“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 cann