From NBC's Domenico Montanaro
CHICAGO -- When's the last time you heard someone hiss? Just asking. Richardson got hisssed when he said he'd support a constitutional amendment for line item vetoes.

From NBC's Domenico Montanaro
CHICAGO -- Edwards was well received for his response that healthcare companies are not going to give away their power voluntarily. Remember that during the last debate, dial testing showed that Edwards' healthcare response was seen largely as a homerun.

From NBC's Domenico Montanaro
CHICAGO -- Mentioned "wars we should not have authorized." Bai did not throw that to Clinton in response.

From NBC's Domenico Montanaro
CHICAGO -- Clinton was strong on her first answer. As a TV point, Edwards, Clinton and Obama are "randomly" seated next to each other. (With Kucinich to the left of all three -- pun intended.)

From NBC's Domenico Montanaro
CHICAGO -- For saying Kennedy appointment, Byron "Whizzer" White was a good appointment, he said "I screwed up on that one."

From NBC's Domenico Montanaro
CHICAGO -- I am on the ground here and liveblogging the YearlyKos forum.

Obama got the loudest applause of the candidates when he was introduced by Matt Bai at the YearlyKos convention. And he got a shout out for today being his birthday. The convention broke out in, "Happy Birthday." Obama smiled widely.

From NBC's Domenico Montanaro
CHICAGO -- Clinton showed up a few minutes late to the breakout session, but when
she spoke, she softened the crowd with humor and hit on some of the
liberal catch phrases sure to please the netroots.

When her microphone cut out, she said, "Vast right wing conspiracy." That got laughs and applause. And she was off to the races.

She hinted that she knows she has not always been a netroots favorite, but thanked the blogosphere for their efforts.

"Not everyone says nice things about me," Clinton said. "It's a burden
I have to bear. Let me say thank you for helping create a modern
progressive movement. I only wish we had this active fighting
blogosphere 15 years ago. We are righting that balance or lefting that
balance I'm not sure which."

She said she wished the blogosphere was around in 1993 and 1994, when she was advancing her health care plan.

She also played up her Chicago credentials, saying "Cubs not Sox," which was met with a mix of boos and applause. She laughed at it and said, "I still have a T-shirt that says, 'No Lights at Wrigley Field.'"

She also hit Fox's Bill O'Reilly for his criticism of the blogs, particularly saying that Daily Kos was hateful.

"I am proud of my campaign for going on O'Reilly," Clinton said, referring to strategist Howard Wolfson, who nodded on stage as the crowd applauded. "There are things on Daily Kos that I don't agree with, but for O'Reilly to say that."

We'll see if it gets contentious in the questioning, but so far three questions in -- on education, closing Guantanamo, FISA and Alberto Gonzales -- she has sailed.

Clinton said Gonzales should either "be removed or resign."

**** UPDATE**** Note: Clinton did not hit on Iraq -- the most volatile issue with her and the blogosphere. And with just two questions left, no one brought it up.

The toughest question came on whether or not she'd repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, NAFTA and the Welfare Act of 1996.

On DOMA: "It served a very important purpose. DOMA gave us a bright line to be able to hold back the votes to hold back [a constiutional amendment]. DOMA appropriately put the [onus on the states].

NAFTA: "NAFTA did not realize the benefits it was promised...We have to find ways to work with our neighbors in the hemisphere more closely."

Welfare Reform: She said the positives "far outweigh" the negatives of welfare reform.

From NBC's Domenico Montanaro
CHICAGO -- While waiting for the noon central time (1 pm ET) Clinton breakout session, here's a little color from YearlyKos. While there are no tin foil hats, I spy…

--A man with a large "Drunk with Power" slogan scotch-taped to a in a white T-shirt
--An Office Space reference: lots of lanyard flair, including blinking pins.
--Standard lefty "Impeach Bush" and "Impeach Cheney" shirts and stickers.
--A nod to who came up with the T-shirt, "Drinking Liberally: promoting Democracy one pint at a time."
--An older woman, wearing Richardson garb, was offering cookies in the hallway. Later, I saw her sitting in the Richardson booth.
--Speaking of candidate booths, Edwards' has green and blue plastic blow up chairs and even a couch.

By the way, Hillary volunteers look ready to crash the breakout session and forum with "Hillary for President" and "Women for Hillary" signs.

From NBC's Domenico Montanaro
CHICAGO -- Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas sat down for an interview
this morning with NBC and spoke to First Read. He said the original
purpose of the YearlyKos convention when he started it was "to put
faces to screen names." Now, the convention includes more than 1,400
bloggers -- not just from Daily Kos but a wide range -- and major
Democratic presidential candidates.

The candidates chose this year to speak at the left-leaning blogger
convention instead of the once powerful centrist Democratic Leadership
Council. But Moulitsas, who was not involved in the organizing of this
year's YearlyKos convention, repeated that the candidates are not
speaking here because they have shifted left. Instead, he says, it's
all about how many people the netroots reach.

"If the DLC had a list of three million people," Moulitsas said, "they would go to that. It's not that they're centrist."

He also hit back at those on the right who criticize the Democrats for merely "pandering" to the left.

"It's that they hate when regular people are involved in the process," Moulitsas said, adding, "They hate Democracy if they hate this conference. It's as simple as that."

On Hillary Clinton's once-tenuous relationship with his blog and others, Moulitsas said, "She's doing a good job of negating the hostility. I don't think it surprises me."

He said he has not met with the candidates because he he's "not interested in being a gatekeeper. They don't need to go through me."

The candidates, though, including Clinton have blogged on Kos' site.

Watch Nightly News tonight to see the story on the YearlyKos convention, including the interview with Moulitsas. Look for the full transcript of the interview with Moulitsas later today.

From NBC's Domenico Montanaro
CHICAGO -- First Read is on the ground and at the YearlyKos convention. And can I say, so far, Chicago looks like my kinda town. Well, one piece of news: in the will she or won't she take questions conversation -- Hillary Clinton, in fact, will take questions from activists. But she's doing it at noon tomorrow -- before the forum -- not afterward like the rest of the candidates. She does, after all, have to get to a Hamptons fund raiser across the country in Long Island.

It was reported that the audience booed at the convention when it was announced that Clinton was not going to be participating in these breakout sessions.

Look for more over the weekend from YearlyKos and, yes, I'll be in Des Moines for the Republican debate on Sunday.

The Edwards campaign just sent us this response, which puts him in the Clinton-Dodd camp on the nukes story. "Senator Edwards believes a candidate for president should, in general, avoid talking about the potential use of nuclear weapons.  Getting into hypotheticals about the use of force—particularly in the case of nuclear weapons—decreases a president's options and weakens his authority, and Edwards will not do that."

From NBC's Lauren Appelbaum
On his radio show today, Al Sharpton asked Edwards if he thought a unilateral move Obama discussed earlier in the week -- going into Pakistan, even if the local government did not agree -- is the way to fight terrorism. Edwards once again agreed with Obama. "In the case of Pakistan specifically, we do need to be harder on Musharraf and the Pakistani government because they are not doing what they need to do," Edwards said. "I think we should be maximizing pressure on them and then, depending on what they do, we'll make a judgment about what needs to be done. But ... it is true that the president of the United States has to find terrorists where they are and stop them."
 
But what may be most interesting is what was not mentioned -- Obama's controversial nukes comments from yesterday. Neither Edwards nor Sharpton mentioned Obama's remarks in an interview with AP that "it would be a profound mistake for us to use nuclear weapons in any circumstance" to fight terrorism in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
 
Unlike Clinton and Dodd, Edwards hasn't yet responded to Obama's nukes comment, even though his campaign sends out numerous press releases each day. Will he continue to remain on the sidelines on this issue?

From NBC's Pete Williams and Mark Murray
Earlier today, President Bush delivered this demand to Congress: Give him the legislation he wants to close the intelligence gap in the current Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. "So far, the Democrats in Congress have not drafted a bill I can sign. We've worked hard and in good faith with the Democrats to find a solution, but we are not going to put our national security at risk. Time is short. I'm going to ask Congress to stay in session until they pass a bill that will give our intelligence community the tools they need to protect the United States."

Here, as best we can tell, is what the dispute is about over making changes in the law limiting the government's ability to collect foreign intelligence: There's general agreement that a recent secret ruling by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court has limited the ability of the NSA to monitor communications among suspected terrorist overseas. More of the world's phone and e-mail traffic is now flowing through electronic switchboards in the US. The recent ruling apparently limits NSA's access to communications that take place strictly overseas when the point of collection is in the US.

There is bipartisan agreement in Congress for a bill that would fix this problem by clarifying that no court order is needed for intercepting foreign-to-foreign e-mails and phone conversations, even though they may pass through the US. The hang-up is apparently over what to do when an overseas terror suspect makes frequent calls into the US. Many Democrats believe that when US citizens are ensnared in the process of spying on targets overseas, the government needs a court order. But the Bush Administration declares that an "artificial barrier" to intelligence collection. "Any legislation that conditions our ability to swiftly collect intelligence upon the foreign target's frequency of contact with persons in the United States is unworkable and unacceptable," says a White House statement out this afternoon.

From NBC's Mark Murray
In the wake of the criticism that Obama has received for saying he wouldn't use nuclear weapons to take out Al Qaeda in Pakistan -- and for his other recent controversial statements on foreign policy -- the Obama campaign has released a memo contrasting Obama's approach with the Washington Establishment's "broken way of doing things."

In the memo, Obama adviser Samantha Power -- the founding executive director of Harvard University's Carr Center for Human Rights Policy -- writes: "Over the last few weeks, Barack Obama has once again taken positions that challenge Washington's conventional wisdom on foreign policy. And once again, pundits and politicians have leveled charges that are now bankrupt of credibility and devoid of the new ideas that the American people desperately want."

"On each point in the last few weeks, Barack Obama has called for a break from a broken way of doing things. On each point, he has brought fresh strategic thinking and common sense that break with the very conventional wisdom that has led us into Iraq."

Below is the entire memo...

August 3, 2007
To: Interested Parties
From: Samantha Power -- Founding Executive Director, Harvard University Carr Center for Human Rights Policy
Re: Conventional Washington versus the Change We Need

It was Washington's conventional wisdom that led us into the worst strategic blunder in the history of US foreign policy.  The rush to invade Iraq was a position advocated by not only the Bush Administration, but also by editorial pages, the foreign policy establishment of both parties, and majorities in both houses of Congress.  Those who opposed the war were often labeled weak, inexperienced, and even naïve.

Barack Obama defied conventional wisdom and opposed invading Iraq. He did so at a time when some told him that doing so would doom his political future. He took that risk because he thought it essential that the United States "finish the fight with bin Laden and al Qaeda." He warned that a "dumb war, a rash war" in Iraq would result in an "occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences."

Barack Obama was right; the conventional wisdom was wrong. And today, we see the consequences. Iraq is in chaos. According to the National Intelligence Estimate, the threat to our homeland from terrorist groups is "persistent and evolving."  Al-Qaeda has a safe-haven in Pakistan. Iran has only grown stronger and bolder. The American people are less safe because of a rash war.

Over the last few weeks, Barack Obama has once again taken positions that challenge Washington's conventional wisdom on foreign policy.  And once again, pundits and politicians have leveled charges that are now bankrupt of credibility and devoid of the new ideas that the American people desperately want.

On each point in the last few weeks, Barack Obama has called for a break from a broken way of doing things. On each point, he has brought fresh strategic thinking and common sense that break with the very conventional wisdom that has led us into Iraq.

Diplomacy: For years, conventional wisdom in Washington has said that the United States cannot talk to its adversaries because it would reward them.  Here is the result:

--The United States has not talked directly to Iran at a high level, and they have continued to build their nuclear weapons program, wreak havoc in Iraq, and support terror.
--The United States has not talked directly to Syria at a high level, and they have continued to meddle in Lebanon and support terror.
-- The United States did not talk to North Korea for years, and they were able to produce enough material for 6 to 8 more nuclear bombs.

By any measure, not talking has not worked. Conventional wisdom would have us continue this policy; Barack Obama would turn the page. He knows that not talking has made us look weak and stubborn in the world; that skillful diplomacy can drive wedges between your adversaries; that the only way to know your enemy is to take his measure; and that tough talk is of little use if you're not willing to do it directly to your adversary.  Barack Obama is not afraid of losing a PR battle to a dictator – he's ready to tell them what they don't want to hear because that's how tough, smart diplomacy works, and that's how American leaders have scored some of the greatest strategic successes in US history.

Barack Obama's judgment is right; the conventional wisdom is wrong. We need a new era of tough, principled and engaged American diplomacy to deal with 21st century challenges.

Terrorist Sanctuaries: For years, we have given President Musharraf hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid, while deferring to his cautious judgment on how to take out high-level al Qaeda targets – including, most likely, Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri. Here is the result: 

-- Bin Laden and Zawahiri – two men with direct responsibility for 9/11– remain at large.
-- Al Qaeda has trained and deployed hundreds of fighters worldwide from its sanctuary in northwest Pakistan.
-- Afghanistan is far less secure because the Taliban can strike across the border, and then return to safety in Pakistan.
 
By any measure, this strategy has not worked. Conventional wisdom would have us defer to Musharraf in perpetuity. Barack Obama wants to turn the page. If Musharraf is willing to go after the terrorists and stop the Taliban from using Pakistan as a base of operations, Obama would give him all of the support he needs. But Obama made clear that as President, if he had actionable intelligence about the whereabouts of al Qaeda leaders in Pakistan – and the Pakistanis continued to refuse to act against terrorists known to be behind attacks on American civilians – then he will use highly targeted force to do so.

Barack Obama's judgment is right; the conventional wisdom is wrong. We need a new era that moves beyond the conventional wisdom that has brought us over-reliance on an unreliable dictator in Pakistan and an occupation of Iraq.

Nuclear Attacks on Terrorist Targets: For years, Washington's conventional wisdom has held that candidates for President are judged not by their wisdom, but rather by their adherence to hackneyed rhetoric that make little sense beyond the Beltway. When asked whether he would use nuclear weapons to take out terrorist targets in Pakistan and Afghanistan, Barack Obama gave the sensible answer that nuclear force was not necessary, and would kill too many civilians. Conventional wisdom held this up as a sign of inexperience. But if experience leads you to make gratuitous threats about nuclear use – inflaming fears at home and abroad, and signaling nuclear powers and nuclear aspirants that using nuclear weapons is acceptable behavior, it is experience that should not be relied upon.

Barack Obama's judgment is right. Conventional wisdom is wrong. It is wrong to propose that we would drop nuclear bombs on terrorist training camps in Pakistan, potentially killing tens of thousands of people and sending America's prestige in the world to a level that not even George Bush could take it. We should judge presidential candidates on their judgment and their plans, not on their ability to recite platitudes.

Vision: American foreign policy is broken. It has been broken by people who supported the Iraq War, opposed talking to our adversaries, failed to finish the job with al Qaeda, and alienated the world with our belligerence. Yet conventional wisdom holds that people whose experience includes taking these positions are held up as examples of what America needs in times of trouble.

Barack Obama says we have to turn the page. We cannot afford any more of this kind of bankrupt conventional wisdom. He has laid out a foreign policy that is bold, clear, principled, and tailored for the 21st century. End a war we should never have fought, concentrate our resources against terrorists who threaten America. End the counter-productive policy of lumping together our adversaries and avoiding talking to our foes. End the era of politics that is all sound-bites and no substance, and offer the American people the change that they need.

Barack Obama's judgment is right. It is conventional wisdom that has to change.

From NBC's Michelle Perry and Andrea Mitchell
As charges and reactions continue to ricochet over what Obama actually said regarding the hypothetical use of nuclear weapons in Pakistan and/or Afghanistan, below is the actual transcript of the audio of the Associated Press' interview with Obama (which the AP has given to NBC News).

From the audio, it is clear that Obama initially rules out the use of tactical nuclear weapons -- then backtracks. His opponents, especially Clinton and Dodd, have attacked Obama for appearing to rule out the nuclear option -- in contradiction of traditional U.S. deterrence in both Republican and Democratic administrations.

Today, Obama's camp is standing firm and welcoming the contrast to what they are describing as "traditional Washington think," saying they are surprised that anyone would disagree with what he said.

The transcript is below...

AP: Sir, with regard to terrorism in Afghanistan and Pakistan ...

OBAMA: Yeah.

AP: Is there any circumstances where you'd be prepared or willing to use nuclear weapons to defeat terrorism and Osama bin Laden?

OBAMA: No, I'm not, uh, there has been no discussion of using nuclear weapons and that's not a hypothetical that I'm going to discuss.

AP: Not even tactical?

OBAMA: No. I think it would be a profound mistake for us to use nuclear weapons in any circumstance. Uh, if involving you know, civilians... Let me scratch all that. There's been no discussion of nuclear weapons. That's not on the table so...

AP: No discussion within your group?

OBAMA: I made a very narrow statement that I think is incontrovertible, which is if we've got a actionable intelligence then uh....that there are high value Al Qaeda targets, that we should take them out. And that's the extent of the statement. I mean it's...

AP: But the nuclear topic is bound to come up because of the fact that Pakistan has nuclear weapons and is certainly capable from Middle East experts to have an irrational religious fanatic type leader.

OBAMA: I'm not going that far field on this topic -- right now the question is are we going after Al Qaeda, and that's what the topic of the speech was about.

AP: Thanks for your time.

OBAMA: You bet.

From NBC's Mike Viqueira
You may have heard more than the usual amount of screaming and shouting last night from the House floor, as outraged Republicans staged a walk out after accusing Democrats of robbing them of a legislative victory.
 
At around 11:00 pm ET, the House was taking a very close vote on a GOP measure that would essentially bar any Agriculture Department monies from being spent to the benefit of illegal immigrants. The Democrat in the speaker's chair, Rep. Mike McNulty, gaveled the vote closed in favor of Democrats when the tally board in the chamber indicated that Republicans had won by one vote -- in which case the Ag spending bill would have been killed until after recess.
 
Republicans went absolutely bananas, hollering at the top of their lungs and chanting "SHAME!" Of course, the House itself controls the cameras and where they are pointed in the chamber, so all we see it a static shot of the dais. But still, all things considered it was a very raucous caucus. Very few of us have been noticing, but this week has been an especially contentious one and tempers were short to begin with.

So the whole thing has spilled over into today. Republicans claim hypocrisy on the part of Democrats, who had promised not to pull the same kind of procedural hijinks that Republicans themselves pulled during the 12 years they ran the place. As we write, the House is "blue screen" -- in recess -- while the Democratic and Republican leadership meets privately to try and find a way to play nice and get out of here by tonight, so they can start their recess.

From Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, and Domenico Montanaro
*** Obama The Punching Bag: Everyone seems to be beating up on Obama nowadays. Clinton struck first last week when she called his world-dictators answer "irresponsible" and "naïve." Then some of the other campaigns got into the act after Obama's counterterrorism speech, with Biden yesterday also using the word "naïve" word to describe the Illinois senator's plan for dealing with Al Qaeda in Pakistan. And now, some of his rivals are jumping on Obama for his statement yesterday about nuclear weapons. All of this, in fact, reminds us of 2003, when every Democrat was ganging up on Dean. But the difference then was that Dean was the front-runner; Obama is the guy in second place (at least nationally). Why has Obama become everyone's punching bag? Because they see him as a threat? Or because he's an easy target? Whatever the reason, Democrats, Republicans, and the Georgetown chattering class smell blood right now. And if Obama's not careful, he will find himself defined by interpretations of what he said -- rather than what he said. After all, once a perception is formed, it can take months or years to undo. There's a major challenge ahead for the Obama communications team.

Video: Obama takes heat over nuke comments

*** A Three-Way Race In Iowa: Will the criticism Obama's receiving on foreign policy overshadow the good news for him in a new Iowa poll? A Washington Post/ABC poll of likely Iowa Democratic caucus-goers has the race a three-way tie, with Obama at 27%, and Clinton and Edwards at 26%. Compared with other Iowa survey over the past few months, this result may not be good news for Edwards because it does not show him in a clear lead in his strongest state. Richardson was the only other Dem to receive double-digit support (11%). Here's perhaps the most important breakout in the poll: "Overall, about half of likely caucus-goers expressed a preference for what Obama is claiming to offer, which is a new direction and new ideas, while 39 percent prioritized strength and experience. Among those who are looking for new ideas and a new direction, 37 percent supported Obama, 31 percent Edwards and 15 percent Clinton. Among those who cite strength and experience, Clinton had a wide lead, with 38 percent saying they would vote for her, and Edwards second at 21 percent. Obama and Richardson trailed with 14 percent each."

*** Straw Poll Strategies: All three major Republicans (Giuliani, McCain, and Thompson) not participating in the Ames straw poll have an incentive to see Romney embarrassed. Two of those three candidates have active Iowa campaigns. So what are those campaigns doing for, say, other straw poll participants? Who is McCain helping? Who is Giuliani helping? Is there a F. Thompson strategy to help others? Could it be that McCain and Giuliani are sharing lists with, say, Huckabee or Brownback? Start your snooping! Also, the campaign to define Jeri Thompson is getting rather intense. Check out this pushback on Bob Novak's column, courtesy of GOP analyst Jennifer Rubin. She compares Jeri to Harriet Miers.

*** One Busy Week For The Dems: So you want to run for the Democratic presidential nomination? Well, that means that over these next seven days, you'll address liberal bloggers at the DailyKos convention in Chicago (on Saturday), an AFL-CIO forum in Chicago moderated by MSNBC's Keith Olbermann (Tuesday), and a gay-rights forum in Los Angeles (Thursday). These events not only reflect the various left-leaning interest groups that the Democratic candidates must court, but they also show just how taxing running for president can be. Remember, these folks have to attend these events, raise money, campaign in the early primary states, give a slew of policy speeches, and (for most of them) still do their day jobs. And get this: Iowa is more than five months away.

*** Debate! By comparison, the GOP presidential candidates haven't had nearly the same number of interest-group cattle calls to attend. But they will hit their fourth debate -- a Fred-less one -- on Sunday at Drake University in Des Moines, IA. The 90-minute debate will be moderated by ABC's George Stephanopoulos (with additional questioning by the Des Moines Register's David Yepsen).

*** On The Trail: Biden already appeared on MSNBC's Morning Joe; Huckabee moderates a blogger conference call and campaigns in Iowa, including speaking at a "Fair Tax" rally; Hunter is in Iowa -- and will remain there until the Ames straw poll on Aug. 11; Paul raises money in Pennsylvania; Richardson makes five stops in Iowa; and Romney raises money at a Maine luncheon. Clinton, Kucinich, McCain, and Obama are in DC.

Countdown to the Ames Straw Poll: 8 days
Countdown to MA-05 Special Election: 31 days
Countdown to LA GOV election: 78 days
Countdown to Election Day 2007: 95 days
Countdown to LA GOV run-off (if necessary): 106 days
Countdown to Iowa: 163 days
Countdown to Tsunami Tuesday: 185 days
Countdown to Election Day 2008: 459 days
Countdown to Inauguration Day 2009: 536 days

Here's the write up of the new Washington Post/ABC Iowa poll. There's some good news for Clinton: She was judged the most electable of the field among these likely Dem caucus-goers. That, Clinton supporters will tell you, is the best news they see in this poll. But Clinton rated below her two main rivals on some personal attributes include likeability and honest and trustworthy.

The Washington Post looks at the YearlyKos convention. "As the who's who of the progressive blogosphere -- the 'Net roots' -- gather in Chicago for the YearlyKos convention, which started yesterday, Clinton will be there. Her attendance underscores two seemingly contradictory realities: blogs' growing influence as powerful backroom players in Democratic circles and the fact that they don't reflect the views of most Democrats, much less the general public. ... There is no one leader, the name of the convention notwithstanding, and it's a disparate, unorganized community that's almost impossible to categorize. While the leading bloggers are in their 20s and 30s, the rank-and-file are older, in their 40s and 50s. The common assumption is that the Net roots is monolithic and full of ideologues. It is neither. It is made up of people who are mostly interested in getting Democrats elected -- and making sure Democrats stay in power."

Biden isn't attending YearlyKos – he'll be in Delaware promoting his book and said, per the AP, "Love ya, Kos. But you ain't Delaware." It looks like Clinton is already disappointing some at YearlyKos (of course, she's being held to a higher standard). Apparently, she's only attending the candidates' forum and not speaking with activists as originally planned. "While the announcement initially surprised attendees and drew boos, both Clinton and convention staff asserted it was a simple misunderstanding. On Thursday night, a source with knowledge of the Clinton Campaign's plans told me the convention was informed days ago that Clinton was not participating in the activist meeting, and a further announcement from the convention organizers was expected."

The RNC has a Web video ridiculing the YearlyKos convention.

CLINTON: The Hill reports, "The Aug. 1 deadline the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) set for presidential candidates to unveil their healthcare plans has come and gone. So the Iowa and New Hampshire state chapters of the SEIU are going to 2008 hopefuls and giving them either a clean bill of health or clocks — to remind them time is running out to offer a plan. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) was the only major Democratic candidate not to receive a completely clean bill of health because she has unveiled only part of her plan, according to Sarah Swisher, political director for SEIU's Iowa chapter."

A Pew Research poll has Clinton at 40% and Obama at 21%.

Per NBC's Eric Wexler, Clinton strategist Mark Penn made some interesting comments about Obama and Edwards to the New York Observer. On Obama:  "His best attribute is inspiring, not vision… One of the failures is that he hasn't articulated any real vision." He also said the Clinton-Obama spat over the foreign leaders question demonstrated the Obama campaign's "level of desperation about not having moved in the polls. And frankly a lot of people have given them the advice 'oh, just go ahead and get her.' And so he'll see whether or not that is more successful than going forward with his policy ideas and the new politics, which is where he started."

Penn also criticized Edwards' repeated apologies for his vote to authorize the Iraq war while defending Clinton's continued unwillingness to do so: "I'm not sure that I understand the concept that if a candidate gives an apology, he is suddenly not responsible for his vote… Edwards was a co-sponsor of the resolution; if you go through Edwards' speeches he was extremely pro-war. And in many ways, after they hear him apologize, people don't ask him what he was really thinking and what he was doing. She's not hiding."

DODD: Some interesting fireworks on the O'Reilly Factor last night. Per the Hartford Courant, "Bill O'Reilly told Chris Dodd, 'I don't have any respect for you' and 'if I were Joe Lieberman I would never talk to you again.' Dodd fired back that the talk show host says 'a lot of things (that) are vile on a daily basis,' and that studies show O'Reilly says something derogatory about people or groups once every 6.8 seconds."

EDWARDS: Edwards' populist rant against Rupert Murdoch seemed to bite him back yesterday. "'John Edwards will never ask Rupert Murdoch for money -- he won't accept his money,' said a statement e-mailed to supporters. Not so fast, Murdoch's people say. His publishing unit, HarperCollins, paid Edwards a $500,000 advance -- and $300,000 in expenses -- for his 2006 book 'Home: The Blueprints of Our Lives.' 'We assume the senator is going to give back the money from his advance,' News Corp. spokesman Brian Lewis said.

More: "The Edwards demand was aimed squarely at Sen. Hillary Clinton, who has received more than $20,000 from News Corp. executives, including $2,300 from Murdoch and $4,600 from company president Peter Chernin. Sen. Barack Obama has gotten $2,100 from Chernin. Lewis noted that Chernin appeared, at Edwards's request, at a 2004 fundraiser for the Kerry-Edwards ticket." (Curious, did anyone at the Edwards campaign think to check whether the candidate had done any deals with a News Corp. division?)

Edwards sounded off on a number of topics at a press avail he held yesterday in Los Angeles, reports NBC's Kevin Corke (who was there). On his opposition to a proposed Saudi arms deal, Edwards said: "It could escalate an arms race in the Middle East- that's dangerous for America and dangerous for the world. That's why I am calling on Congress to reject it," he said adding "this could accelerate the Iranians push for a nuke weapon." On Don't Ask Don't Tell: "That will end during my presidency." And on developing nuclear power plants or liquid coal to bolster U.S. energy: "I'm not satisfied with the safety or waste disposal ... plus either could take years to develop. The last thing we need is more fossil fuel expansion or energy that doesn't solve climate warming or creates additional waste storage problems- I'd refuse either frankly."

OBAMA: The Illinois senator's comment yesterday that he would rule out a nuclear strike on Pakistan or Afghanistan in chasing down Al Qaeda gets attention by the nation's big newspapers. The New York Times: "Barack Obama found himself on the defensive again yesterday about his views on foreign policy, this time over a comment he made about the use of nuclear weapons in Afghanistan or Pakistan." Later in the day, in fact, the Obama camp sought to clarify his AP interview: "The Obama campaign later issued a statement that expressed confidence that 'conventional means' would be sufficient to take down Al Qaeda targets and surprise that 'others would disagree.'"

New York Daily News called Obama's nuke comments a "stumble." More: "His struggle with the nuclear question gave Clinton another opening to portray her rival for the Democrats' White House nod as inexperienced and naive on world affairs."

The Washington Post notes that Clinton inserted herself into the story. "Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton drew another distinction between herself and Sen. Barack Obama yesterday, refusing to rule out the use of nuclear weapons against Osama bin Laden or other terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan… Yet several foreign policy experts said Obama was essentially right: It would be unwise to target an individual or a small group with nuclear weapons that could kill civilians and worsen the United States' image around the world."

Dodd also jumped into the fray. He "said in a statement: 'Over the past several days, Senator Obama's assertions about foreign and military affairs have been, frankly, confusing and confused. He has made threats he should not make and made unwise categorical statements about military options.'"

Honest question: Is the criticism Obama getting here due to the original AP story (which didn't put Obama's nuke remarks in a proper context)? After all, does anyone really support nuking Pakistan?

The Des Moines Register does an ad watch on Obama's latest TV claiming he's not paid for by PACs or lobbyists. The ad watch notes that while technically true, Obama did have state lobbyists help him raise money. (Another honest question after reading this article: Is anyone getting more scrutiny -- from big and small media outlets alike -- than Obama is right now?)

Obama picked up an endorsement from New Hampshire's Episcopal bishop -- the first openly gay bishop of the Episcopal Church.

RICHARDSON: Slowly but surely, Richardson is trying to turn himself into a more liberal/progressive candidate than he has shown himself to be as governor of New Mexico. Previously, he's moved left on the war. Yesterday, he moved to the left on energy, calling for a 50% cut in foreign oil imports by the year 2020.

More on Sunday's 90-minute GOP debate: Each candidate will get 60 seconds to answer questions and 30 seconds for follow-ups. Also, there will be no opening or closing statements and no audience questions. And there will be two commercial breaks in the first hour and no commercial breaks in the last half hour.  

Bloomberg News notes that two of three GOP front-runners are starting to distance themselves from Bush on Iraq. "With pessimism growing about the ability of a troop injection to overcome Iraq's sectarian violence, Romney … and other Republicans who embraced the plan are gingerly laying the groundwork for a possible shift away from White House appeals to stay the course." Giuliani "says the administration's fixation on Iraq has been a distraction in the war against global jihadism. In a July 19 interview with USA Today, he said efforts to battle al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters in Pakistan and Afghanistan are suffering because 'America is too consumed by Iraq.'"

The Minneapolis Star Tribune previews the GOP convention, using this week's RNC meeting as the backdrop. And it notes the possibility that a brokered convention is as high as it's been in decades.

GIULIANI:

The stronger Clinton looks on the Democratic side is good news for Giuliani, right? Remember two years ago when many in the chattering class thought Clinton's general election strength (or weakness) would be the deciding factor in Iowa. Perhaps it's Giuliani's relative strength (or weakness) that will decide his fate in the GOP primary. The former mayor writes an op-ed in the Boston Globe, calling for a "free market cure for U.S. health care system." He uses all of the conservative buzz word phrases like "expanding individual choice," "tax cuts, not tax hikes," "empowering patients…not bureaucrats," "free-market solutions, not socialist models" and that the "system is being dragged down by decades of government-imposed mandates." He proposes tax-free Health Savings Accounts with tax breaks of $15,000 for families and $7,500 for individuals -- as he laid out earlier this week in New Hampshire.

MCCAIN: The AP calls McCain's newfound support for a scaled down immigration proposal that would not include a path to citizenship "an about-face."

ROMNEY: Former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson gives Romney some advice on what he should say when he gives his Kennedy-like Mormon speech.

Romney said in Iowa that he's "most disappointed" in his own party's ethical mishaps and "proposed stripping federal employees convicted of official misconduct of their government pensions," writes the Des Moines Register's Tom Beaumont. Romney added that he could beat Hillary Clinton in a general election and that he's better on health care. "One big difference is my health care plan got passed, and hers didn't."

Romney is lucky the press has been kicking around Obama this week – otherwise his statement below about Hezbollah would be receiving A LOT more attention. "At a town hall meeting in Iowa last Friday, Mitt Romney offered an eye-catching twist on his usual stump speech when he held up Hezbollah as a model for the effectiveness of using social services as a way to win hearts and minds. 'Did you notice in Lebanon what Hezbollah did? Lebanon became a democracy some time ago. And while their government was getting underway, Hezbollah went into southern Lebanon and provided health clinics to some of the people there and schools. And they built their support by having done so,' Romney said. 'That kind of diplomacy is something that would help America become stronger around the world and help people understand that our interest is an interest toward modernity and goodness and freedom for all people of the world.'"

Romney's camp "sought to add context," saying Romney "did not intend to praise Hezbollah but was simply expounding on a proposal he made in April for a "second Marshall Plan" to strengthen the "democratic underpinnings" in places vulnerable to Islamic extremism.

The irony in this statement? Had a Democrat candidate said that, the RNC and all of the leading GOP candidates would have jumped on the candidate as being supportive of terrorists.

F. THOMPSON: According to a New York Times analysis, most of the money Thompson has raised to date was new for the campaign cycle. Of the money he raised that came from donors who had given to other candidates, Thompson received the most money from Romney contributors, a mild surprise since there had been speculation he'd cut more into McCain's donor base or even Giuliani's.

Tommy Thompson is trying to remind folks that both McCain and Giuliani will be on the ballot and therefore should be considered as candidates competing in the straw poll.The Des Moines Register finds that Huckabee may be drawing small crowds, but they are dedicated supporters.

Huckabee v. Brownback is turning into an interesting undercard. The attacks on each other's "Christian character" is lighting up CBN's Brody File.

In an effort to make sure the responsibility for ending the Iraq war rests squarely on President Bush, Democrats are teaming up with a new ad campaign. The ad, which will run for two weeks nationally, praises the Democratic-led Congress' efforts in raising the minimum wage, trying to cover uninsured children, increasing veterans' health benefits and for "taking on George Bush to end a war gone wrong," an announcer says in the ad -- a joint effort by the Democratic National Committee and the House and Senatorial campaign committees.

Both Romney and McCain criticized House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn for admitting that if Gen. Petreaus' September report is positive, House Democrats will be divided. The criticism Romney and McCain lobbed on Clyburn was by twisting his words a bit by claiming that Clyburn was saying, if there's good news in Iraq, that's bad news for Democrats. Clyburn clarified in response to the attacks, "all of us want a good result in Iraq."

Deputy White House political director Scott Jennings "refused to address the firings but tried to explain how thousands -- or possibly millions -- of White House e-mails to and from the political office were transmitted only through communications accounts controlled by the Republican National Committee… Jennings offered a stripped-down explanation: He wanted a White House-supplied BlackBerry and was told no, and so he got one from the RNC, as many other political affairs aides had done. 'I was receiving a lot of e-mail on my official account. And I requested [a BlackBerry] at that moment, and I was told that it wasn't the custom to give political affairs staffers those devices,' Jennings said."

From NBC's Andrea Mitchell
Senate Foreign Relations Chairman and presidential candidate Joe Biden has joined the gang piling on Barack Obama for proposing possible intervention in Pakistan to pursue Al Qaeda -- using the same word Hillary Clinton used to criticize Obama's eagerness to negotiate with dictators: naïve.

In an interview on The Diane Rehm Show this morning, Biden told guest host Susan Page of USA Today the following:

"… in order to look tough, he's undermined his ability to be tough, were he president. Because if you're going to go into Pakistan -- which is already our policy by the way, if there's actionable intelligence -- you need actionable intelligence from moderates within Pakistan working with you. Now if you're already going to say I'm going to disregard whatever the country thinks and going to invade, the likelihood you're getting the cooperation you need evaporates. It's a well intended notion he has, but it's a very naïve way of figuring out how you're going to conduct foreign policy."

From NBC's Mark Murray and Lauren Appelbaum

On a day without much political news, this AP article set off political shockwaves: "Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said Thursday he would not use nuclear weapons 'in any circumstance.'" "'I think it would be a profound mistake for us to use nuclear weapons in any circumstance,' Obama said, with a pause, 'involving civilians.' Then he quickly added, 'Let me scratch that. There's been no discussion of nuclear weapons. That's not on the table.'"

The story made the usual political rounds -- it was posted on Drudge and news blogs. The news? That Obama would NEVER use nuclear weapons as president. The problem, though, was that the story wasn't entirely correct. It left out the fact that Obama was talking about his speech yesterday about Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Here's how the AP revised its piece: "Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said Thursday he would not use nuclear weapons 'in any circumstance' to fight terrorism in Afghanistan and Pakistan."

"'I think it would be a profound mistake for us to use nuclear weapons in any circumstance,' Obama said, with a pause, 'involving civilians.' Then he quickly added, 'Let me scratch that. There's been no discussion of nuclear weapons. That's not on the table.'"

Of course, it's still newsworthy that Obama said he wouldn't use nukes to pursue Al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan -- although who would? -- but the second story is far, far different from the original.

In any event, Clinton was asked if she agrees with Obama that nukes should be off the table when dealing with Pakistan and Afghanistan. "I'm not going to answer hypothetical's, but let's find Osama Bin Laden and his leadership first," she said. "I think that presidents should be very careful at all times in discussing the use or non-use of nuclear weapons... I don't believe that any presidents should make any blanket statements with respect to use or non-use of nuclear weapons."

THE FIGHT FOR AMES
From NBC's Domenico Montanaro
The Huckabee campaign is hitting back at Brownback,
telling him to "stop whining," start showing some "Christian character"
and questions whether or not he's "tough enough to be President." Yesterday, Brownback's campaign complained that
Huckabee did not explicitly apologize for what they called an
"anti-Catholic" e-mail sent out by a Huckabee supporter. What the
Huckabee campaign had said was
they were "glad" the supporter "issued an apology" and his comments
"were not authorized by, disseminated by, approved by, or condoned by
the campaign." 

Now,
the Huckabee people are taking off the reins, saying Brownback's
"silly" call for an apology "is nonsense," and they wonder why after
Huckabee's statement yesterday, Brownback "continued to cry about it."

"As
a lifelong Catholic, I was taught that when a person apologized, we
were to forgive him and go forward," Huckabee Campaign Manager Chip Saltsman writes, "not shop for other apologies from people not even involved in the original sin."

Here's the full Huckabee statement:
"It's time for Sam Brownback to stop whining and start showing some of the Christian character he seems to always find lacking in others. He has attacked Governor Huckabee for something that a Huckabee supporter said in an email sent to two individuals. The person who originated the email has apologized and is not a member of the Huckabee staff.

"For Brownback to claim that the Governor 'owes him an apology' is nonsense and indicates that if Brownback is going to fall to pieces every time a supporter of the Governor says something he doesn't like, he clearly isn't tough enough to be President. The Governor strongly disavowed the statement by the supporter, but that wasn't enough for Brownback. He continued to cry about it. The irony is that unlike Senator Brownback, I have been a Catholic my entire life, as have several of the senior staff members in the Huckabee campaign. Governor Huckabee enjoys strong support from Catholics and for good cause. If Senator Brownback wants to start apologizing for inappropriate things said, perhaps he could pull the 'beam out of his own eye before taking the speck out of someone else's' by apologizing for the website 'Baptists for Brownback' that states that Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Fred Thompson and others are 'Hell bound.'
 
"We don't condone or support attacks on people for their faith--whether it comes from our supporters or from his. Senator Brownback surely has better things to do than police the private emails of a single supporter who said things for which he later apologized and which should have been sufficient for most Christians to accept. As a lifelong Catholic, I was taught that when a person apologized, we were to forgive him and go forward, not shop for other apologies from people not even involved in the original sin. It's time for these silly accusations to stop and for all of us to focus on leading the country and solving problems that the American people care about."

**** UPDATE **** The Brownback campaign released a statement this afternoon in response, calling Saltsman's statement "hysterical" and said they had contacted the Huckabee campaign privately to stop what they called an "anti-Catholic whisper campaign." But after two days, Brownback Iowa Communications Director John Rankin said the Huckabee campaign did not respond.

And the Brownback camp maintains that Huckabee's apologetic original response "lacked a clear denunciation" of the e-mail. 

"We are saddened that the Huckabee campaign has criticized Senator Brownback for calling out an anti-Catholic whisper campaign for what it was," Rankin writes.

The Brownback campaign called the Baptists for Brownback Web site "a spoof site with no ties to the Brownback campaign."

Rankin added that "In the final week before the Ames straw poll, Senator Brownback wants to focus on the issues that Iowa Republicans care about" -- listing the war in Iraq, abortion, gay marriage and appointing "strict contructionist judges." But he didn't miss a chance to follow with another attack -- on Huckabee's tax record.