The USA Today/Gallup poll is the latest national survey to show Clinton increasing her lead in the national primary, edging incredibly close to 50%. Also of note, Giuliani's poll lead in the GOP race is smaller but also solid. More: Clinton's got a net-negative favorable rating (which isn't new for Gallup), but also check out Obama's UNFAV rating rise. His FAV/UNFAV ratio is now worse than Giuliani's, something that puts a dent in the argument Obama supporters make that he'll make a more likeable general election candidate. That said, his FAV rating is ever so slightly higher than Edwards.

The Washington Post looks at the art of bundling. "The bundlers are under their own kind of pressure to produce for their candidates. And they pass it on -- corporate executives hitting up employees, real estate developers seeking checks from vendors and law partners prevailing upon less-senior lawyers. One sign of where this pressure -- direct and indirect -- is applied is the rising number of contributions from secretaries, administrative assistants and executive assistants for whom a $1,000 political contribution is a major expense. At this point in the campaign four years ago, 127 donors making contributions listed one of those three occupations. In the first six months of this year the number was 526, and the average check was for nearly $800."

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg was called for jury duty yesterday. The AP writes: "he stood out from the other 125 New Yorkers: He appeared to be the only prospective juror wearing a suit, trailed by security and press aides, and approached by strangers for handshakes. Then, an orientation video boomed out over the jury room: "You don't often get to participate in the government, and this is a way to do it," and heads swiveled toward the billionaire seated in the front row." Ultimately, he was not selected.

Bush today has a lunch at Camp David with Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Secretary of State Condi Rice, and his Defense and foreign policy teams.

The New York Times: "Until last weekend, President Bush had repeatedly fallen short in seven months of battles with a Democratic-led Congress that would not give him what he wanted on immigration or education, health care or energy policy. But the Congressional vote that authorized eavesdropping without warrants on international communications, including those involving Americans within the United States, has shown that there is at least one arena in which Mr. Bush can still hold the line: terrorism. (See, 'Democrats, Republican accusations of being weak on ...')" 

The Los Angeles Times has a piece suggesting that Democrats are happy Bush won't dump Attorney General Gonzales. Instead, Democrats see this as a way to keep Bush as a main issue in '08. Interesting thought: Could this mean some Republicans running in '08 (including the eventual nominee) will pressure Bush to fire Gonzales?

From NBC's Mark Murray
Less than an hour after the Clinton campaign issued its memo, the Obama camp released its own, which argued that the national polls don't matter. From campaign manager David Plouffe: "[A]s the Washington insiders focus on irrelevant and wildly inconsistent national polls, there are strong signs in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina of the growing power and potential of [Obama's] candidacy."

More: "This is a sequential process that begins in Iowa and carries through the calendar. If national polls were affecting our ability to grow the campaign, perhaps we would pay them some attention. But they have not, so we don't."

There's also this zinger: "The month of July has fleshed out the true dynamic of this race – change versus more of the same. We saw this in the dispute with Senator Clinton over diplomacy with Barack arguing for turning the page on the policies of Bush-Cheney and in the YearlyKos Debate when Barack disagreed with Senator Clinton about the role of Washington lobbyists in blocking real progress. Barack believes we need a fundamental transformation of our politics, which is why as President he will rein in the power and influence of lobbyists. He doesn't agree that they represent 'real people.'"

*** UPDATE *** By popular demand, here is the entire memo. Be warned -- it is LONG...

TO:  Friends and Supporters
FROM: David Plouffe
DATE: August 6, 2007

RE: Campaign Update

Much has happened in the month since our last report to you on the status of Barack Obama's Presidential Campaign – and in that month, we continued to strengthen the campaign and Barack continues to demonstrate he is the only candidate with the strength, character and ideas to fundamentally change our broken politics and make the progress at home and abroad that America so desperately needs.

Our plan has always called for a focus on the early caucus and primary states, where this race will be shaped.

And now, as the Washington insiders focus on irrelevant and wildly inconsistent national polls, there are strong signs in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina of the growing power and potential of this candidacy.

I will not address fundraising in detail in this memo, because there has been such voluminous coverage about the success you have all helped us achieve in this area.

Just a couple points to underscore, though. Our 258,000 + donors not only provide us the most muscular fundraising base in the field, it also is the bedrock of an unprecedented grassroots movement that will show its' strength in additional ways on the ground in January and February. And it a manifestation of the enthusiasm gap that Barack Obama enjoys in this race

Our financial success has also fundamentally altered the strategic calculus of the race. No longer can the quasi-incumbent candidate survive a stumble or two early and rely on an institutional financial and organizational advantage to recover. Obama has the financial and organizational assets to go toe to toe for the long haul with the largest political machine in the history of the modern Democratic Party – something that no pundit could have predicted six months ago.

We will have the strongest organization and deepest financial base in the Democratic field.  If we have more momentum than other leading candidates heading into February 5th, it will  allow us to marry the success in the early states with our organizational superiority, a potent combination in what will be a quasi-national primary by that point.

Remember, each contest affects the next. Our strategy has always been to focus like a laser on the early states to create the momentum crucial to later contests. What has changed is our ability to also compete in February 5th states more vigorously than any other candidate, allowing us to win the nomination under various nomination scenarios.

The month of July has fleshed out the true dynamic of this race – change versus more of the same. We saw this in the dispute with Senator Clinton over diplomacy with Barack arguing for turning the page on the policies of Bush-Cheney and in the YearlyKos Debate when Barack disagreed with Senator Clinton about the role of Washington lobbyists in blocking real progress. Barack believes we need a fundamental transformation of our politics, which is why as President he will rein in the power and influence of lobbyists. He doesn't agree that they represent "real people."

It becomes clearer every day that the American people desperately want to turn the page. An ABC/Washington Postpoll out last Friday shows Barack tied  for the lead in Iowa and also found that 49 percent of Iowa Caucus goers were looking change and a new direction compared to 39 percent who wanted strength and experience.

Barack is the candidate best position to bring about that fundamental change. As Barack often says – it is not enough to change parties in Washington, we need to change politics in Washington.

I.      Debates

Barack was scored the decisive winner at the NAACP debate in Detroit on July 15th, and also added the support of dozens of African-American leaders from around the country.

Jonathan Cohn, The New Republic :'Barack Obama Shines at the NAACP Convention'—"Unless you are Abraham Lincoln and you're dedicating a Civil War memorial, it is virtually impossible to say something meaningful in three minutes. You can get through five or maybe six hundred words, which is the equivalent of two or three paragraphs, at best. And if you're appearing at a public event, you'll have to spend some of your time profusely thanking your hosts and flattering the audience. That leaves even less time to make an impression.  And yet an impression is exactly what Barack Obama managed to make on Thursday, during his opening remarks at an NAACP candidates forum here." LINK

MSNBC: Obama stood out today at the NAACP forum -- for the first time outshining Clinton at a debate/forum. He took a much tougher, more direct tone than he did at the Howard University debate last month. He was greeted by thunderous applause and shouts -- much more so than any other candidate. And he received the loudest cheers for his well crafted opening speech, in which he weaved the theme "We still have more work to do" throughout.Clinton and Edwards were fine and delivered adequate answers, but they just could not match Obama's luster today. LINK

The voters also declared Barack a decisive winner at the CNN-YouTube debate last week, with focus groups of undecided voters in New Hampshire and South Carolina raving about his performance and the type of President he would be.

CNN's Mary Snow on New Hampshire Focus Groups: "We're here with 24 democrats, independents, who thought that Senator Hillary Clinton would be the best performer here tonight, but the results that we just got in, this is a focus group, show that Barack Obama got the most favorable in terms of the best performance from the 24 people who are here tonight." "Senator Barack Obama was showing some favorable responses to his answers. Some of the things that he got favorable responses were when he talked about fighting lobbyists, particularly on health care."

Frank Luntz on South Carolina Focus Group Results: "He is off the charts.  I mean, this is as high as it can go. He's explicit.  He has drawn the contrast.  He has hit a home run. What I would like to do is I want to play for you the sound of what theyhad to say about Barack Obama so you can really understand it's not that he is a good politician and not his experience.  It's as much his presentation and more importantly it's that he seems to represent people rather than politics.If you guys back there can roll the sound, this is why Obama will be shown as the winner of tonight's debate." (FOX News)

The pundit reviews have been more all over the map, leading Washington Post reporter Chris Cilizza to make the following comment on MSNBC July 24th, "I worry because I watched the debate and I thought Senator Obama did well, I thought he did better than he had in previous debates, but I still thought senators Clinton and Edwards did better, and then as Chuck pointed out, we do have all these focus groups that said Obama did better.  There appears to be some sort of chasm between the public perception and what, folks, like myself, you know, in Washington think.  It worries me because I'm always worried as a journalist about missing the boat, you know, missing that Howard Dean rise or whatever it is, so I'm going to try and pay real close attention over the next couple days about what that's about.  You heard Barack Obama talk incisively last night that we need to putting the national interest above special interest. He talked about lobbyists; he talked about he being the only candidate that wasn't accepting lobbyist or PAC money. That really resonates with people…And I think Obama probably scored points on that as the, sort of, outsider candidate." [Link, starts 50 sec. into video]

We, of course, agree. There is something happening out in the country, but it's hard to see from the Beltway.

There will be no shortage of debates in the coming months, allowing Barack ample opportunity to continue to demonstrate to the country the leadership and vision he will provide as President.

II.      Issues

Over a three day period in Iowa earlier in the week, Barack made the forceful case for changing our broken Washington politics by reducing the influence of Washington lobbyists and putting the priorities of workers and families front and center again.

Barack highlighted the nefarious role the energy, health, drug and agribusiness industries have had on policies that have harmed our country and what as President he will do to stop it. In addition to not accepting contributions from Washington lobbyists and Political Action Committees in his campaign, Barack has offered the most sweeping government reform plan in the field, including banning anyone who leaves the employ of an Obama administration from lobbying the executive branch for the duration of his term. An outline of the plan is available here: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/corruption.

Early last week, Barack laid out a bold and comprehensive counter terrorism strategy that is winning rave reviews from experts for its scope, toughness and smarts. Barack, in an important difference with one of our opponents, feels that we are less safe than we were because of the ill-advised war in Iraq coupled with a lack of focus on hunting down those who have caused us harm and continue to plan to cause more harm to America.

The Obama plan to combat terrorism would change focus and put our sights squarely on Afghanistan and Pakistan, where the terrorists lurk and are gathering strength.

Highlights of the press coverage of the terrorism speech can be viewed here:

Associated Press: "Obama Vows to Hunt Down Terrorists": The Illinois senator warned Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf that he must do more to shut down terrorist operations in his country and evict foreign fighters under an Obama presidency, or Pakistan will risk a U.S. troop invasion and losing hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid. "Let me make this clear," Obama said in a speech at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. "There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al-Qaida leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will." LINK

Washington Post: "Obama Pledges Aggressive War on Islamic Extremists": Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama today pledged an aggressive war against Islamic extremists, calling for the deployment of at least 7,000 additional troops to Afghanistan to combat the growing Taliban influence and promising to order U.S. forces into Pakistan if necessary to seek out and kill known terrorists. "When I am president, we will wage a war that has to be won," Obama told an audience at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington. He added, "I will not hesitate to use military force to take out terrorists who pose a direct threat to the United States." LINK

New York Times: "Obama Warns Pakistan on Terrorism": Senator Barack Obama said today that the United States should shift its focus from the war in Iraq to a fight against terrorism in Afghanistan and Pakistan. He said that if the Pakistani government fails to eradicate terror operations inside its borders, the United States should withhold aid and should strike Al Qaeda targets there itself. "It's time to turn the page on the diplomacy of tough talk and no action," Mr. Obama said. "It's time to turn the page on Washington's conventional wisdom — that agreement must be reached before you meet, that talking to other countries is some kind of reward, and that presidents can only meet with people who will tell them what they want to hear." LINK

Barack continues to offer bold ideas and challenge conventional orthodoxy on issues like education, energy and parental responsibility.

Clips summarizing some of these stands can be viewed here:

USA Today's DeWayne Wickham: 'Obama is the Democrats' common sense 'liberal''—"When Barack Obama announced his strategy for combating some of the most intractable problems afflicting urban blacks, he invoked the name of Robert F. Kennedy, the New York senator who was assassinated during his 1968 campaign for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination. Kennedy, he said, looked at the poverty that wracked the Mississippi Delta and asked reporters, "How can a country like this allow it?" But as Obama, the Illinois senator who hopes to become the Democratic Party's standard bearer in the 2008 presidential election, reeled off what he believes needs to be done to better the lives of urban blacks, I thought of another Kennedy [John F. Kennedy]." LINK

Huffington Post's Tom Edsall: Barack Obama's August 1 speech outlining an aggressive anti-terrorist policy is part of the Illinois Senator's larger campaign strategy, demonstrating his willingness to break from liberal orthodoxy -- defying teachers' unions, proponents of racially based affirmative action, and Democratic constituencies wary of the use of force. Obama is similarly seeking to establish his political independence from Democratic party interest groups, refuting stereotypes which might encumber his candidacy.Obama has had unprecedented success in the campaign so far. Despite Hillary Clinton's institutional and organizational advantage, Obama has moved from running 20-plus points behind Clinton at the start of the year to a current deficit of only 12 to 13 points, compared to John Edwards' 18 points lag behind Clinton today. If nothing else, Obama's speech Wednesday has shaped the entire Democratic presidential debate for at least one news cycle, prompting every major candidate, and some minor ones, to comment on it. Whether Obama succeeded in changing his polling numbers remains to be seen.

Change won't come easily and certainly won't come from those unwilling to challenge conventional wisdom. Barack continues to walk the walk and demonstrate he is resolute about turning the page and bringing about real change.

III.      Organization

We have made heavy investments in our early state organizations, internet program, low dollar fundraising base and a national field operation that will be deployed heavily in February 5 states. Your financial generosity has allowed us to build the best and deepest grassroots organization in history at this stage of a Presidential election, which will have a deep and powerful impact once voting and caucusing commences next January.

While this type of organization building is expensive, we are watching how we spend your donations, and are very pleased we have by far the lowest burn rate in the field.

'08 Candidates/Burn Rates: Atlantic (Marc Ambinder's Blog) "Obama's Cool Burn Rate": The most interesting figure available to us today, as we pour over the 2nd quarter financial disbursements, is the average burn rate, which is calculated by adding the money spent plus debt, and dividing that by the amount of money raised for the primary elections. In Obama's case, that's $16M spent + 0.92M debt divided by $32M raised -- or 53%. Clinton burned through 73 cents out of every primary dollar she raised. That's a lot, but it's still an impressive figure. John Edwards spent 74 cents out of every dollar raised; Bill Richardson spent about 71 cents for every dollar raised. Joe Biden spent a whopping 104% of his receipts, and Chris Dodd spent nearly 133% of his primary money raised. LINK

A few numbers and facts that will illuminate the strides we are making:

We have made hundreds of thousands of personal voter contacts in Iowa and New Hampshire. And people are responding exceedingly well.

On July 4 in Iowa, the Obama campaign covered 67 parades and community events, signing up supporters and volunteers. In all but a few of these, we were the only campaign represented.
We are the only campaign with a consistent voter contact program in South Carolina.
Our volunteer operation in Nevada swamps the rest of the field.
This past weekend we held a terrific and well attended regional Camp Obama training in southern California, the first of many we will do in non-early states across the country to turn our enthusiasm into organization. We have held preliminary organizational meetings in NY, NJ, FL, MI OK, MO, MN, CA, AZ, CO and GA.

We will continue to grow and build everywhere that matters. Having enthusiasm allows us to do so. The enthusiasm gap remains alive and well in the Democratic contest.

We have also received some important endorsements in the last months. Over 400 Hispanic community and political leaders endorsed Barack's candidacy after he appeared at the national la Raza convention. This is in addition to the dozens of local Latino elected officials who endorsed Barack after his appearance at the National Association of Latino Elected Officials. Both of these conferences occurred in Florida.

Earlier I mentioned the support we received from the African-American community as a result of Barack's performance at the NAACP conference. The campaign has also received the support of state Urban League leaders from across the country after Barack spoke at the National Urban League conference in St. Louis last week. Our African-American support continues to strengthen and solidify nationally.

We also have had an active month, securing the support of key members of Congress as well as local elected leaders in the early states.

One particularly significant endorsement comes from Congressman Paul Hodes of New Hampshire. Not only is Congressman Hodes one of only two members of Congress from New Hampshire, giving his support extra weight, but his rationale for endorsing Barack captured why so many people are hopeful, and believe that Barack can lead American in a fundamentally different direction.

Concord Monitor 'Hodes backs Obama in White House bid' –"It was a well-coordinated announcement, with both politicians flying in from Washington, D.C., yesterday morning to greet several hundred supporters jammed into Eagle Square. Hodes told the crowd that Obama was the candidate most able to bring fresh ideas to the White House. "What he's shown is an ability to bring people together around the idea of change and a new direction," Hodes said. The two men described each other as newcomers to Washington - Obama was elected to the Senate in 2004 - and said they shared a commitment to reform. Obama said voters who elected Democrats such as Hodes last year were voicing their frustration with "conventional thinking that stops us from moving forward."  LINK]

IV.      Polling

The national press continues to be obsessed about national primary polling, but as we outlined in the last memo, we fundamentally reject the importance of these national primary polls.  This is a sequential process that begins in Iowa and carries through the calendar. If national polls were affecting our ability to grow the campaign, perhaps we would pay them some attention. But they have not, so we don't.

Even early state polls at this point are poor predictors. So even when there are positive polls for us – like one out late last week that shows us with a slight lead in Iowa, and tied in the New Hampshire primary and another that had us ahead again in the South Carolina primary - we do not get overheated.

This race is covered often times as if the election is occurring tomorrow. It is, of course not. In fact we have many months, and this campaign several lifetimes, until voters begin to have their say. We are confident about where we are today; confident in the pacing and progress we are making and confident in our ability to ultimately win the nomination and the general election.

One last point on polls. There is beginning to be a clear pattern that in general election horse race tests, Barack, would be the strongest general election candidate against the likely Republican nominees. The Battleground Poll, a bi-partisan polling effort, found the following results last week that underscore Barack's appeal to independents and moderate Republicans.

Talking Points Memo: "Poll: Obama Stronger Nominee Than Hillary": The new Battleground poll — a joint project of George Washington University, Democratic polling firm Lake Research, and GOP polling firm the Tarrance Group — would indicate that Barack Obama is a much stronger general election candidate than Hillary Clinton. While a generic Democrat has an 11-point lead over a generic Republican, Hillary loses to Rudy Giuliani and only leads Fred Thompson by two points. Obama, meanwhile, beats Rudy by a nine-point margin, and Fred Thompson by an even wider edge: STORY  - POLL DATA

Thanks for all you are doing to help elect Barack Obama the next President of the United States. We will continue to share updates with you on where we see the race and look forward to your comments.

From NBC's Joel Seidman
In an excerpt of an interview posted online today with the National Review, former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson says his wife Jeri looks out for him and "voices that concern...just exactly the way I would want her to." He also points out that some of the reports about his wife have been factually wrong.

But Thompson concedes that his wife played a key role in getting things going for the candidate in waiting. "We started literally from the kitchen table a few months ago," he said.
 
Thompson told NR's Byron York, "She always looks out for my best interests, and when she sees something that she knows I would not approve of, or is not in my best interest, she voices that concern -- in other words, just exactly the way I would want her to. Now, some people don't like that, especially some people who have their own issue with regard to the campaign, shall we say, and they take advantage of putting out anonymous comments and so forth."

On reports suggesting that his wife has played a big role -- perhaps too big a role -- in the "testing the waters" phase of his effort to plunge into the presidential race, Thompson says of his wife, "She has taken a lot of comments that should have been directed toward me"

"I think the problem is that Jeri refuses to go out in public and behave like a candidate's wife before I'm a candidate," Thompson said. "The fact that she's not out there promoting herself seems to greatly concern some people in the media, so they have gone back to old boyfriends, the families of old boyfriends, high-school classmates, basically anything that can be dredged up to fill this void that they perceive has been created."

Thompson adds that he asked his wife do to things for him because his plate was filled with prior contractual engagements.

"While I did the things that I felt like I needed to do -- I had a contract with NBC television, I had a contract with ABC radio, I was chairman of the advisory board on international security for the State Department, and a lot of other things -- while I was disengaging from that and getting my thoughts together on issues and things of that nature, public comments I knew I would be called on to make, I asked her to do certain things for me. She did what I asked her to do."

Some of the reports, Thompson said, have contained substantial factual errors.

"Things that you would think could have been checked fairly readily," he said, "but things that are clearly erroneous -- like she's not a lawyer and she's never been married before. I listened to a news show with an expert commentator about a week ago talking about Jeri, and in a short segment he had four totally erroneous factual errors about her."

Thompson did not suggest that stories about his wife should be off limits. He understands the ways of politics. But he believes that now is not the right time for Jeri Thompson or the Thompson pre-campaign to address them in detail.

"She's not going to become a public commentator and personality as a candidate's wife," he said, "until there's a candidate."

From NBC's Mark Murray
On the eve of tomorrow's Democratic AFL-CIO forum (moderated by MSNBC's Keith Olbermann), the Clinton campaign has released another memo touting her standing in the recent national polls. "The polls went up for Hillary and the open attacks on her have begun," chief strategist Mark Penn writes. "Related? In politics it usually is."

"This ... is the result of the first six months of campaigning and the voters taking a good hard look at all the candidates and concluding that Hillary has what it takes to be President and what it takes to take on the Republicans. They know that Hillary Clinton has the experience and strength to bring about real change. She is the candidate of experience and change, a combination no other candidate can match. As a result we will likely see more attacks from her Democratic opponents, despite their claims to be practicing a new kind of politics or eschewing intra-party attacks."

Below is the entire memo...

To:    Interested Parties
From:  Mark Penn, Chief Strategist
Date:  August 6, 2007
Re:    Strength and Experience

The polls went up for Hillary and the open attacks on her have begun.  Related?  In politics it usually is.

The latest round of national polls last week - from Newsweek and NBC/Wall Street Journal - have shown Hillary making significant gains on two fronts - consolidating her lead among the Democratic primary electorate nationwide and advancing in the general election against likely Republican nominees.

This two-pronged movement is the result of the first six months of campaigning and the voters taking a good hard look at all the candidates and concluding that Hillary has what it takes to be President and what it takes to take on the Republicans.  They know that Hillary Clinton has the experience and strength to bring about real change. 

She is the candidate of experience and change, a combination no other candidate can match.

As a result we will likely see more attacks from her Democratic opponents, despite their claims to be practicing a new kind of politics or eschewing intra-party attacks.

Hillary Clinton's lead in the NBC/Wall Street Journal Poll - which had been as close as 5 points in the national primary vote a few months ago - has opened up to 21 points (July 27-30).  Hillary also leads Rudy Giuliani by 6 points, more than any other Democrat tested.  This is a reversal from March when she trailed Giuliani by 5 points.

And in the latest Newsweek poll (August 1-2), Hillary's lead in the Democratic primary is up from 16 points in June to 23 points now.

In the latest Diageo Hotline poll (July 19-22), Hillary's national favorability went up from 48 percent to 57 percent, and is now higher than any other candidate, Democrat or Republican.

Similar national polls by Pew and Fox substantiated the same trend: an increased lead in the Democratic primary and advancement against the Republicans.

And there are two bits of conventional wisdom that are challenged by these polls.  One is that Hillary can't win.  She said on day one she was in to win and she is already winning in the match-ups against likely Republican candidates.  Voters understand that this is going to be a tough, hard-fought election and they are looking for someone who can really take on the Republicans.  They know she knows how to win and that is reflected in poll after poll that says Hillary is the candidate most likely to win in November. 

We saw that in the recent NH poll (CNN/WMUR July 9-17: 47 percent say HRC has the best chance of beating the GOP candidate in November 2008, 30 points ahead of her next closest competitor), in the Iowa poll (ABC/Washington Post July 26-31: 35 percent say HRC has the best chance of getting elected president in November 2008, 12 points ahead of her next closest competitor) and in national polls (ABC/Washington Post July 18-21: 43 percent say HRC has the best chance of beating the GOP candidate in November 2008, 16 points ahead of her next closest competitor).

Another bit of conventional wisdom is the argument the voters don't want another Clinton. In the latest NBC/Wall Street Journal Poll, 71 percent of voters are either positive or neutral about the fact that Hillary Clinton's husband is Bill Clinton, compared with only 28 percent who are negative.

Voters have simply come to see this race differently as the serious issues of the day have been raised.  When it comes to negotiating with our enemies and knowing how to create new alliances with our friends, Hillary has been steady and sure-footed, building confidence that she can be a great president during complex and troubled times.

And most importantly as people look at her position on the Iraq War, they realize that this election is not about the past, but the future and who can be the president who can end this war responsibly and yet continue to defend America's security.  She is expanding her vote among anti-war voters, women, Democrats, the middle class and voters who believe that she has the strength and experience to make change happen.

From NBC's Carrie Dann
A day after the clamorous exchange over abortion between Romney and Brownback at the GOP debate, and a few days after Romney's testy interview with Iowa conservative radio host Jan Mickelson on the same subject, our ears perked up when we heard that Brownback would be a guest on Mickelson's show today. But the fireworks subsided a little, as Brownback sounded just one shot against the former Massachusetts governor before using the rest of his airtime to talk up his conservative credentials in advance of Saturday's Ames straw poll.
 
Brownback stood by his accusation at the debate that Romney has flip-flopped on abortion, pointing to an ABC News fact-check on the automated anti-Romney calls that his campaign is making in Iowa. Targeting Romney's nuanced position on embryonic stem cell research, Brownback insisted, "that's a pro-choice position. It views life as a tool to use and not as sacred." (Romney opposes the expansion of stem cell research, but does not object to the use of excess embryos from fertility clinics that would otherwise be discarded.)
 
But the gloves didn't stay off long for Brownback, who barely mentioned the scuffle again as he went on to plug his key conservative policies and talk up his campaign's organization in the state.

*** UPDATE *** The Romney campaign emailed us to clarify that he opposes the expanded FEDERAL funding of embyronic stem cell research, but that he would not ban the current privately funded research that involves the use of IVF embryos that are being discarded by fertility clinics.

From NBC's Andrew Merten
In a speech on trade from Iowa this afternoon, Edwards continued his criticism of elected officials who accept lobbyist money -- two days after he incited an exchange between Clinton and Obama on this very subject at the YearlyKos convention. And Edwards repeated his weekend appeal to end the influence of lobbyist money, saying, "Today, I'm calling on all federal office holders and candidates from all political parties to join me in putting an end to this money game in Washington by simply refusing to accept any form of campaign donations from federal lobbyists."
 
In the trade speech, Edwards also implicitly criticized the Clintons -- both the candidate and the former president –- by decrying trade agreements that were passed in the Clinton Administration. Making an appeal for change, he said, "The last thing we need is to trade one group of insiders for another group of insiders." He continued, "For too long, presidents from both parties have entered into trade agreements, like NAFTA, promising that they would create millions of new jobs and enrich communities. Instead, too many of these agreements have cost jobs and devastated towns and communities across this country." But while Edwards leveled some heavy criticism toward NAFTA, he stopped short of calling for a full repeal of the trade agreement.
 
But Edwards was eager to offer some remedies for what he sees as mounting pressure on the middle class as a result of job migration from "unfair" trade agreements. He called for three guiding principles when entering into future trade agreements: 1) ensuring they benefit American workers by protecting against environmental degradation and currency manipulation; 2) providing for the safety of workers overseas by guarding against "miserable wages"; and 3) increasing attention toward domestic labor issues such as education and health-care policy. He also promised that an Edwards Administration would make "top prosecutors" at the Department of Justice responsible for enforcing all rules of current and future trade agreements -- something he decried the Bush Administration for failing to do.
 
While Edwards was quick to point out that he does not accept money from federal lobbyists, he also shared some of the credit with an opponent during an interview after his speech, saying, "I think in fairness, Senator Obama also is not, in this presidential campaign, taking money from lobbyists."

From NBC's Mark Murray
Is Giuliani's daughter, Caroline, supporting Obama? From Slate: "According to the 17-year-old Caroline Giuliani's Facebook profile, she's supporting Barack Obama. On her profile, she designates her political views as 'liberal' and—until this morning—proclaimed her membership in the Facebook group 'Barack Obama (One Million Strong for Barack).' According to her profile, she withdrew from the Obama group at 6 a.m. Monday, after Slate sent her an inquiry about it."

More from the story: "It's not news that Rudy and his two children, Caroline and her 21-year-old brother Andrew, have a rocky relationship. Caroline and Andrew are the children of Donna Hanover, Rudy's second wife."

From NBC's Domenico Montanaro
French President Nicholas Sarkozy chose to vacation at a New Hampshire lake --also frequented by Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney. But if Sarkozy was hoping for J.D. Salinger-like anonymity, he didn't get it.

In fact, he lost his temper with two AP photographers on a nearby boat, as the Boston Globe reported on its front page: "The French president jumped onto their boat and scolded them loudly in French, briefly grabbing one of their cameras. After Cole and DeWitt promised to stop shooting photos for the day, Sarkozy calmed down, reboarded his boat, and continued out onto the lake with his party."

The Manchester Union-Leader led with the story, which had the headline, "Cameras send Sarkozy in rage." The paper also ran a photo, showing a bare-chested, angrily pointing Sarkozy from the helm of a powerboat.

Sarkozy, who is proud to be called "Sarkozy, the American" by some in France "has been spending his days jet-skiing and canoeing," according to the Globe, "and in the morning tries to jog for at least an hour to the beat of French artists on his iPod, which he said also includes songs by Elvis Presley and Céline Dion."

From NBC's Mark Murray

Mitt Romney delivered perhaps the biggest line of Sunday's GOP debate when he singled out Barack Obama's recent statements on foreign policy. "I mean, in one week he went from saying he's going to sit down you know, for tea, with our enemies, but then he's going to bomb our allies," Romney said. "He's gone from Jane Fonda to Dr. Strangelove in one week."

The problem is, though, that Obama really didn't say that. At the CNN/YouTube debate last month, in a question on whether he was willing to meet with the leaders of Syria, Cuba, Venezuela, etc. without precondition, Obama said, "I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them -- which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this [Bush] administration -- is ridiculous." A couple of days later, Obama added, "The general principle that I was laying out is that we should not be afraid as America to meet with anybody… The notion that I was somehow going to be inviting them over for tea next week without having initial envoys meet is ridiculous."

And in a speech last Wednesday, Obama didn't say he'd bomb our ally (Pakistan). He said this: "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."

A good follow-up question to Romney at the debate would have been: So you wouldn't pursue Al Qaeda in Pakistan if the government there isn't cooperating?

*** Update *** When I wrote the hypothetical follow-up question above, I meant it as an immediate follow-up when Romney first delivered his line. However, Romney did answer a similar question later on in the debate. Here was his response: "It's wrong for a person running for the president of the United States to get on TV and say, 'We're going to go into your country unilaterally.' Of course, America always maintains our option to do whatever we think is in the best interests of America."

From Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, Domenico Montanaro, and Carly Zakin
*** It Was A Busy Weekend:

Isn't August supposed to be the slow time of year in politics? Apparently not. Yesterday featured the presidential campaign's eighth debate (fourth one for the Republicans), and Saturday was yet another forum for the Democrats. First, to the GOP debate… Nobody scored a knockout blow, but Romney garnered the most attention, which is both a good thing and bad thing. A gaffe to keep an eye on: Romney's "mistake" admission -- about apparently being pro-life, but spouting pro-choice rhetoric in 1994 -- is something that we bet will pop up quite a bit in Iowa direct mail. Actually, look for phone calls this week on that very topic. And check out some of our coverage of YearlyKos and analysis of the GOP debate. 

*** Romney's Big Week: Is it no wonder that Romney's getting a bit testy, both on stage at debates and with radio talk show hosts? This is a big week for him -- one when he'll find himself defending his abortion position switch, something being avoided by his first-tier rivals who are all skipping the Ames Straw poll. But if Romney gets through the week relatively unscathed and wins the straw poll by a VERY large margin, then he may be able to put his abortion evolution issues behind him.

*** Dark Horse Alert:

Speaking of that straw poll, keep an eye on two candidates this week -- Tom Tancredo and Ron Paul. Tancredo is getting much better at being the firebrand (still pales in comparison to Buchanan, but he's getting there). And if he cracks the Top Three, that's one less place for Brownback, Huckabee, and Tommy Thompson. Two of these three folks will be out by next week, right? As for Paul, if he can mobilize just a small portion of his internet supporters to Ames, then he will be a surprise top-five finisher.

*** The Bigger Liability? So far, has any campaign caught more breaks than the Giuliani campaign? The biggest break to date may be the growing prominence of Jeri Thompson. As long as she's seen as running the Fred Thompson show, anything Judith Giuliani does right now pales in comparison. In fact, ask yourself which weekend profiles the Romney campaign enjoyed reading more -- the one on Mrs. Giuliani or the ones on Mrs. Thompson?

*** Edwards' Big Week:

The Edwards camp takes credit for putting Clinton on her heels on Saturday, which culminated in Clinton's awkward defense of lobbyists. With the AFL-CIO forum on the docket for Tuesday, and YearlyKos just in the rear view mirror, these are two events in which Edwards is/was expected to do well. They feel good about Kos, let's see what's in store for them tomorrow in Chicago at the AFL forum. Today, Edwards gives a speech on trade, and his campaign tells First Read that he will use the speech to continue making the case that lobbyists in Washington exert too much influence, and it's time for the Democratic Party to reject their contributions. Trade policy, the Edwards campaign says, is one example where Washington has worked for insiders and special interests -- but has left American workers in the cold.

*** Just Don't Be Last: Our favorite characterization of Clinton's YearlyKos attendance: "cheerful boos." She's just not as despised as she once was by the Netroots. Are the Netroots now to the Democrats what Christian conservatives are to the Republicans? In other words, the goal isn't to be their first choice; you just don't want to be their last one. That said, was Clinton's defense of lobbyists something that will haunt her in TV ads and direct mail in Iowa and New Hampshire over the next six months?

*** On The Trail: Brownback, Edwards, Giuliani, Hunter, McCain, Obama, Richardson, and Tancredo are all in Iowa; Kucinich is in Michigan.

Countdown to the Ames Straw Poll: 5 days
Countdown to MA-05 Special Election: 28 days
Countdown to LA GOV election: 75 days
Countdown to Election Day 2007: 92 days
Countdown to LA GOV run-off (if necessary): 103 days
Countdown to Iowa: 160 days
Countdown to Tsunami Tuesday: 182 days
Countdown to Election Day 2008: 456 days
Countdown to Inauguration Day 2009: 533 days

Focus group dial tester Rich Thau's Message Jury scored the debate for Romney, but do note that McCain saw the biggest "presidential comfort" jump from pre- to post-debate. Thau asks his focus group -- on a scale of 1-10 -- how comfortable they would be with Candidate X as their president. Only Paul and Brownback lost ground. The results are here. 

VIDEO: NBC's Political Director Chuck Todd on the art of the abortion "flip-flop" and more.

More from Thau: "Romney's "Fonda/Strangelove" attack on Obama was pretty well-received (high 70s), but there was some minor concern that it would unleash a wave of too-early-in-the-process mudslinging. And they knew he had that one prepared in advance. All in all, Romney was the big winner here -- starting on top and ending on top."

You know a debate didn't have a major moment when many in the press can't agree on a lead. The New York Times chose to focus on the fairly positive statements the candidates are still making about Iraq. This raises a question we've wondered: Just how many congressional Republicans will defect from Bush if ALL of the major presidential candidates are sticking with him. Aren't the presidential candidates the leading indicators in this parlor game? (Of course, these presidential candidates are courting GOP primary voters; by comparison, quite a few congressional Republicans are going to also have to win over some Democrats and independents to keep their seats.)

The Los Angeles Times went ahead and led with the Romney-Brownback abortion spat.

The Washington Post and Bloomberg News decided to go with the candidates attacking the Democrats on foreign policy as their leads.

And the Des Moines Register and USA Today went with the candidates distancing themselves from Bush as their leads.

The Des Moines Register's David Yepsen, who asked questions of the Republicans at the debate writes, "It's time presidential candidates start to spell out some specifics like these for just what they'd do differently as president to fix the nation's highways and bridges."

The Chicago Sun-Times curtain-raises tomorrow's forum, which is starting to look more like a debate, isn't it?

Here's the Boston Globe's wrap of the YearlyKos convention. "None of this season's Democratic presidential candidates have lit the blogosphere on fire the way Howard Dean did in 2004. Clinton's vote to authorize the war in Iraq puts her on the outs with bloggers. Barack Obama's efforts to appear bipartisan have dampened enthusiasm for him. John Edwards is the favorite here -- although not by that much -- for his liberal platform and his heavy use of the Internet.

CLINTON: Here's a new one: "cheerful boos" -- that's how Salon describes the reception Clinton received among the Netroots at YearlyKos, and that apparently is a good thing for her. Frankly, anything less than a mixed reception, and it would have been a bad weekend for her.

The AP's Ron Fournier -- the political journalist who has perhaps covered the Clintons the longest -- writes that not everything during President Clinton's eight years is a good thing for candidate Clinton. "A San Francisco blogger made that painfully clear to Sen. Clinton during the Yearly Kos Convention, when he asked whether she would support or repeal four major pieces of legislation enacted during the Clinton administration — the Defense of Marriage Act, the Telecommunications Act, the North American Free Trade Agreement and welfare reform. All four laws are unpopular with liberal voters who historically dominate Democratic primaries and caucuses. The political landscape for Democrats has changed since the 1990s on issues such as gay rights, trade and welfare reform — due in part to the rise of the influential and polarizing liberal blogosphere. That means candidates like Clinton must shift, too, or defend their refusal to do so."

On Saturday, the New York Times does a C.W.-setting story on the "slow" shift Clinton has made on the war.  "The senator, who voted in 2002 to authorize the invasion of Iraq, has over the past year gradually repositioned herself on the war, the issue that her advisers have long viewed as the biggest obstacle to her winning the presidential nomination. In a series of speeches, interviews and Senate votes, Mrs. Clinton has brought her stance much more in line with Democratic primary voters and the positions of most of her Democratic rivals --and has done it, so far, without sustained accusations of flip-flopping."

So how did she pull it off without being called a flip-flopper? The credit/blame goes to her opponents, who didn't seem to call her on it with the intensity, let's say, that Romney's GOP foes called him on his policy evolutions. Of course, Clinton's opponents will blame the press -- and there's some merit there -- but the example of Romney shows how Clinton's opponents may have dropped the ball on this one. Of course, Clinton's shift on the war also was much more gradual than Romney's sudden shifts on key conservative issues.

The New York Times' Zeleny noted that Clinton and Obama aren't BFFs. "The relationship began to change, according to several Democrats who are friendly to both senators, when Mr. Obama began musing aloud about a presidential bid. The day he opened his exploratory committee, several Senate observers said, he extended his hand and said hello on the Senate floor. She breezed by him, offering a cool stare."

Environmentalists are not happy with Clinton and are using Obama to let her know about their unhappiness? So reports the New York Post: "Environmentalists charge that Hillary Rodham Clinton is stonewalling vital Senate legislation to halt the export of mercury - a deadly neurotoxin - sponsored by her chief presidential rival, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.)" 

EDWARDS: The candidate was in Iowa on Sunday, where he said organized labor is "the single best anti-poverty movement in history."

OBAMA: Here's a question for ya: Had the Obama campaign not put up a TV ad claiming his campaign was not paid for by PACs and Washington lobbyists, would the Los Angeles Times bothered to examine his FEC reports as thoroughly as they did on Saturday to prove that he did accept money from folks who have business partners who lobby? 
 
Check out this Sun-Times column, which seems to hit Obama for his lack of experience when it comes to talking. Says the columnist: "For a politician as eloquent as he is, Barack Obama can display a bit of a tin ear when it comes to talking about foreign policy and terrorism. It's not that what he says is necessarily wrong, it's just that the way he says it hits the wrong note."

Bloomberg's Al Hunt says the rest of the world is siding with Obama regarding the Clinton-Obama dust-up over meeting with world leaders. "How the issue will play in the American presidential election remains uncertain. How the rest of the world is reacting is not. Obama wins."

Could any other Democrat get "hundreds" to show up at a rally in Utah? Utah Democratic Party Chairman Wayne Holland said the donors couldn't get enough of Obama. "It took a good half-hour just getting him 50 yards from the backyard podium to the living room to meet with public officials," he said. "Usually this is a group that's not star-struck."

We've noticed an uptick in the number of times Obama campaign folks have started to talk up their electability traits, particularly in southern states where the campaign claims Obama can put them in play because of increased African-American turnout. Realistically, though, outside of Mississippi, what other state could see enough of an increase in black turnout to put the state in play? And why couldn't a Bill Clinton be of similar help to Hillary Clinton? Isn't there another electability play the Obama folks should be making rather than one based on race for, maybe, one state in the South? Isn't his pitch about independents, not race?

As everyone gets prepared for next Saturday's Ames Straw poll, we figured we'd set the stage with a flashback to eight years ago. Nearly 25,000 Republicans voted in the event (we say "Republicans" and not Iowa Republicans because we can't be sure everyone was from Iowa). So here are the results, and we'll let the rest of the chattering class set Romney's expectations bar. In 1999, just one major candidate skipped the straw poll: John McCain. This year, three major candidates are skipping it: McCain, Rudy Giuliani, and Fred Thompson. So does that mean fewer than 25,000 Republicans will show up? Probably. Does that mean Romney should win by more than 10 points? You be the judge. We're guessing the Romney goal is 40%.

Results from the Aug. 14, 1999 Iowa GOP straw poll; 23,685 votes were counted:

                              Votes        %
George Bush         7,418    31%
Steve Forbes        4,921    21
Elizabeth Dole      3,410    14
Gary Bauer            2,114      9
Pat Buchanan       1,719      7
Lamar Alexander  1,428     6
Alan Keyes            1,101     5
Dan Quayle               916     4
Orrin Hatch                558     2
John McCain               83     0
John Kasich                   9     0
Bob Smith                      8     0

In the 1995 straw poll (the infamous "tie" result), just fewer than 11,000 folks turned out, and that poll was riddled with accusations of non-Iowan participation.

The Sunday Des Moines Register has a guide for the Ames straw poll.

A Real Clear Politics survey of 30 Iowa GOP county chairs has Romney (not surprisingly) as the clear favorite to win the straw poll. But the candidate who's predicted to finish second? Tancredo.

The new Washington Post-ABC poll of Iowa GOP caucus goers indicates Romney's support is a mile wide and an inch deep. "Just 19 percent of likely GOP caucus attendees said they were "very satisfied" with the field of candidates -- far below satisfaction levels among Iowa Democrats -- and poll respondents were badly fractured when asked to rate the candidates on political and personal attributes."

GIULIANI: Wow, did the Giuliani campaign catch a break from the New York Times or what! The Judith Giuliani profile/interview seemed to break little ground, though we do get a glimpse of someone who plans to take a MUCH lower profile, modeling herself after Laura Bush, apparently. The piece had some snark  (see her health care qualifications), but overall was favorable.

ROMNEY: In its debate wrap, the Boston Globe front-pages that "Romney says he erred on abortion."

Not every YouTube for Romney has been negative. Some believe his back-and-forth with an Iowa talk show host last week revealed a side to Romney that was both powerful and imperfect.

This account of Romney's argument with the Iowa talk show host shows that maybe there is a toughness inside of Mr. Perfect.

F. THOMPSON: Has there been a bigger gift to the Giuliani campaign than Jeri Thompson?  Think about it, Judi Giuliani would have been all the buzz this weekend if not for the multiple stories about Mrs. Thompson.

The Newsweek piece on Mrs. Thompson is chock full of intrigue, including this: "People are starting to wonder if she's more into this than he is," a Thompson adviser tells NEWSWEEK. The magazine also uncovered a previous marriage for Mrs. Thompson that the campaign, for some reason, is neither confirming nor denying. The Newsweek subhead says it all: "She wields tremendous influence over her husband's would-be presidential campaign. But who is Jeri Thompson—and why won't the campaign discuss her?"

The Washington Post also profiled Mrs. Thompson over the weekend and was a bit more flattering. By the way, the Post got an interview with the alleged ex-husband who claims the two never did marry.

Despite Spencer Abraham's presence, the Detroit News sees Thompson's chances in Michigan as being uphill.

It looks like some serious California Republicans are starting to get behind this ballot initiative that would award 53 of the state's 55 electoral votes via congressional district, potentially handing a Republican nominee 15-20 EVs he couldn't count on before. Organizers are hoping to get to the ballot initiative on the state's June '08 ballot and it would then become law immediately for the '08 general.

The Washington Post: The Pentagon has lost track of about 190,000 AK-47 assault rifles and pistols given to Iraqi security forces in 2004 and 2005, according to a new government report, raising fears that some of those weapons have fallen into the hands of insurgents fighting U.S. forces in Iraq."

"President Bush signed into law on Sunday legislation that broadly expanded the government's authority to eavesdrop on the international telephone calls and e-mail messages of American citizens without warrants."

The Attorney General offered up quite the clarification via letter to the Senate on Friday. In testimony in front of senators, he said he did not  "believe" that senior DoJ officials had attended political briefings prior to the '06 midterms. In the letter, he admitted that DoJ officials did attend some political briefings but emphasized that the briefings weren't held at DoJ offices.

Meanwhile, Joe Biden, who has a better read on this stuff than most senators, is now indicating that Gonzales is probably secure in his job since the Democrats lack a "smoking gun."

From NBC's Chuck Todd
Thank goodness we sent one of the members of our political unit to Iowa to watch the ABC News debate on Sunday, it was the only chance we could give you some live commentary. And I won't rehash the highlights that my colleague Domenico Montanaro touched on so well while on the scene. He's had quite the weekend, from YearlyKos to a GOP debate in Iowa, it doesn't get more ideologically diverse than that. Now, my tape delayed thoughts:

This was Mitt Romney's debate in this sense: he made two newsmaking statements. 1) His shot on Obama which his campaign effectively pitched to Drudge in order to attempt to shape the early coverage of the debate. 2) his response to the "mistake" question potentially opened up the flip-flopping charges to an extent that would make John Kerry blush. Romney said he was pro-life in private in '94 but said he'd support the law; so does that mean he was playing politics in '94? And if he was simply playing to the politics of Massachusetts in '94, how do we know he's not playing to the politics of the Republican Party now?

It was a very bad answer and potentially problematic; his opponents will jump on that answer and resurrect the Mitt-flopping charges which dogged him in the first half of this campaign.

Before that statement, Romney looked and was treated like the frontrunner, and in a sense, as far as Iowa Republican are concerned, he is the frontrunner.

ABC did a good job allowing the straw poll battle between Romney, Sam Brownback, Mike Huckabee and Tom Tancredo show itself during the debate. And if one were handicapping this debate in terms of the straw poll, then both Brownback and Tancredo have to feel good about their performances. Tancredo, in particular, has shown the most improvement from his first debate at the Reagan Library to now. He's sounding more passionate in his beliefs, dare I say, Pat Buchanan-esque in some of his flourishes. He used to be attempting a very poor imitation of Buchanan's '96 campaign; now, arguably, that imitation is getting better. Don't be surprised if he's a surprise top 3 finisher at the straw poll; and if he is, he's my pick for a darkhorse in the January caucuses.

There were two bystanders at the debate, John McCain and Rudy Giuliani. Giuliani, more so than McCain, seemed more a part of this debate but both seemed to be fish out of Iowa waters. Because of the importance the 2nd and 3rd tier candidates have been putting on the Ames Straw poll, one could sense the urgency in the other candidates. McCain (who seemed serious but not as energetic as usual) and Giuliani werecontent to let the straw poll contestants dominate much of the debate.

From NBC's Chuck Todd
Other observations from my notebook:

-- It was a bit odd to see the candidates introduced in Iowa poll order, using the new Washington Post-ABC poll. Some folks can't stand the emphasis on horse race.
-- Brownback got a real shot in the arm for his straw poll campaign by nabbing the first question and having ABC immediately set up a Romney-Brownback spat; Given the amount of money Brownback is apparently spending on the straw poll, does this mean we should view him as the favorite to finish second?
-- Romney showed a flash of anger at Brownback which is the second flash we've seen this weekend. The other was the YouTube clip the campaign (and others) are sending around showing Romney going at it off-camera with an Iowa radio talk show host. Perhaps voters are seeing tougher Romney interior to that smiling exterior.
-- Best evidence that Romney was content to allow this debate to be mostly about the straw poll contestants? He backed off on a chance to hit Giuliani on the mayor's conservative credentials.  That's the difference between chasing a frontrunner in other states and leading him in one or two states.
-- Tommy Thompson is just so stiff in these things. Wisconsin is no podunk state; how did he last four terms? Wisconsin voters apparently don't care if their governors are telegenic. But here's the thing: he was actually better at this debate than any other so far.
-- Don't miss the various ways many of the candidates sought distance with the Bush administration. Huckabee lumped Bush with Congress in attacking Washington; McCain all but signaled that he thought Cheney's place in the administration would be something he wouldn't repeat; the three frontrunners on stage (Romney, Giuliani and McCain) all signaled that they defined "spreading democracy" differently than Bush;
-- From simply a visual perspective, seeing Romney standing next to Giuliani, the two frontrunners in my mind right now, is an advantage for Romney. He just looks the part, right out of central casting. Giuliani, because he hunches over a bit, doesn't look the part, at least when standing next to Romney. If I'm Giuliani, when the debates consist of just 2-4 candidates, I'd ask for sit-down roundtable debates. It takes away a visual advantage for Romney.
-- If I'm the Clinton campaign today, I'm happy that Obama is getting picked on by Romney and others because it might lead some Democrats to believe Obama will get picked apart too easily if he's the nominee. If I'm the Obama campaign, I'm happy that I'm the GOP punching bag, makes him look like a frontrunner.
-- Looks like the ABC folks cleaned up their bugs as the telecast went on. Early on, the broadcast claimed it was "live." Well, that wasn't true here in the D.C.-metro area where the debate didn't start until 10am, one hour after it started.
--  Giuliani is really painting New York City in the late '80s and early '90s as a third world country. Was it really that bad? Were a majority of New Yorkers really afraid to buy groceries at night?
-- Giuliani's camp did some impressive research on themselves to have that bridge stat about NYC.
-- BTW, Giuliani's answer on the VP question leads me to believe he's going to name a VP (should he be in that position) based on experience. Giuliani-McCain? Is that what he's thinking? That's my between the lines reading.
-- Giuliani nailed the mistake questions; both he and Clinton seem best at deflecting their negatives with humor.
-- Finally, I'm closing with another shot at Thompson (sorry Tommy). But did he really say he'd open up the East Wing of the White House to more folks? That's great, so his wife will host some of the most bipartisan parties in this country's history?

From NBC's Domenico Montanaro
DES MOINES -- Q: What would you restore to the oval office?
Tancredo as Obama?: He'd restore "hope"

Tommy Thompson would "open up East Wing" to bring in Inds, Dems and Repubs.

Brownback: Family

McCain: He's "better prepared" to fight "radical Islamic extremism."

Giuliani: wants to bring "optimism" and said the three top Dems have no executive experience.

Romney: Strengthen military, economy and family

Paul: Transparency

Hunter: economic patriotism. Arsenal of Democracy. Ability to make things in this country instead of pushing off shore. Stop China from cheating on trade.

From NBC's Domenico Montanaro
DES MOINES -- ABC is getting to more of the issues the Republicans essentially agree on, but Stephanopoulos has done a pretty good job moderating. And the debate has had a decent mix of e-mailed questions, video, and Stephanopoulos and Yepsen's.

From NBC's Domenico Montanaro
DES MOINES -- McCain bringing a little humor to it with what the responsibilities of a VP should or would be. He said he's thought a lot about it having been considered for that post several times -- one of those responsibilities is being aware of the president's health! Ha.

From NBC's Domenico Montanaro
DES MOINES -- I'll let you know if there's another Romney ad!

From NBC's Domenico Montanaro
DES MOINES -- "I'm not a carbon copy of President Bush." We'll see how much further all the GOP candidates can get from the president -- and his woeful approval ratings.

From NBC's Domenico Montanaro
DES MOINES -- Noticing less face time for McCain than in the other debates? Has ABC written off the once sure shot for the Republican nomination?