It'll be interesting to see if pundits like David Broder and Charles Krauthammer -- who have warned endlessly that electing Hillary will inevitably produce an unprecedented Clinton co-presidency -- will have anything to say about this:

If she makes it to the White House, Sen. Hillary Clinton said today her husband will take on the same responsibilities as traditional presidential spouses, with no access to National Security Council meetings.

"I think he would play the role that spouses have always played for presidents," said Clinton, in an exclusive interview with ABC News' George Stephanopoulos. "He will not have a formal, official role, but just as presidents rely on wives, husbands, fathers, friends of long years, he will be my close confidante and adviser as I was with him."

The candidate said having President Clinton participate in National Security Council meetings "wouldn't be appropriate," and in a crisis situation -- like the one faced by President Bush this week after the assassination of former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto -- President Clinton would not sit in on discussions with his wife’s national security team.

Barack Obama has a new ad in Iowa, touting his endorsements from local newspapers — specifically their declarations that he is the candidate who can bring the whole country together:

Ben Smith noted that the ad is "less of the populist anger you get from Edwards, or the policy detail of Hillary's latest ad, and back to what's perhaps the heart of his appeal: His identity and capacity to inspire."

John Deady, the co-chair of New Hampshire Veterans for Rudy, who told us in an interview that he doesn't "subscribe to the principle that there are good Muslims and bad Muslims," is officially out of the Giuliani campaign:

"Mr. Deady offered his resignation from his volunteer position in the campaign and I accepted his resignation," Giuliani New Hampshire Chairman Wayne Semprini said in a statement.

Fox News suggests that the Rudy campaign shoved Deady out in order to quickly contain the damage before the Iowa caucuses on January 3. Contacted by MSNBC, however, Deady refused to say why he'd stepped down:

Reached at his Bedford, N.H. home Saturday, Deady would not say whether he was pressured to resign. “This is not going to go any further with me,” he said. “I’m way beyond my depth with you people,” before suggesting reporters contact the campaign’s press office.

Common Sense Issues, the right-wing group that has been running independent ads and a whole separate campaign operation on behalf of Mike Huckabee, has a new ad set to run tomorrow in Iowa, mocking Mitt Romney's changes of heart on abortion:

The ad is cleverly constructed, doing a send-up of Romney's "Two former governors..." format from his own ads, and even adding in a diabolical laugh — as if to say Mitt is giggling at the thought of all those fools who fall for his act.

(Via Mark Halperin)

The new poll from American Research group gives Hillary Clinton and a seven-point lead over her competitors in Iowa — and, in the first publicly released poll in a while to do so, shows Mitt Romney, not Mike Huckabee, leading the Republican pack:

Democrats:
Clinton 31%
Edwards 24%
Obama 24%
Biden 5%
Richardson 5%

Republicans:
Romney 32%
Huckabee 23%
McCain 11%
Thompson 7%
Giuliani 6%
Paul 6%

Some skepticism had been voiced about their last Iowa, poll, but ARG's Dick Bennett pointed out to Taegan Goddard his poll actually matched fairly well with the "likely voter" sample of the recent Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll.

We'll all find out Thursday which model was the most correct.

Mitt Romney has another attack ad in New Hampshire against John McCain. This time, Romney goes right after McCain on the issue that caused his opponent so much trouble throughout this year — illegal immigration:

Meanwhile, McCain has his own ad, bringing up those newspaper anti-endorsements against Romney. With New Hampshire turning into a strict two-man race, and a pretty mean-spirited one at that, the next week and a half should be fun.

Two of Barack Obama's political ads are taking a beating in the press today.

ABC News reports that an ad the Obama campaign released yesterday on lobbying reform excised a quote in which "Obama promised to ban lobbyists from working in his White House -- a pledge the Illinois Democrat seemed to have backed off from earlier this month." The Obama camp responded that the cut had been made for time.

Meanwhile, The Washington Post reports that a new Obama health care ad "misrepresents some newspaper assessments of the Illinois Democrat's proposal."

So it looks as if genocide might not be part of the Rudy campaign platform, after all.

The New York Daily News has picked up our story about John Deady, the co-chair of New Hampshire Veterans for Rudy, who told us in an interview that he doesn't "subscribe to the principle that there are good Muslims and bad Muslims. They're all Muslims."

The News also got a reaction from the Rudy campaign. It seems Deady might be asked to step down from his role:

The Giuliani campaign said it would ask Deady to resign "if these quotes are accurate." "They are inappropriate and not reflective of our campaign," said Wayne Semprini, Giuliani's New Hampshire chairman.

We'll see what happens.

Separately, in a bit of good news, a big news org actually got it right on Rudy's alleged political advantage on terrorism.

Late Update: Steve Benen has a good line about the Rudy surrogate's anti-Muslim remarks: "Note to political reporters: this is even more interesting than John Edwards’ hair." No it isn't, Steve. Sorry.

The insults are really flying in the New Hampshire Republican race. John McCain has a new ad up in the state, rebutting Mitt Romney's new attack ad by bringing up the anti-endorsements against Romney from two prominent state papers:

John Deady, the co-chair of New Hampshire Veterans for Rudy, is standing by the comments he made in the controversial interview with The Guardian we posted on below, in which he said that "the Muslims" need to be chased "back to their caves."

In an interview with me, Deady confirmed that when he made the comments, he was referring to all Muslims.

"I don't subscribe to the principle that there are good Muslims and bad Muslims," Deady told me by phone from his home in New Hampshire. "They're all Muslims."

When a mere campaign volunteer to Hillary got caught forwarding the madrassa email about Barack Obama, it was national news for days and she had to quit the campaign. While the parallel isn't perfect, Deady's comments are more explosive than the act of forwarding the email is, and Deady is more than a mere volunteer to Rudy's campaign.

Indeed, Deady was designated by the campaign in a press release as the co-chair of Veterans for Rudy. The release describes him as a surrogate, saying: "Veterans for Rudy will continue to build this coalition to help communicate Mayor Giuliani’s optimistic vision for America and his proven track record of real results to New Hampshire voters."

While I'm not suggesting at all that Deady was speaking for the Rudy campaign, the question is whether these comments -- which again are arguably more controversial than the Hillary volunteer's forwarding of the madrassa email -- will garner anywhere near the same level of attention and whether the Rudy camp will have anything to say about them.

Asked if he stood by his comments in the earlier Guardian interview, Deady said:

"I most assuredly do. I've been very concerned about this Muslim thing for quite awhile. The average American does not know beans about what the Muslims are about. I am talking about the Muslims in general. I don't subscribe to the principle that there are good Muslims and bad Muslims. They're all Muslims."

In the earlier interview with The Guardian, Deady said of Muslims: "We need to keep the feet to the fire and keep pressing these people until we defeat or chase them back to their caves or in other words get rid of them."

When I asked Deady to elaborate on his suggestion that we need to "get rid" of Muslims, Deady said:

"When I say get rid of them, I wasn't necessarily referring to genocide. What I was referring to is, stand up to them every time they stick up their heads and attack us. We can't afford to say, `We'll try diplomacy.' They don't respond to it. If you look into Islamic tradition, a treaty is only good for five years. We're not dealing with a rational mindset here. We're dealing with madmen."

When I asked Deady if this was also a reference to all Muslims, he said: "I am talking about Muslims in general."

I asked Deady if he thinks Rudy shares his views of Muslims. Deady replied: "Does he see the Muslim problem [this way]? I can't honestly say that he does. I've heard him make statements that approach this type of thing, that we've got to stand up to these people. I don't think he's a cowboy, but I think he understands what he's up against."

At another point in our talk, Deady came out in favor of racial profiling when, for instance, searching airline passengers before boarding. "Instead of goosing every little old lady," Deady said, "why not take a look at those people who are between the ages of 18 and 38 and are acting strange?"

Deady also said at one point: "I'm not a bigot really. I may sound like one. But I'm only quoting what's factual."

The Rudy campaign didn't immediately return a request for comment.

Late Update: Finally! A big news org gets it right on Rudy's alleged advantage on terror.

On Monday, we will all know who the next senator from Mississippi is going to be. The Clarion-Ledger reports that Gov. Haley Barbour (R) will hold a pair of press conferences to announce who he's appointing to replace Trent Lott, who abruptly resigned effective last week.

We know who it won't be — Congressman Chip Pickering, who has previously announced his retirement from the House, put out a statement declaring that he doesn't want the appointment. This leaves Congressman Roger Wicker as the likely appointee, though state Treasurer Tate Reeves has also been mentioned as a possibility.

Mike Huckabee has two stirring new ads out in Iowa, obviously a by-product of his recent fundraising success. In the first one, Huckabee takes a barely-veiled jab at Mitt Romney by saying our Founding Fathers believed our rights come from God, not from the size of your checking account — with the implication that if Huck loses, the Founders were wrong to have believed in God and human equality:

In the other one, Huckabee denounces the attacks that have been made against him by the Republican establishment. He then asks viewers to turn away from negative campaigning, and love America instead:

It looks like this particular mess isn't going away, but is only spreading to other candidates. John Edwards has joined the fray regarding Obama adviser David Axelrod's comments regarding the murder of Benazir Bhutto and Hillary Clinton's vote to authorize the Iraq War. In an interview with ABC News, Edwards condemned the remarks, and said that they were irresponsible in this world environment.

"It's ridiculous. It's a ridiculous stretch," said Edwards. "I think in times of international crisis — which this clearly is — what America needs to be doing and serious presidential candidates need to be doing is providing an atmosphere of strength and calm. We need to be a calming influence and not stoking the fire and certainly not be talking about the politics of this."

Hillary herself has now directly faulted the Obama campaign for politicizing the Bhutto assassination in response to the Obama camp's effort yesterday to indirectly link Hillary's support for the war with the tragedy.

Hillary taped an interview today with CNN's Wolf Blitzer in which she made the charge. It hasn't yet been fully aired. But her campaign has sent over a transcript:

Blitzer: I interviewed your rival, Barack Obama, for Democratic presidential nomination last night and he had some implied criticism of you saying some of your past decisions do not necessarily warrant your stepping up and becoming the next president of the United States. Listen to this:

Obama: I think it’s important for the American people to look at the judgments they’ve made in the past. The experienced hands in Washington have not made particularly good judgments when it comes to dealing with these problems. That’s part of the reason we are now in this circumstance.

Blitzer: Now I think he was referring to your vote giving the President authority to go to war against Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and your more recent vote to declare the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. In effect, he says that gave a blank check to the President to go to war against Iran. You want to respond to Senator Obama?

Clinton: First, Wolf, I really regret that anybody would try to politicize this tragedy. I personally knew Benazir Bhutto. She was Prime Minister when I visited Pakistan on behalf of our government. I stayed in touch with her over the years. I don’t think politics should be playing a role in how our country responds, both on the personal level to the tragedy of this assassination.

Blitzer: What about the specific criticism of your foreign policy judgment that we heard from Senator Obama, we heard earlier in the day from his chief strategist, David Axelrod. What about that, that implied criticism that some of your decisions on these national security, foreign policy issues raise questions about whether or not you should be president?

Clinton: I just regret that both of them would be politicizing this tragedy and especially at a time when do we need to figure out a way forward. That’s what I’m focused on.

Video soon.

Late Update: Here's the video:

This has already gotten some attention, but it deserves a lot more.

The Guardian of London is conducting video documentaries up in New Hampshire. And they did a segment on Rudy in which they got a very off-kilter quote about Muslims from a Rudy campaign official in the state. The Guardian identifies him as John Deady, the co-chair of state Veterans for Rudy.

Deady -- and the key here is that he is a Rudy campaign official -- says that Rudy should be our President because he has what it takes to tackle one of our "most difficult problems," which he identifies as the "rise of the Muslims." Deady adds that we need to "chase them back to their caves" or otherwise "get rid of them."

Take a look at our video excerpt of The Guardian's vid:

Here's the quote:

"He's got I believe the knowledge and the judgement to attack one of the most difficult problems in current history and that is the rise of the Muslims, and make no mistake about it, this hasn't happened for a thousand years. These people are very dedicated and they're also very very smart in their own way. We need to keep the feet to the fire and keep pressing these people until we defeat or chase them back to their caves or in other words get rid of them."

Now, it's very clear here that this Rudy campaign official, who hasn't yet returned our call, is talking about the rise of Muslims in general, not about terrorists or Islamofascists or what have you. After all, he says that this problem hasn't happened "for a thousand years."

Also note the reference to chasing them "back to their caves," not to mention the outright call for getting "rid" of them -- them being, again, the Muslims.

Any chance the national press will see this as newsworthy?

The Rudy campaign didn't immediately return a request for comment. You can watch the whole video from The Guardian here.

Now this is funny. John Dickerson at Slate got his hands on an anti-Mitt Romney ad, which was produced in-house by the McCain campaign about six months but ultimately not used. However, TV audiences may soon see it or something very similar, now that Romney has gone negative on McCain.

Here it is:

A fun footnote to the whole thing: The people who produced the spot later abandoned the McCain campaign during its dark period over this past Summer — and they defected over to Team Romney.

Check out these numbers from a Research 2000 poll of likely Iowa caucus goers for Lee Enterprises newspapers that was released today:

Edwards 29%

Obama 29%

Clinton 28%

Richardson 7%

Anybody's race.

On the Republican side, Mike Huckabee leads with 34%, and Mitt Romney is in second with 27%, while Fred Thompson trails in third with 11%. John McCain, who's hoping for a surprise third-place finish, is within striking distance of Thompson with eight percent, though Rudy and Ron Paul also have eight percent apiece.

The news in this poll, though, is clearly on the Democratic side: The race is as close as it could possibly be.

Mitt Romney has a new negative ad against Mike Huckabee in Iowa, on the same day as he has a new ad against John McCain in New Hampshire. The substance of this ad is simple: Mike Huckabee is a big-spending, illegal immigrant-coddling, criminal-pardoning excuse for a candidate — and his foreign policy is "ludicrous" in the eyes of Condoleeza Rice, too.

Romney has been forced into the awkward position of fighting one particular candidate in Iowa while going against a completely different opponent in New Hampshire. With Huckabee currently ahead in one state and McCain catching up in the other, the next week week and a half isn't going to be pretty.

New Hillary ad in Iowa returns to her bread-and-butter -- a contrast with Bush, this time on the mortgage crisis:

(Via Ben Smith.)

Fred Thompson has a new ad set to go up tomorrow in Iowa, boasting that he has offered the most specific and solidly conservative proposals:

It was unclear whether the campaign would actually have the money to air the ad — they've been running an online fundraiser expressly asking for the money needed to run it. As Jonathan Martin quipped, "Team Fred has apparently found enough quarters in the couch to get back on TV in Iowa."

Paul Krugman's criticism of Obama continues to reverberate in the Dem Primary. Here's a new Edwards mailer -- sent our way by a Dem operative -- that is directly in keeping with Edwards' ongoing criticism of Obama. While it doesn't directly name Obama, it quotes Krugman's column criticizing Obama for his conciliatory rhetoric:

Late Update: Ben Smith, who had this a bit earlier, asks a key question: "What ever happened to Hillary Clinton?"

John Edwards has a new ad in New Hampshire, apparently from the same taping session as another ad in Iowa, in which the candidate denounces corporate greed, and declares that he was "born for" the fight:

Another ad in South Carolina promotes Edwards' roots — he was born in the state — while also featuring the candidate's populist condemnation of big corporations:

Mike Huckabee has an explanation for an apparent gaffe yesterday in which he was concerned about the impact of the Bhutto assassination upon "whether or not there’s going to be martial law continued in Pakistan, suspension of the constitution." Martial law was officially ended about two weeks ago.

In fact, Huckabee explained last night, he was not impressed with the Musharraf regime's official lifting of martial law, in light of the continued restrictions on the press and the judiciary. Huckabee said at an event in Des Moines, "it was not that I was unaware it was suspended, two weeks ago, lifted ... The point was, would it be reinstated, would it be placed back in? All of the aspects of martial law have not been completely lifted even now. There's still a heavy hand Musharraf has used."

In Dubuque today, John Edwards will deliver a speech that seems clearly intended to amplify his criticism of Barack Obama's conciliatory rhetoric on change by putting his own emphasis on confrontation into a larger historical context.

The key refrain is: "We fought for change, and we changed history."

According to advance excerpts sent our way, Edwards will refer to FDR's confrontation of moneyed interests during the New Deal, something that New York Times columnist Paul Krugman has been doing in his columns criticizing Obama. Notably, Edwards will also refer to Martin Luther King -- and his own childhood in the south during the Civil Rights struggle -- as he seeks to make his case.

Excerpts of the speech after the jump.

Read more »

John McCain has a new ad meant to help build up momentum in New Hampshire, trumpeting the endorsements of the many newspapers in the state that have endorsed him:

McCain still trails Mitt Romney here, but the movement in the polls has definitely been in McCain's direction over the last few weeks. And since a newspaper endorsement is only effective if people know about it, an ad broadcasting them can't hurt with the voters who are affected by TV spots. Could an ad about the mounting newspaper anti-endorsements against Romney be next?

During an interview yesterday on CNN, Barack Obama stood by top adviser David Axelrod's comments yesterday about the assassination of Benazir Bhutto and Hillary Clinton's vote to authorize the Iraq War, dismissing criticism as "one of those situations where Washington is putting a spin on it," and also adding, "He in no way was suggesting that Hillary Clinton was somehow directly to blame for the situation there."

"His response was simply to say that if we are going to talk politics, then the question has to be: Who has exercised the kind of judgment that would be more likely to lead to better outcomes in the Middle East and better outcomes in Pakistan?" said Obama. "And his argument was simply that Iraq has fanned anti-American sentiment and it took our eye off the ball. That's part of the reason we are now in this circumstance."

Within the Democratic race, Al Gore is perhaps the most coveted endorsement a candidate could get. However, the New York Sun reports that former aides say he's unlikely to actually do it. A main reason is that he would not want to sully his post-politics work in environmental activism by taking risks in the primary.

"In many respects, he has transcended partisan politics," said former staffer Chris Lehane. "I think he'll be extremely sensitive about doing anything that could potentially impact his global brand."

Mitt Romney is taking the threat of John McCain very seriously. The Romney camp has a new attack spot up in New Hampshire, going after McCain's heresies on two key Republican issues — the Bush tax cuts and, of course, illegal immigration:

Romney has been forced into a two-front war, trailing Mike Huckabee in Iowa and holding onto a lead against a resurgent McCain in New Hampshire. But as it turns out, his lines of attack against each are the same, faulting them on taxes and immigration in both states.

A second poll out today, from Republican firm Strategic Vision, shows the Democratic race in Iowa to be a three-way dead heat.

The numbers: Barack Obama 30%, Hillary Clinton 29%, and John Edwards 28%. Statistically speaking, that's not appreciably different from today's L.A. Times/Bloomberg poll. In their previous poll last week, it was Obama 30%, Hillary 27%, and Edwards 27%.

On the Republican side, though, this poll also shows a close race: Mike Huckabee 29%, Mitt Romney 27%, Fred Thompson 15%, and John McCain 14%. Last week: Huckabee 31%, Romney 25%, Thompson 16%, McCain 8%. By contrast, today's LAT/Bloomberg poll gave Huckabee a much wider lead, with 37% against Romney's 23%.

The new Los Angeles Times poll that people have been talking about all day is in, and it finds that Obama has pulled even with Hillary in New Hampshire while Hillary, Obama and Edwards are statistically tied in Iowa.

In New Hampshire, Obama has 32% of Dem primary voters to Hillary's 30%, while Edwards trails with 18% -- a big swing from September, when Obama was losing to Hillary, 35%-16%.

Meanwhile, in Iowa, Hillary is edging Obama, 29%-26%, while Edwards has 25%, a statistical dead heat.

In one potential bright spot for Hillary, the LA Times says that in both states, "Clinton's claim to governing experience" has translated into "wide margins over her rivals" over who is best equipped to "protect national security" and handle health care and the Iraq War. But in both states more Dems see Obama as "the most honest" and most likely to "bring change to Washington."

Meanwhile, on the Republican side, Mike Huckabee is holding a substantial lead in Iowa over Mitt Romney, 37%-23%, with the other GOPers trailing far behind. In New Hampshire, Romney holds a big lead with 34%, while John McCain has cruised into second place with 21%.

Late Update: The poll also finds that Hillary holds a sizable lead over Obama when the poll is narrowed to people who say they are very likely to participate in the Iowa caucuses: She's leading Obama by nine points, 31%-22%.

Looks like the American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees -- which backs Hillary -- is set to hit Obama with another negative mailing, this time in New Hampshire.

According to FEC reports filed this afternoon, AFSCME plunked down nearly $39,000 today for an anti-Obama mailer to go out in the state.

AFSCME mailers hitting Obama on Hillary's behalf have caused a bit of controversy already in the race. A week ago the Edwards campaign criticized AFSCME for an Iowa mailer hitting Obama's health care plan because it included an Edwards quote, which could lead some readers to think that the Edwards campaign, and not the Hillary-backing AFSCME, was behind the mailer.

Anyway, get ready for another one.

Looks like Obama adviser David Axelrod isn't the only key player talking about the effect the Bhutto assassination will have on the Dem primary.

Here's Hillary supporter Evan Bayh, saying that the killing is a reminder that the Republicans will use such occasions to paint Dems as weak, which is why we need to nominate Hillary:

“When there are unfortunate calamities like this, the Republicans [will say], ‘See. See what we told you? We have to have someone who’s strong to defend America at a time of concern.’ Well, Senator Clinton is strong,” he said. “And she’s experienced. And she’s tough enough to defend this country and do it in a way that’s true to our values, the civil liberties we cherish, and that’s one of the reasons why I’m supporting her.”...

“The job of the next president is not to be entertainer in chief. The job of the next president is to move our country forward to make the substantive changes that will matter in our daily lives, and to protect us in an uncertain and dangerous world. And that’s why in a field of very good candidates, I believe Senator Clinton has the right combination of experience and strength to accomplish all of those things.”

Don't forget about John Edwards -- tomorrow in Dubuque, Iowa, he will offer extended remarks about "change." In what sounds like it's intended as a direct rebuttal to Obama's closing argument today, Edwards will say the following, according to an excerpt sent over by his campaign:

“Why on earth would we expect the corporate powers and their lobbyists -- who make billions by selling out the middle-class -- to just give up just because we ask nicely? Nobody who takes their money and defends the broken system is going to bring change. And, unfortunately, nobody who thinks we can just sit down and talk them into compromise is going to bring change either.

"Compromise and conciliation is the academic theory of change. It just doesn’t work in the real world. Fighting for conviction is the historic reality of change.”

Okay, the battling among Dems over how the Bhutto assassination will affect the Dem primary is officially underway. Today after Barack Obama's closing argument speech in Iowa, Obama adviser David Axelrod parried questions from reporters who pressed him on whether the killing could help Hillary.

Here's one key exchange:

REPORTER: But looking ahead, does the assassination put on the front burner foreign policy credentials in the closing days?

AXELROD: Well, it puts on the table foreign policy judgment, and that's a discussion we welcome. Barack Obama had the judgment to oppose the war in Iraq, and he warned at the time it would divert us from Afghanistan and al Qaeda, and now we see the effect of that. Al Qaeda's resurgent, they're a powerful force now in Pakistan, they may have been involved -- we've been here, so I don't know whether the news has been updated, but there's a suspicion they may have been involved in this.

I think his judgment was good. Senator Clinton made a different judgment, so let's have that discussion.

Late Update: Ben Smith offers a bit of analysis of the exchange.

Late Late Update: The Hillary campaign has now responded, accusing Axelrod of "politicizing" the situation. From Hillary spokesperson Phil Singer:

"This is a time to be focused on the tragedy of the situation, its implications for the U.S. and the world, and to be concerned for the people of Pakistan and the country’s stability. No one should be politicizing this situation with baseless allegations."

Still Later Update: In light of today's events, take a look at this mindless episode of Hardball from last night, where the assembled pundits obsessed over Hillary's voice.

Hillary plans to close out the Iowa race with a two-minute televised appearance on January 2, the day before the voting. The taped message will air throughout the state on all the 6 P.M newscasts, her campaign says.

Hillary Clinton is running a new ad for South Carolina, in which the announcer promises that as president, Hillary will stand up for average people on domestic issues like health care, Social Security, and caring for veterans:

The ad recycles a spot they previously ran in Iowa and New Hampshire in early October, with text added to give it context in South Carolina, plus some other slight changes to the voice-over.

(Via Ben Smith)

Here's Hillary spokesperson Phil Singer's response to Obama's closing argument speech today, which contained a bunch of veiled criticisms of the New York Senator:

“Now is not the time for political attacks, it's time to pick a president who can give us a new beginning in a time of war and a troubled economy. There are big stakes in this election -- Iowans are going to pick the candidate best able to make the change we need starting on day one and that candidate is Hillary Clinton.”

Obama is currently delivering his Iowa "closing argument" speech in Des Moines. According to advance excerpts, here's the case against Hillary (and Edwards) on their votes for the Iraq War:

You can’t fall in line behind the conventional thinking on issues as profound as war and offer yourself as the leader who is best prepared to chart a new and better course for America.

The truth is, you can have the right kind of experience and the wrong kind of experience. Mine is rooted in the real lives of real people and it will bring real results if we have the courage to change. I believe deeply in those words. But they are not mine. They were Bill Clinton’s in 1992, when Washington insiders questioned his readiness to lead.

Here's his case against Hillary's "polarizing" nature and his case for his own electability:

There’s no shortage of anger and bluster and bitter partisanship out there. We don’t need more heat. We need more light. I’ve learned in my life that you can stand firm in your principles while still reaching out to those who might not always agree with you. And although the Republican operatives in Washington might not be interested in hearing what we have to say, I think Republican and independent voters outside of Washington are. That’s the once-in-a-generation opportunity we have in this election.

For the first time in a long time, we have the chance to build a new majority of not just Democrats, but Independents and Republicans who’ve lost faith in their Washington leaders but want to believe again – who desperately want something new.

And perhaps most notably, here's Obama's response to Hillary's argument that hope alone won't effect change, and his response to the suggestion that Obama doesn't have the stomach for facing down the GOP:

Some of my opponents appear scornful of the word; they think it speaks of naivete, passivity, and wishful thinking.

But that’s not what hope is. Hope is not blind optimism. It’s not ignoring the enormity of the task before us or the roadblocks that stand in our path. Yes, the lobbyists will fight us. Yes, the Republican attack dogs will go after us in the general election...

But I also know this. I know that hope has been the guiding force behind the most improbable changes this country has ever made...That’s the power of hope – to imagine, and then work for, what had seemed impossible before

Perhaps the best line is this one: "In seven days, what was improbable has the chance to beat what Washington said was inevitable."

Full text of the speech after the jump.

Late Update: The Hillary campaign responds.

Read more »

John Edwards has a pair of new ads for the home stretch in Iowa, laying out his closing argument: That he is the populist candidate who will fight corporate greed and change America — but first, Iowans have to get the ball rolling.

The first ad features Edwards giving his fiery speech to a crowd of supporters:

The other one has Edwards seated and speaking calmly to the camera, but delivering the same substance:

With his new ad in Iowa, Bill Richardson attempts to break through the Hillary-Obama-Edwards press narrative by getting specific on just what he would do about Iraq:

Meanwhile, Joe Biden's new ad pitches him as the candidate with the experience to take on the challenges that the next president will face:

(Via Ben Smith)

In his new column, Robert Novak argues that John McCain, who had been written off months ago, has come to be viewed by some Republicans as the new sleeper favorite for the nomination. Many conservatives still distrust McCain, but it looks like he just might win through the process of elimination:

Mitt Romney's lavishly financed, meticulously organized campaign always has operated with a thin margin of error based on winning Iowa and then the New Hampshire primary five days later. If Romney loses to Huckabee in Iowa, he becomes vulnerable to McCain in New Hampshire. If McCain wins there, he will be favored to sweep through subsequent primaries despite meager finances and organization.

This scenario does not connote a late-blooming affection for McCain among the party faithful. Indeed, he remains suspect to them on global warming, stem cell research, tax policy and immigration controls, not to mention his original sin of campaign finance reform (with authorship of the McCain-Feingold Act). Rather, his nomination would result from him being the last man standing, with all other candidates falling.

Okay, not quite, but almost. Rudy is the first GOP candidate out of the box to respond to Bhutto's assassination:

"The assassination of Benazir Bhutto is a tragic event for Pakistan and for democracy in Pakistan. Her murderers must be brought to justice and Pakistan must continue the path back to democracy and the rule of law. Her death is a reminder that terrorism anywhere — whether in New York, London, Tel-Aviv or Rawalpindi — is an enemy of freedom. We must redouble our efforts to win the Terrorists’ War on Us."

Rudy's whole campaign, of course, is premised on the idea that he's the guy to win the "Terrorists' War on Us."

Rudy, who's basing his entire strategy at this point on a victory in Florida, is going up on the air in the state with this new ad that mentions 9/11 in the first sentence. In an obvious appeal to the state's aging voters, Rudy connects 9/11 to the Greatest Generation, which he describes as "brave" and "persistent" enough to win World War II. Clearly, we're meant to see Rudy as an equally brave and persistent hero in a new World War -- the one against Islamofacism.

"When you try to take something away from us, like freedom," Rudy proclaims, "the Americans are going to be one in resisting it. So the Islamic terrorists would make a terrible mistake if they confuse our democracy for weakness." Sheer desperation.

...is still being written as we speak, according to Obama himself. Obama told reporters at a campaign stop today that he's retooling his closing argument speech to "focus people's attention on how close we are to making change." He's set to deliver the speech in Des Moines tomorrow morning.

Meanwhile, in another potential preview of what he'll say tomorrow, Obama moved to undercut Hillary's touting of the successes of her husband's administration and her role in them:

"We have the chance, maybe for the first time in a generation, to come together and start tackling problems that George [W.] Bush made worse but that were there long before George Bush took office,' Obama said in another swipe at Clinton, who often invokes her husband’s presidency as a model.

Will Dem primary voters be receptive to the argument that George W. Bush is only partly responsible for some of the mess he made -- and that in some cases he merely exacerbated problems that already existed under Bill Clinton and before? We'll soon find out.

That new ARG survey that Drudge has been pushing all day that finds Hillary with a double digit lead over Obama in Iowa -- was it skewed by the fact that it was taken from Thursday through Sunday, which is to say, on the weekend before Christmas?

Mark Blumenthal over at Pollster.com says that we should approach the poll with extreme caution -- and gives us lots more on the historical difficulties of polling during the holidays as an added bonus.

Hillary's going up on the air in Iowa and New Hampshire tomorrow with this new ad. It's hard not to notice that the first words in the script are: "A nation at war," yet another sign that the campaign is making its closing pitch largely about whatever advantages in foreign policy experience she's supposed to have over her rivals. The ad argues that she has the "steady hand" to whether future crises:

On a separate note, check out this new study which appears to find that Bill Clinton's criticism of the press' treatment of his wife has at least some basis in reality.

A foul-up by the Obama campaign in South Carolina might be causing some bad publicity in the home stretch. Two ministers have come forward and said they did not endorse Obama, despite their inclusion on a list of endorsements that the campaign had put out, and two others said they affirmed their support only after the campaign called to double-check, with their names already on the list.

It could be that on a list of over 100 endorsements, a few mistakes were bound to happen through honest human error and miscommunication — indeed, the Associated Press notes that the Hillary campaign had the same problem last month with their own list of clergy endorsements in South Carolina. Still, this is hardly the PR that they want in the final weeks before the South Carolina primary, and the final week before Iowa.

John McCain has a new ad in South Carolina, continuing his "one man" theme that he's been using in recent ads:

The ad presents McCain as just the kind of candidate that many voters like — a brave, patriotic elder statesman. It may well be the right image to have at a time when Rudy Giuliani is tanking, Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee are tearing each other to pieces, and McCain himself is moving up in other states like New Hampshire and maybe even Iowa.

Here's the new pro-Edwards ad being aired being aired by Alliance for a New America, a 527 group run by a former Edwards 2004 campaign manager:

There's a certain irony in a 527 group running an ad that calls for getting special-interest money out of politics — reportedly to the tune of $750,000. And as Ben Smith points out, it's "a positive ad that could easily be confused for an ad for Edwards, though the 527 insists that it's an issue ad."

In a new internal memo to supporters, Edwards deputy campaign manager Jonathan Prince has laid out the campaign's closing argument in Iowa.

The closing slogan is, "America Rising: Fighting for the Middle Class," and according to the memo, Edwards will spend every day from tomorrow through January 3 at small roundtable gatherings with Iowans, as well as holding a series of "America rising" rallies.

According to the memo -- which was first leaked to The Washington Post a little while ago and has now been obtained by TPM Election Central -- the Edwards campaign is banking on the fact that his bio as the son of a mill-worker will prove more inspirational to working and middle class Iowans and will enable his message to resonate among them. "America Rising is compelling because it relates the challenges and triumphs of Edwards’ own life to those the country faces right now," the memo says.

The memo also likens Hillary's closing argument to George W. Bush's 2004 message and says that Obama's attacks on Edwards are motivated by the latter's movement in the polls.

"We know that Senator Clinton will spend the week touting her national security credentials in a move that echoes George Bush’s 2004 campaign. We believe Democrats will not be fooled by efforts to play on their fears," the memo reads, adding: "It’s no accident that Obama’s criticisms of Edwards coincide with Edwards' uptick in recent polls."

Full memo after the jump.

Read more »

With the Iowa caucus just a week and a day from now, the Club For Growth isn't letting up on their anti-Mike Huckabee advertising. In fact, they're increasing their ad buy by $175,000, for a total of $550,000 spent against Huckabee in only three weeks by the anti-tax group.

Here's that ad:

This sort of message — that Mike Huckabee has raised taxes, and thus isn't a real conservative — may well be the GOP establishment's best shot at stopping Huckabee in Iowa.

Here's John Edwards' latest ad in New Hampshire -- hitting on the campaign's theme that he best understands that the next President will have to be prepared for bitter confrontation to realize real reform:

Late Update: The Edwards campaign has just announced that they're ramping up their efforts in New Hampshire, opening five new field office around the state "to accommodate the overwhelming number of volunteers turning out to work for the campaign."

That's the key question in Iowa among Republicans right now. Time magazine goes on the ground in the state and explains the scope of Huckabee's challenge:

He boasts a paid Iowa staff of just 14, up from eight at the start of November. By contrast, Republican Mitt Romney, who comes in second in most polls, has 17 full-time Iowa staffers, and another 60 part-time organizers who have been in place for months. At the end of each Romney event in Iowa, the candidate implores supporters to fill out cards so they can be put in the campaign's data-base.

At the end of Huckabee's events late last week, the candidate told his supporters instead to lure out their friends on caucus night by promising a free dinner. "Pull up to the house, honk the horn," he advised one crowd. "As soon as they get into the back seat, toss them a bologna sandwich and say, 'Eat quick. The caucus starts in 30 minutes.'"

Huckabee is trying to make up for this disadvantage by whipping up enthusiasm among the GOP's religious base. On that score, Time magazine notes, he has been going before small crowds and "comparing abortion to slavery," which is something I hadn't heard from Huck before. Can religious fervor of this sort overcome Romney's formidable organization? That's the question.

The New Hampshire media, right and left alike, are really piling on Mitt Romney. The latest development comes from the state's largest paper, the Union Leader, which has a new editorial out trashing him. While it doesn't rise to quite the same level as the liberal Concord Monitor's anti-endorsement, it nevertheless amounts to some very strong stuff from the conservative paper, which has already endorsed John McCain.

"In this primary, the more Mitt Romney speaks, the less believable he becomes," the paper says. "That is why Granite Staters who have listened attentively are now returning to John McCain. They might not agree with McCain on everything, as we don't, but like us, they judge him to be a man of integrity and conviction, a man who won't sell them out, who won't break his promises, and who won't lie to get elected."

With the final, post-Christmas leg of the Iowa campaign underway this week, we'll be hearing what amounts to a closing argument to Iowa voters from all the candidates. Hillary previewed hers in an interview with the Des Moines Register published this morning:

"I want people to imagine what is going to be waiting on the desk in the Oval Office ... the whole range of pressing issues that are going to bear down on the next president, plus everything we can't predict," Clinton said in the interview. "No one brings the mix of qualifications and experience, the vision and plan, that I do with a proven, tested record of being able to produce results."

To counter this, of course, rivals will be brandishing the big Times piece today questioning whether her time as First Lady amounts to genuine foreign policy experience. Meanwhile, the Hillary campaign has just sent out a "memo" framing the final argument; as expected, the closing slogan is: "Big challenges, real solutions: Time to pick a President."

We'll be bringing you more of the candidates' closing arguments as they unfold. Full Hillary memo after the jump.

Late Update: This won't help with Hillary's closing argument: Today The Washington Post took its editorial cues from Drudge and ran that awful photo of Hillary's wrinkles that Drudge has been pushing.

Read more »

A new write-up in the New York Times isn't likely to help Hillary Clinton's claim of presidential experience from her years as first lady — instead, we are told she did not meet with foreign policy advisers, did not have a security clearance, and did not have any great role in terrorism cases. Adding insult to injury, the Times notes that Hillary did not take part in the 1998 decision to bomb Al Qaeda targets in Afghanistan and Sudan, because she was not speaking to Bill Clinton on account of the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

"An interview with Mrs. Clinton, conversations with 35 Clinton administration officials and a review of books about her White House years suggest that she was more of a sounding board than a policy maker," the paper reports, "who learned through osmosis rather than decision-making, and who grew gradually more comfortable with the use of military power."

Is John McCain the GOP candidate to be watching right now? His upcoming public schedule just landed in our in-box, and it tells us that McCain is planning a big three-day campaign swing through Iowa right after Christmas. This is interesting, because McCain had all but completely written off Iowa before, touting New Hampshire as the first state where he would make a real stand. But here he is returning to Iowa.

Why? If you look at Pollster.com's chart of Iowa polling for the GOP primary, you can see that with Rudy and Fred Thompson currently dropping in the state, McCain stands at least a shot at coming in third, behind Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney. For McCain to come in third in a state he'd almost entirely given up on in advance would be a clear victory for him.

"That would be huge for us, though we really have our work cut out for us," one McCain adviser says, summarizing the (hopeful) thinking in the McCain camp. "Because the perception had been that we and Iowa had written each other off."

Read more »

Hillary's holiday message to the troops, just posted on YouTube, features her talking directly to members of the military stationed around the globe:

Speak...

A new poll from the American Research Group reminds us yet again that Iowa is a big question mark, finding that Hillary is leading in Iowa:

Hillary 34% (last week 29%)

Edwards 20% (last week 18%)

Obama 19% (last week 25%)

Biden 8% (last week 8%)

The poll says that Hillary holds a 17-point lead against Obama among women and that Obama has lost ground among men to both Hillary and Edwards. Of course, the obvious caveat is that Iowa polls have been all over the place, and a number of recent ones have found the top three Dems in a dead heat, with a few finding Obama ahead.

Meanwhile, on the GOP side Mike Huckabee leads with 23%, Romney has 21%, John McCain has 17%, and Rudy has 14%. Thompson, meanwhile, is completely in the toilet, with all of three percent.

Over the weekend we noted that the Concord Monitor, which has not endorsed in the New Hampshire GOP primary, had taken the unusual step of running an anti-endorsement of Mitt Romney, urging Republicans and independents to vote against him.

Now the Romney campaign has sent us the following response from Romney spokesperson Kevin Madden:

"The Monitor's editorial board is regarded as a liberal one on many issues, so it is not surprising that they would criticize Governor Romney for his conservative views and platform.

"Governor Romney has taken firm positions that are at odds with the board's support for drivers licenses for illegal immigrants, their position against school choice and their advocacy for taking "Under God" out of the Pledge of Allegiance. The governor happens to disagree with the editorial board on all those issues, as do most Republicans in New Hampshire."

Of course, the Romney response doesn't at all address the substance of the Monitor's criticism, which is not that he's too much of a social conservative, but that he's flip-flopped on every major issue in order to pretend he's the genuine article. The paper is hitting Romney not so much over his ideology or core principles, but for his lack of them.

This has gotten a bit of attention already, but we wanted to flag it for you. It's Ron Paul in an interview with Tim Russert yesterday asserting that the American Civil War was unnecessary. His take: Other countries ended slavery without a civil war -- why not America? Paul theorizes that the north could have simply bought all the slaves and released them...

In his column today, Paul Krugman hits Barack Obama yet again. He expands his indictment of the Illinois Senator to argue that Obama's attacks on John Edwards over the 527s running ads on Edwards' behalf are of a piece with Obama's distaste for the sort of partisan confrontation that Krugman says will be essential in our next President:

Mr. Obama has lashed out at Mr. Edwards because two 527s — independent groups that are allowed to support candidates, but are legally forbidden from coordinating directly with their campaigns — are running ads on his rival’s behalf. They are, Mr. Obama says, representative of the kind of “special interests” that “have too much influence in Washington.”

The thing, though, is that both of these 527s represent union groups — in the case of the larger group, local branches of the S.E.I.U. who consider Mr. Edwards the strongest candidate on health reform. So Mr. Obama’s attack raises a couple of questions.

First, does it make sense, in the current political and economic environment, for Democrats to lump unions in with corporate groups as examples of the special interests we need to stand up to?

Second, is Mr. Obama saying that if nominated, he’d be willing to run without support from labor 527s, which might be crucial to the Democrats? If not, how does he avoid having his own current words used against him by the Republican nominee?

Part of what happened here, I think, is that Mr. Obama, looking for a stick with which to beat an opponent who has lately acquired some momentum, either carelessly or cynically failed to think about how his rhetoric would affect the eventual ability of the Democratic nominee, whoever he or she is, to campaign effectively. In this sense, his latest gambit resembles his previous echoing of G.O.P. talking points on Social Security.

For those die-hards who are paying attention to politics today, here are a few things you shouldn't miss:

* Chris Bowers considers four theories that are floating around about why John Edwards is really winning in Iowa -- but concludes that Edwards ultimately doesn't have enough to win the state.

* Adam Nagourney gives us an extensive rundown on all the ways that the Rudy campaign is in trouble.

* The Washington Post's Michael Shear does the same for the Romney campaign. (A lot of GOP presidential campaigns seem to be in trouble these days, don't they?)

* Mark Halperin has the script of a new AFSCME ad hitting Obama on health care that stars Krugman, and concludes: "Paul Krugman+female narrator=health care attack."

* Matthew Yglesias catches some great stuff from Ron Paul's interview yesterday with Tim Russert.

* And Taylor Marsh has lots, lots more on the Paul interview, including video.

Late Update: I've edited the above in response to a commenter who correctly noted that I'd somewhat misrepresented Bowers' post.

Barack Obama isn't buying John Edwards' explanation that he can't legally stop a former aide from running a 527 group airing ads on Edwards' behalf — a sign that Obama is not ignoring Edwards as a competitor for the reform mantle.

"This is somebody who worked for John Edwards for the last who knows how many years, who is a good friend and colleague of Edwards who's now running a 527 that is running ads on behalf of John Edwards," Obama told reporters in Des Moines. "If you're telling me that he has no influence over him, that’s just not true."

The new Boston Globe poll finds statistical dead heats in both parties' primaries — and huge movement in favor of Barack Obama and John McCain.

Obama has a two-point lead over Hillary Clinton, with 30% to her 28%, followed by John Edwards at 14%. In early November, it was Hillary 35%, Obama 21%, and Edwards 15%.

On the Republican side, Mitt Romney has 28% to McCain's 25%, with Rudy Giuliani way behind at 14%. In November: Romney 32%, Rudy 21%, and McCain 17%. Mike Huckabee still hasn't really caught on here, registering 10% support, up from 5%.

Looks like the American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees -- which backs Hillary -- may be preparing to go live with a Web site attacking Barack Obama.

According to a report filed with the FEC late yesterday, AFSCME has plunked down nearly $5,500 in spending for "Web site design," and the filing specifies that the expenditure "opposes" Obama.

We're seeing the proliferation of these "attack" Web sites, but who knows what kind of traffic they command or whether they're at all effective beyond getting "free media" by getting stories written about them. At any rate, stay tuned for this anti-Obama one.

Barack Obama gets the Sioux City Journal, and Hillary gets the Quad-City Times.

As Ben Smith notes, the Quad city Times is an interesting get for Hillary because it partly covers Obama's home turf of Illinois.

Meanwhile, Obama gets an absolutely glowing write-up from Washington Post columnist David Broder -- a column that stands in very stark contrast to the treatment Hillary -- or Billary, rather -- got on the Op ed page of The New York Times today.

During a campaign stop in New Hampshire, Hillary Clinton countered Barack Obama's critiques of her votes on the Iraq War by saying that not only had Obama voted like her in the Senate — but that he's agreed with President Bush.

"He wasn't in the Congress at the time," she said, "and when he was running for the Senate, he said that he basically agreed with George Bush's policy and conduct of the war. When he came to the Senate he voted to support it. So I think that once you're in a position of responsibility and you actually have to be counted by what you do or what you look for, his record is the same as many of us."

The Obama campaign was quick to respond in a statement: "If Senator Clinton wants to make this election about who's made the best decisions on foreign policy, that's a comparison we're happy to make since Barack Obama is the only major candidate who opposed the war in Iraq and refused to give George Bush the benefit of the doubt on Iran."