.

* Romney recieved mixed reactions yesterday in Iowa when he spoke to a crowd of nearly 300, with skepticism about his history on abortion and gay marriage still concerning some conservative voters. Meanwhile, Romney's media team is looking into buying early TV ads in both Iowa and New Hampshire.

* Sen. Sam Brownback's campaign released the email allegedly from team Romney that accuses Brownback of having a pro-choice history, which the Senator denies.

* Rudy Giuliani is set to announce the endorsement of two (possibly three) of the five Republican state Senators in Massachusetts, which is certainly uncomfortable for former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney. Also in MA, former Republican Governor Jane Swift, who preceded Romney at the state house, is throwing her support behind John McCain. Romney, for his part, picked up the South Carolina endorsement of Charleston County councilman Paul Thurmond, one of the late Sen. Strom Thurmond's sons.

* The Capitol Police visited Rep. Tom Tancredo yesterday after the office of freshman Rep. Keith Ellison complained about his cigar smoking.

* Meanwhile, Tancredo is undecided about how he will vote on the Iraq surge resolution, he "absolutely" supports withdrawal of troops from Iraq in November if benchmarks aren't met.

* Rep. Ron Paul introduced a bill yesterday, co-sponsored by Rep. Dennis Kucinich, that seeks to remove restrictions on the cultivation of non-psychoactive industrial hemp.

Okay, four more GOP Congressmen have just defected, announcing their support for the anti-escalation resolution. That brings our count to 11 GOPers supporting it.

GOP Rep. Ron Paul of Texas:

"I rise in support of the resolution, and in opposition to the escalation in Iraq."

Also from Paul:

"The biggest red herring in this debate is the constant innuendo that those who don’t support expanding the war are somehow opposing the troops. It’s nothing more than a canard to claim that those of us who struggled to prevent the bloodshed and now want it stopped are somehow less patriotic and less concerned about the welfare of our military personnel."

GOP Rep. John Duncan of Tennessee:

"It is certainly no criticism, Mr. Speaker, of our troops to say that this was a very unnecessary war...It is time, Mr. Speaker, to bring our troops home."

GOP Rep. Steve Latourette of Ohio:

"If I thought that the presence of 21,500 additional American troops in Iraq would quell sectarian violence and stop the killing and aggression towards Americans in Iraq, I would support it...It is time to ratchet up diplomacy, make the Iraqis accountable for their own security, and kick off the training wheels that we have tethered them to.

Also, GOP Rep. Phil English of Pennsylvania just came out for the resolution, too.

The campaign of former Sen. John Edwards took further shape today as Beth Leonard was named his New Hampshire campaign director. Leonard, a veteran political operative, formerly worked in the White House press office of Tipper Gore and ran get-out-the-vote operations for the DSCC during the 2006 elections.

GOP Rep. Ric Keller of Florida, speaking on the House floor just now:

“Interjecting more young American troops into the crosshairs of an Iraqi civil war is simply not the right approach. If the President sends these troops anyway, I will support their funding 100 percent so they have the bullets and equipment they need to defend themselves....

“Three years ago, I could have voted for this surge, but the situation on the ground in Iraq today is very different from what it is today … three years ago we didn’t know whether surging more American troops into Baghdad would give us a long lasting impact. Now we know the answer, because we tried the same thing last summer. The benefits were temporary — the bodybags were permanent.”

By our count, six GOP Reps. have come out against escalation today and yesterday. More coming.

Okay, we have a couple more GOP House members who have defected and joined House Dems in backing the resolution opposing escalation.

Here's what GOP Rep. Mike Castle of Delaware just said on the House floor:

"Despite the incredible efforts of our brave soldiers, it is clear to me that an increase in American forces alone cannot resolve this conflict. Therefore, I will support this resolution, because I believe that the surge will be unsuccessful without a comprehensive diplomatic strategy to engage the international community, and turn responsibility over to the Iraqi government."

And here's what GOP Rep. Jim Ramstad of Minnesota just said:

"It's time for Congress to step up and express our strong support for our brave troops, our continued support of the original mission, and our opposition to the increase of U.S. troops to police a civil war in Iraq. I urge a yes vote on the resolution."

More as it happens.

A Democratic insider has just sent us the internal talking points that went out to House Dems as they prepare to debate the anti-escalation resolution. Here they are:

House Democratic Caucus Talking Points

Message of the Day/Floor Action

* President Bush's plan to escalate the war in Iraq will not bring success in Iraq or make America more secure. It faces significant bipartisan opposition in both chambers of Congress, and the plan is opposed by the vast majority of the country.

* The House will begin debate today on a resolution regarding the President's plan to escalate the war. Recent polling shows that a majority of Americans are paying close attention to the unfolding debate in the Congress about the war in Iraq.

* The vote on the resolution will likely take place on Friday. The House will hold more than three full days of debate on the resolution in which every member's voice will be heard.

* The House resolution highlights our support for our troops, and our opposition to the President's troop increase. The language for the resolution can be found at: http://www.house.gov/hasc/ and http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/.

* Pure and simple, the President's policy to escalate the war will be debated on the House floor. The resolution will provide every member of the House an opportunity to vote for or against the President's plan to send more troops to Iraq. House Republicans will have opportunities in the coming weeks and months to offer alternative resolutions regarding the war.

* The majority of the country opposes escalation, and would like to see American troops home soon.

* A number of members of the caucus have expressed interest in speaking in blocks, or at similar times to highlight some key issues - support of our troops, effectiveness of past surges, and accountability and oversight of the war. Veterans, Blue Dogs and members of relevant committees including the Armed Services and Foreign Affairs will speak on the floor in blocks of time to draw attention to these critical issues.

* This resolution is just a beginning of our oversight and efforts to hold the President accountable for his mismanagement of the war in Iraq. We will continue to ask the tough questions about the President's new strategy and continue to insist on a new direction, while always putting our troops first.

* Senate Republicans were wrong to block resolutions on the President's escalation of the war in Iraq. The American people want a clear, forceful statement from Congress on the President's plan to escalate the war. We will not allow Republicans to muddy the waters.

Nothing terribly surprising, but nice to have as a guide to what you'll be hearing for the rest of the week.

John Edwards rolled out a new call for withdrawal from Iraq this morning, taking veiled shots at primary rivals Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama as he called for Congress to act to stop the war.

“We don’t need debate; we don’t need non-binding resolutions; we need to end this war, and Congress has the power to do it," Edwards said in a statement. "They should use it now."

Edwards' broadside against Congress is a clear reference to the fact that both Obama and Clinton are in the Senate, which has as yet failed to pass even a non-binding resolution against the surge. Hillary supports that resolution, while Obama has called for all combat brigades to be withdrawn by March 2008, though he's stopped short of advocating a block on funding for the additional troops.

In a sense, Edwards is turning a negative -- his rivals have suggested that his absence from the Senate makes him a sideline player in the Iraq debate -- into a positive, by saying that while Clinton and Obama may be Senators, they've refused to advocate concrete steps towards ending the war.

Edwards' plan calls on Congress to do the following:

* Cap funding for the troops in Iraq at 100,000 troops to stop the surge and implement an immediate drawdown of 40-50,000 combat troops. Any troops beyond that level should be redeployed immediately. * Prohibit funding to deploy any new troops to Iraq that do not meet real readiness standards and that have not been properly trained and equipped, so American tax dollars are used to train and equip our troops, instead of escalating the war. * Make it clear that President Bush is conducting this war without authorization. The 2002 authorization did not give President Bush the power to use U.S. troops to police a civil war. President Bush exceeded his authority long ago, and now needs to end the war and ask Congress for new authority to manage the withdrawal of the U.S. military presence and to help Iraq achieve stability. * Require a complete withdrawal of combat troops in Iraq in the next 12-18 months without leaving behind any permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq.

It's unclear to us how the mechanics of some of these would work -- "make it clear" and "require" don't immediately strike us as concrete solutions -- but we're seeking clarification. More soon.

There are nearly two years until Election Day 2008, but the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee -- the operation that gets Dems elected to the Senate -- is aggressively targeting GOP Senators with new mailings faulting them for stalling debate on escalation. Starting this Friday, the DSCC is running ads targeting GOP Senators John Sununu and Gordon Smith, both of whom are up for reelection in 2008, in newspapers in their respective states of New Hampshire and Oregon. While Smith had a relatively easy time getting reelected in 2002, Sununu prevailed in a close contest over Jeanne Shaheen amid the GOP phone-jamming scandal, and remains vulnerable due to the Iraq War and the Dems' big wins in New Hampshire in 2006. Here's the ad attacking Sununu:

The ad targeting Smith can be viewed after the jump.

Read more »

A new poll finds that Hillary Clinton is beating Rudy Giuliani by 10 points in New York -- an interesting number, because New York is of course the state where voters know Rudy better than anyone else, while in the rest of the country he's viewed primarily through a haze of 9/11 mythology.

The poll, which was released today by Quinnipiac University, finds that Hillary is leading Rudy 50%-40%. She fares even better against John McCain, beating him 56%-38%

The poll also finds, unsurprisingly, that both New Yorkers are topping their respective primary fields. Hillary gets 47% of Dem primary voters, followed by Obama with 16% and Edwards with 7%.

On the GOP side, meanwhile, Rudy gets 51%, followed by McCain with 17% and Gingrich with 6%. Full poll here.

Melissa McEwan, the second blogger for John Edwards' Presidential campaign, has now resigned her position. On her personal blog, Shakespeare's Sister, she writes:

I regret to say that I have also resigned from the Edwards campaign. In spite of what was widely reported, I was not hired as a blogger, but a part-time technical advisor, which is the role I am vacating.

I would like to make very clear that the campaign did not push me out, nor was my resignation the back-end of some arrangement made last week. This was a decision I made, with the campaign's reluctant support, because my remaining the focus of sustained ideological attacks was inevitably making me a liability to the campaign, and making me increasingly uncomfortable with my and my family's level of exposure.

I understand that there will be progressive bloggers who feel I am making the wrong decision, and I offer my sincerest apologies to them. One of the hardest parts of this decision was feeling as though I'm letting down my peers, who have been so supportive.

There will be some who clamor to claim victory for my resignation, but I caution them that in doing so, they are tacitly accepting responsibility for those who have deluged my blog and my inbox with vitriol and veiled threats. It is not right-wing bloggers, nor people like Bill Donohue or Bill O'Reilly, who prompted nor deserve credit for my resignation, no matter how much they want it, but individuals who used public criticisms of me as an excuse to unleash frightening ugliness, the likes of which anyone with a modicum of respect for responsible discourse would denounce without hesitation.

This is a win for no one.

The most endangered Democrat in Congress may soon be facing a Republican challenger. Representative Nick Lampson picked up a seat for the Democrats last year in Tom DeLay's hardcore Republican district — with Lampson winning against a write-in candidate in a bizarre race marked by legal wrangling and DeLay's resignation. So suffice it to say that his Texas seat is anything but safe.

Now he may be challenged by a potentially formidable candidate: Sugar Land Mayor David Wallace, who just announced that he won't seek reelection as Mayor. According to Roll Call, Wallace will announce his plans for the race in the next 60 days. Says Wallace: "I feel I could do a good job in representing the people of the 22nd district." Given the tenuousness of Lampson's hold on the seat, he perhaps should be worried.

Interesting footnote: Wallace is helping raise money for Rudy Giuliani's Presidential campaign — even though he describes himself as "hard right wing" on social issues.

So this explains a lot. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer's office has obtained a letter that GOP Reps. John Shadegg and Peter Hoekstra sent out to House GOP colleagues about escalation. The letter gives GOP members pointers on how they should approach the battle over it on the House floor this week.

Hoyer's office has now posted the letter on his Web site, and it lays bare the GOP's strategy for dealing with debate over the House's anti-escalation resolution and reveals just how worried party leaders are about having a genuine discussion about the "surge." The letter says:

We are writing to urge you not to debate the Democratic Iraq resolution on their terms, but rather on ours.

Democrats want to force us to focus on defending the surge, making the case that it will work and explaining why the President's new Iraq policy is different from prior efforts and therefore justified.

We urge you to instead broaden the debate to the threat posed to Americans, the world, and all "unbelievers" by radical Islamists. We would further urge you to join us in educating the American people about the views of radical Islamists and the consequences of not defeating radical Islam in Iraq.

The debate should not be about the surge or its details. This debate should not even be about the Iraq war to date, mistakes that have been made, or whether we can, or cannot, win militarily. If we let Democrats force us into a debate on the surge or the current situation in Iraq, we lose.

Yep, so the advice here is this: GOPers shouldn't allow themselves to be lured into a "debate" about the single most important policy question facing us right now, because they might lose. Never mind how all this might impact the troops who actually have to go to Iraq. Healthy priorities, huh?

Also amusing is the letter's assertion that "Democrats want to force us to focus on defending the surge." Now why on earth would Dems want Republicans to justify a policy that will directly impact tens of thousands of people and their families? How unreasonable!

Wouldn't you know it, but during the House debate today many GOPers did indeed "broaden the debate" to the threat posed by "radical Islamists." Say this for your House Republicans: They're good at following orders.

Update: More from Think Progress.

In a sign that Barack Obama perhaps can't take the black vote for granted in the crucial primary state of South Carolina, Hillary Clinton has picked up critical endorsements from two of the state's leading African-American pols, the Associated Press reports.

State Sens. Robert Ford and Darrell Jackson told the AP that they're supporting Clinton because they believe her to be the most electable candidate. In Ford's case, it may have helped that he was personally lobbied not just by Hillary, but by her husband, too. In words that sound surprisingly harsh coming from a black pol, Ford did not mince words about his worries of nominating Obama: "Every Democratic candidate running on that ticket would lose because he's black and he's at the top of the ticket — we'd lose the House, the Senate and the governors and everything."

Conventional wisdom would suggest that South Carolina is a must-win for Obama, because about half the voters in the 2004 South Carolina Democratic primary were black. But a victory there is anything but assured. Beyond the fact that Hillary's now beginning to make inroads in the state, it should be noted that another Obama rival — John Edwards — is competitive for South Carolina voters. After all, he handily won the primary there in 2004.

I don't know about you, but I can't get enough of the press' abuse of the bogus Nancy Pelosi plane story. And we may have found the silliest example of this yet: A columnist who actually built a whole theory about the Dem Congressional leadership on nothing but this tall tale. We took the liberty of writing her a little note about it, too. View what this columnist wrote in all its glorious silliness right here.

The campaigns of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama traded blows in earnest over Iraq for the first time today, releasing dueling statements that questioned the accuracy of the others' assertions and suggested that both camps are on the verge of abandoning whatever unspoken non-aggression pact may have existed between the two sides.

Though the clashing statements were politely worded, they served as a reminder that the Dem primary electorate is so charged up over Iraq -- and is so insistent on getting real answers on Iraq from the candidates -- that the Hillary and Obama camps may ultimately have no choice but to duke it out over the issue.

Today's exchange was triggered by a comment by Obama yesterday in which he said that Hillary's position on Iraq "does not begin a phased redeployment."

The Hillary campaign struck back today, sending out a statement from Hillary spokesperson Howard Wolfson which read as follows:

"Senator Obama is mistaken. Senator Clinton has long been on record in favor of a phased redeployment of our troops. In fact both she and Senator Obama voted in 2005 to begin such a withdrawal."

Now the Obama camp has responded with a statement of its own:

"Only Barack Obama opposed the war in Iraq from the start and only Barack Obama has legislation that would, by force of law, begin a redeployment by May 1, 2007 and have all combat forces out of Iraq by March 31, 2008."

We couldn't help but note that in its statement the Obama campaign added the fact that he'd "opposed the war in Iraq from the start," even though that isn't really germane to the debate at hand today -- that is, the question of whether her position calls for "phased redeployment." Again, a sign that the two sides ultimately may be forced to hash out the issue in ways that could, shall we say, strain civility.

The Clinton camp, incidentally, also put out a bunch of her past statements on Iraq to buttress Wolfson's claim. Take a look.

Question for readers: Who's right?

In his testimony on the House anti-escalation resolution, GOP House leader John Boehner made the novel argument that despite outward appearances, America did not start the Iraq War. Rather, he said, the Iraq war is part of a longer war that didn't begin in the 90's, or even in the 80's, but in the 70's, with the Iranian hostage crisis. Watch it below:

Here are a few updates on the movements of the Presidential candidates:

* Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney's official campaign launch hit a bump in the road when three Michigan lawmakers held a press conference today in Lansing, Michigan, to announce that they were shifting their support from Romney to Sen. John McCain. One lawmaker, three-term state Rep. Judy Emmons cited Romney's "consistency issue" on abortion as her reason for switching.

* Also perturbing Romney today, Sen. Sam Brownback blasted the Governor yesterday for misleading voters over his stance on abortion, saying: "Mitt Romney's flip flops are enough to make John Kerry blush." The source of Brownback's ire? An email sent to pro-life leaders by team Romney that claimed Brownback had formerly been pro-choice, which Brownback vehemently denies.

* Finally, Romney will host a private reception for Christian radio and television hosts during the National Religious Broadcasters' annual meeting next week in Orlando and is expected to be the commencement speaker this year at Pat Robertson's Regent University.

* Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani picked up a big endorsement during his trip to California: Rep. David Dreier. Dreier is both the ranking member of the Rules Committee and the chairman of California's GOP delegation. He also all but announced his official campaign, saying "I am 100 percent committed," but "I still have to do a formal announcement."

* Blogger Amanda Marcotte, who escaped dismissal last week from former Sen. John Edwards' campaign, resigned yesterday apparently after creating further conservative/Catholic backlash over her review of the movie Children of Men. Her Pandagon post discussing her decision can be found here, though the site seems to be crashing on and off today..

* Former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack announced today that his campaign will try to off set its contributions to global warming by investing in "clean" energy. Vilsack, who is profiled today in The New Republic, will also appear on the "Tonight Show with Jay Leno" on Thursday night.

* Sen. Barack Obama recieved a raucous reception yesterday in New Hampshire as he spoke to a crowd of 3,000 at the University of New Hampshire. Obama also apologized yesterday for saying on Sunday that the lives of U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq had been "wasted."

* Sen. Christopher Dodd is claiming the support of two members of the House leadership -- House Democratic Caucus Vice-Chairman John Larson and assistant to the Speaker Rep. Xavier Becerra -- while nearly 100 members of Congress have already endorsed a candidate for President in 2008.

* Candidates for President who aren't currently Senators will have a slight logistical edge over sitting Senators due to the new Senate ethics rules that will forbid members from recieving discounted rates of reimbursement for the use of corporate jets. Score one for Edwards, Romney, and Giuliani!

* Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who campaigned in South Carolina yesterday, is lagging behind his top GOP rivals in the all important fundraising primary with only $349,938 cash on hand at the end of 2006.

* Rep. Tom Tancredo is trying to emphasize that he is more than just the anti-immigration candidate, noting that "you cannot run for president on a single issue."

* A bipartisan commission co-led by former Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson released 75 recommendations today on how to update the "No Child Left Behind" education law, including the suggestion that teachers can be forced out of their job if they don't demonstrate effectiveness in the classroom.

It was just announced on the House floor that GOP Rep. Charlie Norwood has passed away. He was 65. Norwood, who had lung cancer that had spread to his liver, recently announced that he would receive in-home hospice care back in his home district in Georgia.

Update: Here's CNN's story.

We have a Republican defector: GOP Rep. Howard Coble of North Carolina, a conservative who says he'll vote for the resolution. Coble said:

"When we've had in excess of 3,100 troops give the ultimate sacrifice, when we've had more than 20,000 troops injured, many of them permanently, when we've been at this for nearly four years, that's not cutting and running. That's a sacred step toward freedom, and I think it's time to hand the baton to the Iraqis."

More as it happens.

Nancy Pelosi tells the House why they should vote for the resolution condemning escalation:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has just spoken on the floor about the anti-escalation resolution that is being debated and passed this week. She vowed that passing this resolution will set the stage for Congressional action on Iraq -- words that are likely designed to win over those worried that the non-binding measure doesn't amount to actual action to rein in the President. She said:

In a few days, with fewer than 100 words, we will take our country in a new direction on Iraq. A vote of disapproval will set the stage for additional Iraq legislation which will be coming to the House floor. Friday's vote will signal whether the House has heard the American people: No more blank checks for President Bush on Iraq.

We'll be posting video of her full speech in a few minutes. Stay with us.

At least, that's what it seems like John McCain is saying, anyway. Here's what he just said about Iraq and public opinion, according to the Associated Press:

"By the way, a lot of us are also very concerned about the possibility of a, quote, 'Tet Offensive.' You know, some large-scale tact that could then switch American public opinion the way that the Tet Offensive did," the Arizona senator said.

Given that substantial majorities oppose the war, anything that "switches" public opinion on it would lead majorities to be for the war, right?

Update: This was meant to be funny, everyone...

Did you catch Mitt Romney formally announce his Presidentical candidacy on C-Span this morning? If not, you didn't miss much. It was one platitude after another, spoken with a saccharine, canned delivery. In fact, there was really nothing more to it than the following three sentences, which we've captured on video because we think this brief snippet perfectly captures just how utterly without content the speech really was. Enjoy! To watch the video, click here.

Great Moments In Fox News Dept. Good old "Fair and Balanced" Fox. On a new promo for The 1/2-House News Hour, created to be a right-wing counterpart to The Daily Show, the announcer boasts that they'll attack "the left," "people who voted for Democrats," and oddly enough, "gay penguins" — and then in the next breath declares the show to be "an equal-opportunity offender." To watch the promo, click here.

Okay, so the debate in the House is underway over the anti-escalation resolution that House Dem leaders plan to pass Friday. You can watch it on C-Span. These are the two points in the measure:

(1) Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect the members of the United States Armed Forces who are serving or who have served bravely and honorably in Iraq; and

(2) Congress disapproves of the decision of President George W. Bush announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.

Here's the state of play right now: A minimum of 20 or 25, and possibly as many as 60 House GOPers are expected to break with their leadership and join Dems in backing the resolution. Though some liberal Dems are expressing disappointmemt with the measure, because it's nonbinding, it's nonetheless expected to pass with overwhelming Democratic support. The reason that many members of Congress who want stricter action will back this is that they recognize that this is a first step, that individual members can unveil their own tougher measures later, and that it's critically important that Dems use a straightforward nonbinding resolution like this one to divide the GOP and force Republicans to take a simple yes or no stand on escalation.

That, combined with large-scale defections on the GOP side, could enable it to pass with broad bipartisan backing -- sending a powerful message to the White House and racheting up the pressure on Senate GOPers who are stalling debate of their own measure.

So the big story to watch today is GOP defections. Here at Election Central we'll be keeping tabs of the stands GOP members take on the resolution throughout the day. Stay with us.

President Bush's approval rating has edged up to 37% in a new Gallup poll -- up from 32% in the same poll earlier this month but no higher than his average approval number since the start of 2006. The survey also measures approval of Congressional Dems and Republicans, finding that Dems have an approval rating of 41%, which is only seven points higher than that of the GOP but also is a higher approval number than Congressional Republicans have registered since 2005. More numbers here.

Comedian Al Franken is expected to announce his bid to unseat Minnesota GOP Senator Norm Coleman tomorrow, but the state's Dems aren't in a rush to hand the DFL nomination to him just yet, Roll Call reports:

Democrats are eager to deny Sen. Norm Coleman (R-Minn.) re-election next year, but they are less enthused about rallying around a standard-bearer early in the cycle.

Comedian Al Franken is expected to announce his bid for the Democratic nomination Wednesday, while attorney Mike Ciresi confirmed on Sunday that he will open an exploratory committee. Additionally, state Rep. Joe Atkins said he will decide about running this spring.

Franken has done the most to seed a campaign. He launched a leadership political action committee and has regularly attended party gatherings and hosted fundraisers since moving back to the Land of a Thousand Lakes last January. Democrats thank him for his contributions but are not ready to hand him the nod just yet.

“Franken has dotted all his i’s and crossed all his t’s, but neither [he nor Ciresi] seems to have much buzz among activists on the ground yet,” said one Democratic operative in Minnesota, who did not want to be named.

Other possible Dem candidates are state House Speaker Margaret Anderson Kelliher, Hennepin County Commissioner Gail Dorfman and state Auditor Rebecca Otto. We'll keep you updated on Franken's announcement tomorrow.

Senator John Kerry is circulating a proposal that would force President Bush to pull nearly all U.S. troops out of Iraq within a year, today's Boston Globe reports. The paper is unclear on the mechanics of how such a measure would work, but it does report that Kerry plans to make his vote an amendment to unrelated legislation and call for a vote on it "within weeks."

Kerry tells the paper: "There is a pent-up demand here to try to do something real, to have the debate. The bottom line is the Congress needs to get around to serious business. The American people expect action -- that's what the last election was about." Kerry's Web site devoted to withdrawal from Iraq -- SetADeadline.com -- is here.

It doesn't get any clearer than this: A new Gallup poll finds that an astonishing 63% of Americans want Congress to legislatively set a time-table for withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of next year. Such a measure is far and away the form of Congressional action favored by most of the poll's respondents. The action that the House of Representatives is taking this week -- passing a non-binding resolution expressing disapproval of escalation -- is favored by less of the poll's respondents -- 51%. And in a number that will weigh heavily on House GOPers this week as they decide whether to support the anti-escalation resolution, 42% say that their Representative's position on Iraq will be a "major factor" in their vote in the 2008 elections.

When Rudy Giuliani was making his second bid for Mayor of New York, his campaign had a lot of potential dirt to fend off — so much so that Rudy had a 450-page report done on himself! (Such self-examinations are standard campaign practice.) Excerpts from the report have just been posted by The Smoking Gun. They provide a wealth of info about Rudy's efforts to placate New York's liberal electorate on all manner of issues —which means, of course, they also provide a wealth of info that can be used as ammo to damage him among the social conservatives who drive GOP Presidential primaries. Among the interesting tidbits:

• "The Giuliani campaign should emphasize its candidate's independence from traditional national Republican policies." (Emphasis theirs.) It was further recommended that Rudy play up "his un-Republican views on many social issues of concern to New Yorkers, like abortion, gun control and bias protection for homosexuals."

• "Simplicity is the best response to questions about abortion." (Emphasis theirs.) And their simple answer? "Giuliani is pro-choice. He supports public funding for abortion. He will continue city funding of abortions at city hospitals. Nothing more, nothing less."

• On gay rights: "Giuliani is pretty good on most issues of concern to gay and lesbian New Yorkers. Gay marriage really is the only issue where Giuliani opposes the gay agenda." (Emphasis ours.)

• The report raised Giuliani's first marriage — to his second cousin — as a major liability. "In reviewing the news stories describing this event and others in his private life, there are numerous inconsistencies and questionable circumstances about how long the two were married, whether Giuliani knew he was marrying his second cousin, whether he dated other women while still married, and ultimately, how consistent he has been about his personal life." (Emphasis ours.)

• On Giuliani's honesty about their familial relationship: "He grew up with her, vacationed with her, married her, then divorced her and had the marriage annulled ... Despite their time together building sand castles out on Long Island, Giuliani claimed, first, he knew, and then he didn't know, Gina was his second cousin." (Emphasis ours.)

• Rudy's first marriage was not fully dissolved when he began dating Donna Hanover, who he would later marry — and then divorce after an adultery scandal in 2000.

• On Giuliani's exceptional deferment from the draft to work as a law clerk: "A 'one in a million occurrence' ... Ironically, after avoiding the fighting Giuliani worked in a department supposed to punish others who did the same." (Emphasis ours.)

• Giuliani was a Democrat as late as 1972, supporting George McGovern, but later switched to the Republicans in 1980, when doing so would get him ahead in the Justice Department.

• And interestingly enough, the 1993 report mentions Rudy's close associations with conservative figure Roger Ailes. Ailes is now head of the Fox News Channel — and Rudy has been receiving nothing but glowing coverage from Fox.

A Hillary supporter writes in to argue that Barack Obama's comments yesterday about his opposition to the Iraq War are at least somewhat at odds with what he said in October of last year.

According to Reuters, here's Obama yesterday:

On the day after he formally launched his 2008 White House bid, Obama said on a campaign swing through Iowa that even before the war began it was possible to see the dangerous consequences of a U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

"Even at the time, it was possible to make judgments that this would not work out well," the Illinois senator told reporters, indirectly contrasting his stance with presidential rivals Clinton and John Edwards, who both voted to authorize the war in 2002.

But as the Hillary supporter points out, here's how Obama described his differences with Hillary over Iraq in an interview with The New Yorker in October of 2006:

I think what people might point to is our different assessments of the war in Iraq, although I’m always careful to say that I was not in the Senate, so perhaps the reason I thought it was such a bad idea was that I didn’t have the benefit of U.S. intelligence. And, for those who did, it might have led to a different set of choices. So that might be something that sort of is obvious. But, again, we were in different circumstances at that time: I was running for the U.S. Senate, she had to take a vote, and casting votes is always a difficult test.

The Hillary supporter points out to us that Obama was more forgiving of the pre-war failures of his fellow Dems in that interview than he is now that he's in the race. Not a huge deal, by any means, but worth noting. We're passing it along to keep the discussion humming.

It seems clear to us that Hillary Clinton's camp has developed sharply contrasting approaches to dealing with John Edwards and Barack Obama when it comes to responding to their criticism of Hillary's Iraq positions.

Check it out: Yesterday Obama drew lots of media attention by seeming to fault Clinton's position on the war. He suggested that she lacked concrete suggestions as to how the American involvement in Iraq might be brought to an end. Here's how the Clinton camp responded to Obama's attack:

Howard Wolfson, a spokesman for Clinton, did not directly respond Sunday to Obama's comments about her plans on Iraq but described her as a "forceful critic" of the administration's execution of the war.

"She has supported a phased redeployment of our troops to start bringing them home and has strongly opposed President Bush's escalation of the war by proposing a cap on troops," Wolfson said.

Last month, by contrast, John Edwards took a far less direct swipe at Clinton by suggesting that Congress should take concrete steps to block escalation. Though Edwards didn't even name Hillary directly, Wolfson nonetheless responded far more aggressively:

Howard Wolfson, a senior adviser to Senator Clinton, criticized Mr. Edwards's remarks by taking aim at the former senator's image, promoted by aides during the last presidential election, as an optimistic and unifying figure. "In 2004 John Edwards used to constantly brag about running a positive campaign," Mr. Wolfson said. "Today, he has unfortunately chosen to open his campaign with political attacks on Democrats who are fighting the Bush administration's Iraq policy."

Has the Clinton campaign made an internal decision to adopt a hands-off approach to responding to Obama, while aggressively returning fire when Edwards criticizes her? There are lots of possible explanations for such a move. Perhaps the Hillary camp thinks it can more likely win an argument over Iraq with Edwards, who voted for the war, than with Obama, who opposed it from the start. Or perhaps the Hillary campaign thinks attacking Obama risks alienating African American voters. Or maybe the Hillary camp was more willing to engage Edwards because she hadn't declared as a candidate at that point.

Whatever the reason -- and we're asking campaign insiders to shed light on it -- this is a dynamic that certainly bears watching as the campaign unfolds. Anyone else have thoughts on what could be going on here?

"My view was that, when the chips were down and if there was no other candidate, the Conservative Party would do it. But all we wanted first was for Rudy to say he was against partial birth abortion. He never did."

Here are some quick updates on the movements of the Presidential candidates:

* Rev. Jerry Falwell will host a "meet and greet" for Sen. John McCain a week from today at the National Religious Broadcasters Convention in Orlando, Florida. As you may recall, McCain famously descibed Falwell as an "agent of intolerance" when he was running against President Bush as a maverick outsider in 2000. Now, however, McCain is working hard to win over this agent of intolerance, even speaking at the 2006 spring commencement ceremony of Falwell's Liberty University. Video clips of McCain's evolving relationship with Falwell can be seen here.

* Former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack issued a debate challenge to Sen. Barack Obama today, citing Obama's decision to skip a Feb. 21 candidate forum hosted by the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees in Carson City, Nevada. "As you know, AFSCME represents workers throughout Iowa and they would be willing to organize a forum for us in any town on Feb. 21,'' Vilsack wrote in a letter to Obama's campaign.

* Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani announced today that he has picked up the endorsement of Rep. Pete Sessions and former Rep. Susan Molinari. Sessions will work to build support in the House while Molinari will act as a Senior Adviser and Chairwoman of Washington outreach.

* During his trip to Iowa this weekend, Sen. Barack Obama obtained some key endorsements in the state: both Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller and Iowa State Treasurer Michael Fitzgerald have officially thrown their weight behind Obama while freshman House member David Loebsack appeared on the official program of Obama's Iowa rally, though he did not officially endorse the candidate.

* Meanwhile, in an interview with AP yesterday, Obama laughed off comments by Australian Prime Minister John Howard that suggested terrorists would be "encouraged" if Obama was elected, saying “it's flattering that one of George W. Bush's allies feels obliged to attack me.” Howard told reporters that he doesn't "retreat in any way from that criticism."

* Rep. Duncan Hunter gave support to Howard's comments yesterday, saying that the Australian Prime Minister had "earned a right to comment" and was "basically stating the truth."

* Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney was the keynote speaker at the Missouri GOP's Lincoln Day dinner over the weekend. Romney is expected to officially announce is candidacy in Michigan tomorrow.

* Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee picked up two solid endorsements in South Carolina today: Former first lady Iris Campbell, whose late husband Caroll Campbell II was Governor '87 to '94, and her son Mike Campbell. Her other son, Caroll Campbell III, has endorsed Sen. John McCain.

* Speaking of McCain, the Arizona Senator will campaign in Iowa on Feb. 17.

* Though director Steven Spielberg seemed to be in camp Obama due to his co-hosting of a February fundraiser for the Senator in Los Angeles, Spielberg will also host a future fundraiser for Sen. Hillary Clinton. Spielberg agreed to host the Clinton fundraiser after an appeal from former President Bill Clinton, according to Robert Novak.

* Rep. Tom Tancredo is backing a Colorado state legislature bill that would pull state pension funds out of companies with major investments in Sudan. The bill is meant to punish Sudan for the genocide in Darfur.

* California is THE big fundraising destination for candidates in the upcoming weeks: Rudy Giuliani is speaking to a non-partisan business group in Santa Clara, California today; Tom Vilsack will be in San Francisco tomorrow to speak to the Commonwealth club; former Sen. John Edwards will be at a $500- to $2,300-a-head dinner in Woodside on Thursday; Barack Obama is speaking at a a pair of big ticket fundraisers for Sen. Barbara Boxer on Feb. 19 then heading to Los Angeles the next day for a fundraiser hosted by Steven Spielberg, Jeffrey Katzenberg and David Geffen; Also on Feb. 20, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson will attend a fundraising lunch at the San Francisco law office of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein; and finally, on Feb. 23, Hillary Clinton will be in San Francisco for a $250 to $25,000 VIP luncheon and reception hosted by building mogul Walter Shorenstein, Esprit clothing co-founder Susie Tompkins Buell and investment banker Thomas Steyer.

* New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson will travel to New Hampshire this week and Iowa next week.

Stuart Rothenberg's new column in Roll Call has some big-thinking advice for the Democratic Party: Aim for a 60-seat majority in the Senate by 2010. "A strong ’08 could put the party in sight of a 60-seat majority in 2010, and that filibuster-proof majority would change the rules of the game on Capitol Hill," Rothenberg says. Though Rothenberg acknowledges that such thinking is "odd and premature," he makes a pretty good case that Dems have reason to be optimistic about the cycles ahead:

• Of the 67 Senate seats up in the next two cycles, Democrats currently hold only 27, while Republicans must defend 40.

• Republicans have tough seats to defend in 2008 in Colorado, New Hampshire and Maine, plus potential retirements in Virginia, New Mexico, Nebraska, Mississippi and North Carolina.

• Rothenberg sees few openings for Republicans in 2008 — most of the Dem seats up for election are in blue states. To regain control, their best scenario would involve holding all their seats, plus defeating Mary Landrieu in Louisiana, and keeping the Presidency for a 50-50 tie.

Rothenberg's conclusion: "The 2008 presidential results and unknowable events over the next few years could change the political equation completely, denying Democrats an opportunity to keep their majority, let alone grow it to 60. But given the makeup of the three Senate classes, party strategists would be foolish not to be thinking about the arithmetic even now."

Forget the fact that Rudy Giuliani is leading John McCain in many GOP Primary polls — Rudy's entry into the race is actually good for McCain. Or so says McCain adviser Dave Dishaw, a key operative for McCain in Michigan. Dishaw explained to the The Detroit Free Press that Rudy's social liberalism is helpful to the Arizona Senator: "McCain gets to be the true conservative candidate."

Their camp's argument is essentially that if Rudy does well, the base will do anything to stop the pro-choice, pro-gay candidate. If McCain happens to be the strongest competitor against Rudy, then they'll come to him as the Anybody-But-Rudy candidate, even if they might have been inclined to support a more reliable candidate like Sam Brownback of Mike Huckabee.

The resolution by House Dems condemning President Bush's escalation plan is ready to roll, and a copy has just been sent our way. Here it is:

Disapproving of the decision of the President announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That—

(1) Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect the members of the United States Armed Forces who are serving or who have served bravely and honorably in Iraq; and

(2) Congress disapproves of the decision of President George W. Bush announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.

This resolution's authors, clearly, are adherents of the "less is more" school of resolution writing.

Update: You can view the actual resolution in our TPM Document Collection.

Or so reports the New York Post, at any rate:

February 12, 2007 -- ALBANY - New York officials, hoping to boost the candidacies of Hillary Rodham Clinton and Rudy Giuliani, are secretly discussing moving the presidential primary to early February, The Post has learned.

Democratic and GOP legislative officials - including Republicans in touch with the Giuliani campaign - last week began talking about advancing the March 4 vote to Feb. 5, the same date that California and Florida will likely hold primaries.

"The thinking is that it's all going to be over very fast early next year and that Rudy can get a big boost from New York if we move the primary right up to the beginning of February," said a senior Republican official involved with the talks....

With both the Republican former mayor and the current Democratic senator well ahead in the presidential race among their own party members, a Feb. 5 New York primary would likely give them lopsided victories in the state vote.

Take it or leave it.

Less than 48 hours after his announcement speech in Springfield, Illinois, Barack Obama has already emerged as a feistier and more combative candidate than his conciliatory demeanor might have led one to expect. On the campaign trail yesterday, Obama took whacks at both rival Hillary Clinton and the news media, wondering aloud how Hillary intends to get the troops out of Iraq and asking why the media is obsessed with how he looks in a swimsuit.

Obama, who has called for the withdrawal of all combat brigades from Iraq by March 2008, yesterday questioned Hillary's position on Iraq as follows:

"I am not clear on how she would proceed at this point to wind down the war in a specific way," he told reporters before a boisterous rally at Iowa State University. "I know that she has stated that she thinks that the war should end by the start of the next president's first term. Beyond that, though, how she wants to accomplish that, I'm not clear on."

And he took on the news media, too, as Ben Smith reports:

Barack Obama used his first news conference after announcing his run for president to accuse the media of ignoring his substantive record and falsely depicting him as a lightweight.

"The problem's not that the info's not out there," he said of his record on policy issues. "The problem is that that's not what you guys have been reporting on. You've been reporting on how I look in a swimsuit."

This race is already getting good.

Buried in today's Washington Post article on the planned debate this week over the House Democrats' anti-escalation resolution is a startling fact: Anywhere from 20 to 60 House Republicans may vote for the resolution when it's introduced this Friday, insiders say. If Republicans do back the Dem resolution in large numbers, enabling it to pass with overwhelming bipartisan support, it would send an extraordinarily powerful message both to Bush and to GOP Senators up for reelection in 2008 who are stalling debate of a similar measure in their house of Congress.

Making such an outcome more likely, House GOP leaders are not telling vulnerable incumbent Republicans in antiwar districts to vote against the resolution, the paper says. The pressure on House Republicans was neatly summed up by GOP Rep. Wayne Gilchrest of Maryland: "Every time I go to another funeral, every time I go to Walter Reed, people are really gracious, but what do you say? What are we doing over there now?" Gilchrest's has lost 23 service members in the war.

Anywhere from 20 to 60 House Republicans may vote for the Democrats' resolution against President Bush's escalation plan when it's introduced this Friday, House GOPers tell today's Washington Post. If Republicans do back the Dem resolution in large numbers, enabling it to pass with overwhelming bipartisan support, it would send an extraordinarily powerful message both to Bush and to GOP Senators up for reelection in 2008 who are stalling debate of a similar measure in their house of Congress.

The other day, Hillary Clinton told the New Hampshire Union Leader that when she voted to give President Bush the authority to go to war, "I said that it was not a vote for pre-emptive war." So we thought it would be a good idea to dig up the speech she gave at the time. She said: "My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption...it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him -- use these powers wisely and as a last resort." Of course, it seemed awfully obvious at the time that Bush had no intention whatsoever of using those powers only as "a last resort." And the vote did give him the authority to do what he was hell-bent on doing no matter what Saddam did: That is, wage a preemptive war. At any rate, have at it: Her full speech is after the jump.