National front-runners Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani topped a new Iowa poll by American Research Group, a survey that differs significantly from a poll last week of likely caucus goers in the lead-off nominating state.

Clinton, the Democrats' leader in national polls, received support from 30 percent, according to the new Iowa survey. The New York senator received 22 percent, good for second place, in last week's poll of Iowa Democratic caucus goers, sponsored by KCCI Channel 8 in Des Moines.

Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, who has led in most early Iowa surveys, received support from 21 percent in the ARG poll, followed by Illinois Sen. Barack Obama with 15 percent. New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson was in a close fourth place with 13 percent. Delaware Sen. Joe Biden received support from 3 percent. No other candidate received support from more than 2 percent.

Fifteen percent were undecided in the poll of 600 likely Democratic caucus goers taken July 26-30. The margin of error was plus or minus 4 percentage points.

For Republicans, Giuliani received support from 22 percent, after finishing in third place with 13 percent in the KCCI poll. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who led in the KCCI poll with 25 percent, placed second in the new poll with 21 percent. In third place was Arizona Sen. John McCain at 17 percent, up 4 percentage points from ARG's June poll despite losing more than half of his iowa campaign staff amid the campaign's financial crisis. Former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson was in fourth with 13 percent. Former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich was in fifth at 4 percent. Neither Thompson nor Gingrich have entered the race, although Thompson is expected to announce his candidacy in the coming weeks. All other candidates received support from 2 percent or less in the survey of 600 likely GOP caucus goers conducted July 26-30. The poll had a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points. Fifteen percent were undecided.



By Thomas Beaumont, Des Moines Register, July 31, 2007

(Angus Reid Global Monitor) - Hillary Rodham Clinton remains the national frontrunner in the race for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination, according to a poll by Rasmussen Reports. 42 per cent of respondents would vote for the New York senator in a 2008 primary, up four points since mid-July.

Illinois senator Barack Obama is second with 23 per cent, followed by former North Carolina senator John Edwards with 14 per cent. Support is lower for Delaware senator Joe Biden and New Mexico governor Bill Richardson.

On Jul. 28, Edwards defended his call for an increase in the capital-gains tax, saying, "What I say to (Mitt) Romney and (Rudy) Giuliani is all that money that they're making from their investments, (...) I want them to pay their fair share of taxes on those investments."

Angus Reid Global Monitor : Polls & Research, July 31, 2007

In last week's Democratic Presidential Debate, Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama took different approaches when responding to a question about meeting with the heads of rogue nations. The differences gave pundits something to talk about and the campaigns something to spin. Polling by Rasmussen Reports gave both campaigns something to work with— most Democrats tended to agree with Obama while a plurality of voters leaned more in Clinton's direction.

Even though most Democrats leaned in Obama's direction on the one question, 46% of Democrats name Clinton as the candidate they trust most on national security issues. Just 19% named Obama. Clinton's numbers are so strong among Democrats that she outpolled Rudy Giuliani on the national security question among all voters.

So, when all is said and one, what was the impact of the debate dispute on the Democratic race? There wasn't any. Nothing happened. All the digs and commentary and spin and punditry produced absolutely no substantive change in the dynamic of the race. Clinton remains well out in front, Obama is a distant second, and former Senator John Edwards is an even more distant third struggling for a way to re-enter the top-tier.

Clinton has continued to solidify her lead as she has been doing for months (review long-term trends with the Rasmussen Reports weekly polling update or more immediate reaction with our daily tracking poll).

This news cycle is a pattern that we are likely to see repeated many times in the coming weeks and months. Some event or comment will spark a dust-up between the Clinton and Obama campaigns followed by a flash storm of comments and coverage. Then, the tracking polls will look as if nothing ever happened.

That's because New York Senator Hillary Clinton is the default candidate option for the Democratic Party. She is by far the most well-known person running for President and has been an extraordinarily high profile national figure for fifteen years. Some of next year's voters were in pre-school when Clinton first moved into the White House as First Lady. In recent history, only Richard Nixon was as well-known nationally during his run for the White House. Nobody else even comes close.

The fact that Clinton is so well-known means that there are few surprises. People have opinions about her, many of them strong. Some love her and some hate her. Her favorables have been close to the 50-50 mark all year. The number who would definitely vote for her in a general election has stayed between 28% and 30%. The number who would definitely vote against has stayed between 46% and 48%. Both figures are the highest or nearly the highest for any candidate in either party.

However, while the overall public is divided in its assessment of Clinton, the former First Lady remains very popular in the party she hopes to lead. Currently, 84% of Democrats have a favorable opinion of her.

In this environment, a modest flap over the answer to a debate question in incapable of shifting the playing field. It is hard to imagine any new information that could fundamentally alter the public perception of Clinton. As noted last week, "only a major gaffe or startling policy pronouncement will impact the general public's view of the race.

The bottom line is that the Democrats will nominate Hillary Clinton unless Barack Obama can show them a definitive reason to change their mind. To use a boxing analogy, Obama needs a knock-out punch because Clinton will win the bout on points.

Current results are based upon nightly telephone surveys conducted on the seven days up to and including the night before posting. Results are based upon interviews with more than 1,300 Likely Democratic Primary Voters. The margin of sampling error for the weekly update is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.


Rasmussen Reports, July 30, 2007

Three reasons that former U.S. Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina should be worried about the shape of his bid to win the Democrats' 2008 S.C. presidential primary. Also, three reasons he shouldn't be too concerned.

Reasons to worry

1. Tougher opponents. Although Edwards came from behind to win the 2004 S.C. primary, he faced considerably weaker competition. In 2004, his stiffest challenge for the S.C. crown came from the untested, unknown Wesley Clark, a retired Army general who got into the race late, and the volatile former governor of Vermont, Howard Dean. Going into 2008, Hillary Clinton has a big lead in South Carolina and Edwards also trails Barack Obama.

2. Money, money, money. Edwards raised only $9 million nationally in the second quarter of the year, compared with about $30 million each for Clinton and Obama. While Edwards has raised more money in South Carolina than any other Democrat, his second-quarter take fell more than 75 percent from the first quarter. Meanwhile, Clinton and Obama made gains.

3. The house. The haircuts. It's a difficult pill for some Democrats to swallow that a populist, man-of-the-people candidate has a 28,000-square-foot spread in Chapel Hill, N.C. Don't even mention the $400 haircuts.

Reasons to stay calm

1. Hometown guy. Although he was raised in and represented the Tar Heel state in the U.S. Senate, Edwards was born in South Carolina. His accent, local knowledge and message resonate with many Democratic locals.

2. Comeback kid. Edwards came from behind to win the 2004 primary here, despite being in fifth place just three months before the Feb. 3, 2004, contest. In 2004, Edwards won here after finishing a strong second in the Iowa caucus, and he's currently nursing a slim lead in the Hawkeye State.

3. The team. Edwards' staff and endorsements in South Carolina are second to none. Bill Richardson might have the best team of local Democratic operatives, and Joe Biden and Chris Dodd have most of Fritz Hollings' former network on their team. But Edwards has the combination of staff, volunteers, endorsement and message that could trump them all.

The State, July 30, 2007

Presidential races come down to attrition, which leaves a lone standing candidate whom voters can most comfortably see as their leader.

On the Democratic side, only three candidates have ever actually stood. Those are Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and, on one unsteady leg, John Edwards. Forget the other Democrats except Bill Richardson, who is running mate material. Joe Biden makes good points, but has become a self-caricature. Chris Dodd has Peter-principled himself. Dennis Kucinich is fringe. Mike Gravel is the least serious man running, and that counts the three evolution deniers and the two or three other wing nuts in the Republican field.

On Monday evening in that instructive YouTube debate of Democratic candidates on CNN, there came a revealing, perhaps defining, moment.

Obama fell. Edwards went ahead and teetered on down. That left only one man standing. It was the woman.

It happened when candidates were asked whether they would commit to sitting down without pre-conditions for talks in the first year of their presidency with leaders of such hostile countries as Iran, Syria, North Korea, Cuba and Venezuela.

In rapid succession: Obama revealed the Achilles that tempers his considerable talents - the over-eagerness resulting from his youth and inexperience. Clinton displayed her savvy, moderation and judgment. Edwards said "me, too" in reference to what Hillary had said, as if he were a kid brother.

Only one was presidential, and it wasn't the over-eager one or the kid brother.

Obama jumped at the question, sensing an opportunity to distinguish himself from the arrogant, insulated, undiplomatic and inept cowboy strut of the current president. He said he would gladly commit to such sit-downs with those individuals. We must talk with our enemies, he said.

Clinton, seeing fuller context in the question, said she would not commit to any such thing. She said such meetings held inside a year without good intelligence, diplomatic planning and well-established agendas could allow those enemies to use the exercises merely for anti-American propaganda. What she committed to doing instead was setting about that very kind of preparatory work for such talks, and to restore the country's good-will diplomacy that the current administration had destroyed.

Edwards said Hillary had it right. That was fair and appropriate. But he didn't have anything to say beyond that. He tried, but merely rambled to fill time about restoring America's moral authority. Something specific and substantive about the nebulous planning that Hillary had mentioned would have been, well, presidential.

So which can one most easily envision as president? The one rashly wanting to sit down with our enemies - and, by the way, "clarifying" himself the next day? The one agreeing with Hillary about caution? Or Hillary herself, explaining the need to change Bush's way of doing things, but not do so precipitously or blindly?

It was a moment of fast-forwarded attrition, a flashed microcosm.

That's not to say Obama didn't have his moments. He's good. But, in the end, his swipe at Clinton - saying the best time to oppose the war was before - was not without self-infliction.

People are smart enough to figure out that it's easy for Obama to say he opposed the war at the time, since he had no responsibility or authority. He was a state senator in Illinois. That serves to remind us of his inexperience.

Meantime, Hillary, perhaps not as cold and humorless as I and others have said, got off a good line. Asked about the healthiness of someone named Bush or Clinton leading the country for 28 years running, she said that wasn't good at all. She said we should not, in 2000, have put in the guy named Bush.

Look for Hillary to be the nominee, at which point the Republicans' stuff will really hit the fan.


By John Brummett, Arkansas News Bureau, July 30, 2007

U.S. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York is sailing right along toward the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination.

No one is in place to stop her.

Clinton has dominated the four debates conducted thus far featuring the eight Democratic presidential hopefuls.

"Once again she stood out," Francis Marion University political scientist Neal Thigpen said of Clinton's performance in Monday night's Charleston debate.

Experts have praised Clinton's overall performance, calling it smooth and warm, reflecting a deep knowledge of the issues.

Her experience manifested itself as she responded to a perennial question: Should we talk to dictators?

U.S. Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois answered first, saying he would talk to some of the nation's biggest foes in his first year in office. "The notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them is ridiculous," Obama said.

Clinton jumped on the remark, saying she'd talk - but not right away and not on their terms.

In a response crafted to exploit her advantage in experience over Obama as well as her grasp of foreign policy, Clinton said, "I don't care to be used for propaganda purposes. I don't want to make a situation worse."

Clinton's poll numbers have strengthened and gone up after each debate. Voters have been impressed with her intellect and cool demeanor. She doesn't get rattled easily.

InsiderAdvantage/Majority Opinion, an Atlanta-based polling firm, questioned more than 500 S.C. Democratic voters the day after Monday's debate. It showed Clinton crushing Obama 43 percent to 28 percent. Matt Towery, president of InsiderAdvantage, said earlier surveys showed Obama in the lead. The change occurred as more black voters decided on Clinton.

"It does appear that, at this point, she has a pretty good lead," agreed Carol Khare Fowler, chairwoman of the S.C. Democratic Party. "I don't doubt she is ahead."

Fowler predicted the race will tighten up as the 2008 primaries near.

Still, Clinton has run what appears thus far to be a flawless campaign. She has an excellent staff, which includes people who have worked in successful presidential campaigns.

The candidate on the spot is Obama. He presents the greatest threat to Clinton but seems to be losing ground in his effort to overtake his U.S. Senate colleague. After Monday night's debate and Clinton's widening lead over Obama in the polls, some began to wonder whether the Democratic race isn't over.

Many Democrats are saying Obama must make his move soon or be caught up in the Clinton sweep.

Electability is the one issue that could cause Clinton some problems, says College of Charleston political analyst Bill Moore. Polls show more than 40 percent of independent voters don't like the former first lady. "That's a difficult issue to deal with," Moore said. And, he suggested, it might be the only issue that can stop Clinton. "I don't think it's a given that the nomination is hers," Moore said, acknowledging Clinton is in the driver's seat.

But if Obama can't get his campaign for president going in South Carolina, where can he get it going, wonders Towery of InsiderAdvantage. "Obama's first and last stand will be in South Carolina," he predicted.

Bruce Ransom, a political science professor at Clemson University, noted Clinton has been in the lead since day 1. "It doesn't look like anyone is going to stop her," he added. "It's hers to lose."

By Lee Bandy, The State, July 29, 2007

BEAUFORT -- Sen. Hillary Clinton's vow to reform government, education and health care found a receptive audience Saturday as the Democratic presidential hopeful spoke to a packed house at the University of South Carolina Beaufort's Performing Arts Center.

"Her message was right on," said Hilton Head Island Democrat Jack Keable, 72, after Clinton's 40-minute speech. "Something needs to be done to change the country back to the way it used to be."

Clinton won over the crowd of more than 500 supporters seated in the auditorium and the roughly 300 people in overflow seating who watched the speech on closed-circuit televisions set up just outside the auditorium.

Clinton spoke of reviving the American dream once present in the politics of civil-rights champions such as Presidents Kennedy and Johnson. Clinton said it's time to again dream big. "I was raised in Chicago ... I was raised to believe I can do anything I set my mind to," Clinton said. "I still believe that."

Clinton's speech pushed affordable health care for every American; energy independence and security; raising the income of middle-class families; more affordable colleges; working to enroll all children in pre-kindergarten programs; fighting global warming; repairing foreign policy; and transparency in government.

She also said American troops have fulfilled the objectives of capturing Saddam Hussein and implementing free elections in Iraq and it's now time for troops to pull out. "Our people don't belong in a multi-sided, sectarian civil war," Clinton said to loud cheers and applause.

Several supporters held up red placards that read "Women for Hillary," but Clinton emphasized that being a woman is not what qualifies her to be president. "I am not running because I am a woman; I am running because I think I am the best qualified and most experienced," she said.

Clinton recalled family vacations spent shrimping and fishing on Hilton Head Island 25 years ago. "There was not as much development, not as many golf courses and not as many houses as there are today," Clinton joked.

Beaufort native Etta Mann waited more than three hours for Clinton's arrival at about 2:15 p.m. "For me, this is a once in a lifetime opportunity to get to see and hear a live presentation by a presidential candidate," Mann said. "I think Hillary Clinton is a classy woman; I like the way she presents herself and I like her platform." Mann, in her 70s, is having a hard time deciding between Clinton and Democratic candidate Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, who made a campaign stop in Columbia on Thursday. Mann said the next several months would cement her decision. "It depends on what I hear," Mann said.

By Sandra Walsh, Beaufort Gazette, July 29, 2007

Candidates worry there are just too many

For the Democrats, it's four down and potentially nine debates to go; for the Republicans, it's three debates down and eight more currently on the schedule. And that's just for starters.

The proliferation of presidential debates is the talk of the major candidates and their advisers. Many complain that the encounters are becoming trivialized rituals, featuring too many minor candidates, lots of ego, and little of value. The critics say that debate preparation drains time and energy, that the large number of participants-eight at the last Democratic debate July 23 in Charleston, S.C.-diverts attention from the three or four who have a realistic chance, and that the formats limit the candidates to superficial sound bites. All this was underscored when Sen. Hillary Clinton and John Edwards were captured on an open microphone recently discussing their dissatisfaction with the number of participants. The underdogs, naturally, have a different view. Ohio Democrat Rep. Dennis Kucinich argues that "candidates, no matter how important they perceive themselves to be ... should not have the power to determine who is allowed to speak to the American public and who is not."

Pressure. The political parties approved only a handful of debates. But pressure from news media and other sponsoring organizations made the candidates agree to far more of the encounters, and still more are under consideration. And that doesn't include the dozens of "forums" the candidates are being invited to by every conceivable interest group under the sun.

Why is it so hard to refuse? Strategists for two prominent candidates say none of the major campaigns want to stiff the sponsors, especially news organizations that provide coverage. And no one wants to be called an elitist.

So the free-for-all continues, with another GOP debate set for August 5 in Des Moines and a Democratic debate August 9 in Los Angeles.

By Kenneth T Walsh, U.S. News, July 29, 2007

(Angus Reid Global Monitor) - Hillary Rodham Clinton is the most popular United States presidential contender for Democratic Party backers in Florida, according to a poll by Rasmussen Reports. 46 per cent of likely Democratic primary voters in the Sunshine State would support the New York senator in the 2008 primary.

Illinois senator Barack Obama is second with 15 per cent, followed by former North Carolina senator John Edwards with 13 per cent. Four per cent of respondents would vote for other candidates, and 21 per cent are undecided.

In the sample of Republican Party supporters, former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani is first with 22 per cent, followed by actor and former Tennessee senator Fred Thompson with 21 per cent, Arizona senator John McCain with 13 per cent, and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney also with 13 per cent.

Earlier this year, a law passed in Florida mandates for the state's presidential primaries to be held either on the first Tuesday of February, or seven days after the New Hampshire contest. The Republican and Democratic primaries in Florida are tentatively scheduled for Jan. 29, 2008.

In 2004, Massachusetts senator John Kerry won the Democratic Florida primary with 77 per cent of the vote. The Republican contest was cancelled, after incumbent George W. Bush was nominated by the state's party.

Bush is ineligible for a third term in office. The next U.S. presidential election is scheduled for November 2008.

Angus Reid Global Monitor : Polls & Research, July 27, 2007

MARSHALLTOWN, Iowa - Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton got an unlikely ally Thursday morning in her ongoing conflict with Sen. Barack Obama over a question of diplomacy that emerged during the CNN/YouTube debate earlier this week.

"She's right on that. He happens to be wrong," former Massachusetts Republican Gov. Mitt Romney said of Clinton and Obama following his appearance here at a crowded, downtown restaurant.

Romney's morning speech was filled with criticism of various Democrats, including Clinton. But he saved his harshest words for Obama over his debate answer saying that, as president, he would agree to meet with the leaders of such American adversaries as Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Syria and Venezuela during his first year in the White House.

Clinton pounced on that response, calling it "irresponsible and frankly naive" to make such a commitment, saying there's a danger of the president of the U.S. being used for "propaganda."

Obama reportedly has called it a "fabricated controversy."

"The notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them - which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration - is ridiculous," Obama said, according to CNN.

The Obama-Clinton rift intensified on Thursday. Obama said in a speech, "I don't want a continuation of Bush- Cheney. I don't want 'Bush-Cheney lite' " - an apparent reference to Clinton. She responded in a CNN interview, saying: "I've been called a lot of things in my life. Bush-Cheney has never been one of them."

But Romney told reporters this morning that he sides with Clinton on this particular question. He said there should be some contact with adversarial nations, but that it would be wrong to "bestow the dignity of that office" on leaders like Kim Jong Il of North Korea, Fidel Castro of -Cuba, Hugo Chavez of Venezuela or Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Romney said Obama's statement is "outrageous, and suggests an agenda that is not in keeping with an agenda focused on building friendships with our allies, creating understanding with other nations. It's a wrong course and he should recognize it and change direction - or simply be rejected."

"Does that mean we don't have any communications with those countries? Of course not," Romney said. "But a presidential contact is as ill conceived as having (House Speaker Nancy) Pelosi go to Syria. That was ill conceived, but having a president meet with the authoritarian tyrants of the world is a remarkably poor judgment conclusion."

By M.E. Sprengelmeyer, Rocky Mountain News, July 27, 2007

TIMMONSVILLE, S.C. - Presidential hopeful Barack Obama faces two major obstacles in South Carolina, the first Democratic testing ground for black support: the popularity of the Clinton name and doubts among blacks that white America is ready for a minority president.

The candidacy of the 45-year-old Obama elicits genuine excitement in a state where blacks comprise about half of the primary electorate. Yet coupled with that emotion is a strong degree of skepticism about the freshman senator's experience and whether he can win.

Obama also is up against the formidable Hillary Rodham Clinton, the Democratic front-runner who enjoys strong support in the black community and is married to former President Clinton, who is wildly popular in the community.

The Associated Press interviewed Democratic voters across the state, including about a dozen blacks, and found evidence of excitement and doubts.

Ashley Torrence, a 27-year-old college instructor in Greenville, S.C., is torn between voting for Obama and Clinton, and considers her vote crucial because either candidate could smash barriers. Torrence has talked to Clinton and was disappointed when all she got from her encounter with Obama was a handshake. "I wanted to ask him how he had planned to combat the feeling that unfortunately a lot of people have about just not being ready for a black male to be president and particularly a lot of people with old South mentality," she said. "How is he going to deal with that? Because you can't campaign as though it doesn't exist." It was an issue Obama confronted on his first trip to South Carolina in February, telling those who doubted he could win because he's black: "Don't tell me I can't do something. ... I don't believe in this can't do, won't do, won't even try, style of leadership. Yes we can. Don't believe in that."

Obama's plea was directed not only at voters, who will participate in the Jan. 29 primary, but Democratic state Sen. Robert Ford of Charleston. Ford garnered headlines when he said he was backing Clinton in part because he was skeptical that Obama could win the presidency and feared that his nomination could hurt other Democratic candidates. "Every Democrat running on that ticket next year would lose - because he's black and he's top of the ticket. We'd lose the House and the Senate and the governors and everything," said Ford, who is black. He drew widespread criticism for his comment and later apologized.

But the AP interviews suggested the view is prevalent among blacks, along with concerns across racial lines about whether Obama has enough experience to be president. Greenville County Democratic Party chairman Andy Arnold hears it frequently among blacks, who are supporting Clinton in greater numbers in recent polls.

"A lot of the African-Americans are with Hillary because I think they don't believe white America is ready for a black president," said Arnold, who is white and uncommitted in the race. "They want to win and so in a way, I think it is a barrier to him. And it may be more so in the South where the remnants of the old South are still in the older folks mind. They just can't believe in their right mind that white folks will elect a black man president, so let's not put ourselves through that agony."

Clinton is a favorite of black women in current polls, due largely from goodwill for her husband and her lifelong focus on issues affecting families and children. Much of her lead comes from women and blacks, and it's strongest among black women. According to Associated Press-Ipsos polls taken this summer, 59 percent of black women said they support Clinton and 27 percent Obama.

The South Carolina primary, coming after heavily white Iowa and New Hampshire vote, and Nevada casts its ballots, is crucial for Obama. In 1984 and 1988, Jesse Jackson won the state's primary. The Obama campaign argues that doubts about whether a black man can be elected is not widespread. They cite a Winthrop Poll of South Carolinians in May in which 79 percent of respondents said they think the country will be ready for a black president in the next 12 years. However, the poll did not ask whether they would be ready in 2008.

Rep. Jim Clyburn, the only black member of South Carolina's congressional delegation, said he thinks concerns about the war are more prominent in voters' minds than issues of candidates' race or gender. But he said if anything, Clinton's gender might help her in that regard.

"When it comes to issues of war and peace, women hold out hope for peace more than men do," said Clyburn, who hasn't endorsed a candidate but hasn't ruled out doing so later. "If the election were held today, Clinton would carry the state. It's not going to be held today."

Another candidate, 2004 Democratic vice presidential nominee John Edwards, has been arguing that he will be more electable in the South. He denies that's because of Obama's race or Clinton's gender but says it's because they have never run in the South while he won the primary in 2004 and was elected senator in North Carolina.

By Nedra Pickler, Associated Press, July 27, 2007

For Barack Obama, it was strike two. And this one was a right-down-the-middle question from a YouTuber in Monday night's South Carolina debate: "Would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea?"

"I would," responded Obama.

His explanation dug him even deeper: "The notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them -- which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration -- is ridiculous."

From the Nation's David Corn to super-blogger Mickey Kaus, a near-audible gasp. For Hillary Clinton, next in line at the debate, an unmissable opportunity. She pounced: "I will not promise to meet with the leaders of these countries during my first year." And she proceeded to give the reasons any graduate student could tick off: You don't want to be used for their propaganda. You need to know their intentions. Such meetings can make the situation worse.

Just to make sure no one missed how the grizzled veteran showed up the clueless rookie, the next day Clinton told the Quad-City Times of Davenport, Iowa, that Obama's comment "was irresponsible and frankly naive."

To be on the same stage as the leader of the world's greatest power is of course a prize. That is why the Chinese deemed it a slap in the face that President Bush last year denied President Hu Jintao the full state-visit treatment. The presence of an American president is a valued good to be rationed -- and granted only in return for important considerations.

Moreover, summits can also be traps if they're not wired in advance for success, such as Nixon's trip to China, for which Henry Kissinger had already largely hammered out the famous Shanghai Communique. You don't go hoping for the best, as Hillary's husband learned at the 2000 Camp David summit, when Yasser Arafat's refusal of Israel's peace offer brought Arafat worldwide opprobrium -- from which he sought (successfully, as it turned out) to escape by launching the second intifada. Such can be the consequences of ill-prepared summits.

Obama may not have known he made an error, but his staff sure did. In the post-debate spin room, his closest adviser, David Axelrod, was already backpedaling, pretending that Obama had been talking about diplomacy and not summitry with rogue state leaders.

Obama enthusiasts might want to write this off as a solitary slip. Except that this was the second time. The first occurred in another unscripted moment. During the April 26 South Carolina debate, Brian Williams asked what kind of change in the U.S. military posture abroad Obama would order in response to a hypothetical al-Qaeda strike on two American cities.

Obama's answer: "Well, the first thing we'd have to do is make sure that we've got an effective emergency response -- something that this administration failed to do when we had a hurricane in New Orleans."

Asked to be commander in chief, Obama could only play first-responder in chief. Caught off guard, and without his advisers, he simply slipped into two automatic talking points: emergency response and its corollary -- the obligatory Katrina Bush-bash.

When the same question came to Clinton, she again pounced: "I think a president must move as swiftly as is prudent to retaliate." Retaliatory attack did not come up in Obama's 200-word meander into multilateralism and intelligence gathering.

These gaffes lead to one of two conclusions: (1) Obama is inexplicably unable to think on his feet while standing on South Carolina soil, or (2) Obama is not ready to be a wartime president.

During our 1990s holiday from history, being a national security amateur was not an issue. Between the 1991 death of the Soviet Union and the terrorist attacks of 2001, foreign policy played almost no part in our presidential campaigns. But post-Sept. 11, as during the Cold War, the country demands a serious commander in chief. It is hard to imagine that with all the electoral tides running in their favor, the Democrats would risk it all by nominating a novice for a wartime presidency.

Do the Democrats want to risk strike three, another national security question blown, but this time perhaps in a final presidential debate before the '08 election, rather than a midseason intraparty cattle call? The country might decide that it prefers, yes, a Republican -- say, Sept. 11 veteran Rudy Giuliana-- to a freshman senator who does not instinctively understand why an American president does not share the honor of his office with a malevolent clown like Hugo Chavez.

By Charles Krauthammer, The Washington Post, July 27, 2007

July 27 (Bloomberg) -- The Pentagon, under pressure to start planning for an Iraq withdrawal whether it begins in two months or two years, may find that getting out will take a lot longer than getting in. U.S. troops will have to contend with terrorist bombs, wilting heat, dangerous roads and logistical logjams that even critics of the war say will make a rapid pullout impossible.

"I thought it would take six months,'' said Representative John Murtha, a Pennsylvania Democrat who first advocated withdrawal in 2005. "I found out since then it will take longer than that, the footprint is so much bigger.''

Calls are building in Congress and among Democratic presidential candidates for a drawdown of U.S. forces and for the Pentagon to begin planning how to do it. Two senior Republican senators, John Warner of Virginia and Richard Lugar of Indiana, want to see such a plan by Oct. 16, and Democrats such as Senator Hillary Clinton of New York also have raised the issue.

While the administration has opposed the Warner-Lugar legislation, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, in a July 25 letter to Clinton, said the Pentagon is doing "contingency planning'' for how the U.S. would withdraw from Iraq "at the right time.'' The pressure to change course in Iraq is likely to peak in September, when Congress gets a report from two top U.S. officials in Iraq that all sides in the debate have identified as a pivotal moment.

Saigon Lessons

Indelible images of the disorderly final pullout from Vietnam in 1975 are reminders to many of the risks in Iraq. Military planners must "avoid at all costs'' a repeat of the frantic airlift from Saigon, said P.J. Crowley, a retired Air Force colonel and National Security Council official under President Bill Clinton. "Everyone remembers the pictures of the helicopters'' plucking people from the roof of the U.S. Embassy as communist forces captured the city, he said. Saigon, then the capital of South Vietnam, is now known as Ho Chi Minh City. Retired U.S. Army General Barry McCaffrey, one of the top ground commanders of the 1991 Persian Gulf war, said the dangers of a "precipitous'' withdrawal done in nine months or less would be substantial. "It would be a scene of unimaginable chaos, with millions of refugees fleeing the country, and Iraqis who had supported us following our columns going south,'' said McCaffrey, who commanded an infantry division.

Sectarian Lines

As the Iraqi army splintered along sectarian lines, U.S. commanders would be reluctant to turn over equipment to a fractured force and would destroy it instead, McCaffrey said. That in turn would anger Iraqi soldiers. "They wouldn't be throwing roses in our path,'' he said. "They'd be shooting at us the entire way.'' These risks could be reduced by a longer timeline for a withdrawal, McCaffrey and other military experts said. A more measured pace of 20 to 24 months would allow for expanded planning -- and time for the Iraqi army to improve its combat capability, which would increase the chances for a smooth pullout.

Still, even a measured and carefully planned pullout carries risks, the experts say. "We can expect to be attacked by Iraqi factions of all persuasions, whose incentives to prove themselves by demonstrating opposition to the defeated Americans will grow once we announce our departure,'' said Stephen Biddle, a defense analyst at the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington.

Standing Guard

While most troops could leave by plane, some soldiers would stay to transport and guard the tanks, Humvees, bomb- detecting "Buffalos'' and other vehicles that must leave by sea. When the U.S. invaded in 2003, the only route into Iraq was from Kuwait, because Turkey refused to allow movement through its territory. There is no certainty that the Turkish government would have a friendlier view of a withdrawal, making it likely that everything going by sea would depart through Kuwait. Troops and equipment traveling that route would be a target for insurgents and their roadside bombs, which currently account for three-quarters of U.S. casualties. One uncertainty is whether insurgents would harass withdrawing Americans -- or hasten their departure by holding back.

'Fanatics'

"If the terrorists were smart, they wouldn't touch us,'' said retired Army General William Pagonis, who supervised the pullout after the 1991 Gulf War. "They would just let us get out. But they don't have a strong chain of command. Down in the lowest ranks are fanatics.'' Sabotage or pilfering would also be a possibility, said retired Vice Admiral Gordon Holder, director of logistics for the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff from 2001 to 2004.

And then there is the U.S. government's bureaucracy: the Agriculture Department and its strict requirements to prevent the importation of any parasites or other crop infestations. What that meant in 1991, Pagonis recalls, was that every piece of military equipment shipped back to the U.S. had to be power-washed twice -- once at the start of the trip to port and again at dockside -- to remove any parasite-bearing desert sand. "That was my nemesis,'' Pagonis said of the department. "They're like gods. If they say that tank doesn't pass, you've got to re-clean it.''

By Ken Fireman, Bloomberg, July 27, 2007

By Steve Huntley, Chicago Sun-Times, July 27, 2007

When asked to choose among the leading Presidential candidates, 28% of American adults said that they would trust New York Senator Hillary Clinton the most on national security issues. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 20% named former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani.

The survey also found that 15% named Illinois Senator Barack Obama and 11% picked former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson. Failing to reach double digits on this question were Arizona Senator John McCain at 7%, former North Carolina Senator John Edwards at 6%, and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney at 2%.

Clinton is the clear frontrunner among Democrats seeking the Party nomination. Giuliani and Thompson top the GOP field.

Results had a strong partisan flavor to them, 46% of Democrats named Clinton as the candidate they trust most on national security issues. Nineteen percent (19%) named Obama and 10% of Democrats prefer Edwards.

On the Republican side, 36% named Giuliani as their top pick, 26% named Thompson, 10% prefer McCain and 5% named Romney.

As for those not affiliated with either major party, 27% named Clinton, 19% picked Giuliani, and 15% prefer Obama. No other candidate reached double digits among the unaffiliateds.

Overall, 49% named a Democratic candidate while 40% picked a Republican. Among those not affiliated with either major party, 46% named a Democratic candidate while 35% named a Republican.

Historically, national security has been an issue dominated by Republicans. Over the last year or two, especially since the Dubai Ports incident, the GOP has lost that advantage. Recent tracking polls have shown the two parties close to parity on this issue while the public generally prefers Democrats on a whole range of issues.

Other data shows that the public is divided as to whether the next President should meet with the leaders of nations such as Syria, North Korea and Iran.

(Angus Reid Global Monitor) - More Democratic Party supporters in the United States would like Hillary Rodham Clinton to become their presidential nominee in 2008, according to a poll by TNS released by the Washington Post and ABC News. 39 per cent of respondents would vote for the New York senator in a primary, up four points since June.

Illinois senator Barack Obama is second with 28 per cent, followed by former U.S. vice-president Al Gore with 14 per cent, and former North Carolina senator John Edwards with nine per cent. Support is lower for New Mexico governor Bill Richardson, Delaware senator Joe Biden, and Ohio congressman Dennis Kucinich.

On Jul. 24, Kucinich discussed his chances, saying, "I'm in this campaign to win. People are looking for an alternative. People are now seeing that I was right (to oppose the war in Iraq)."

Angus Reid Global Monitor : Polls & Research, July 26, 2007

Hillary won. Beyond the political and entertainment value of the spat between Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, Clinton is right on the substance and Obama is wrong about the Iraq war.

Leading Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton is increasing the pressure on Barack Obama, calling him "irresponsible and frankly naive" for a statement he made during the CNN-YouTube debate Monday.

Obama was asked if he would agree without precondition to meet the leaders of the Iran, Syria, North Korea, Cuba and Venezuela in the first year of his administration. He responded: "The notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them, which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration, is ridiculous." Clinton disagreed: "Well, I will not promise to meet with the leaders of these countries during my first year. I don't want to be used for propaganda purposes. I don't want to make a situation even worse."

After Clinton's "irresponsible and frankly naive" comment yesterday, Obama shot back that Hillary Clinton was "irresponsible and naive" for having voted for the Iraq war with an exit plan. The Obama campaign also released a memo accusing Clinton of flip-flopping for criticizing the Bush administration on its lack of diplomacy and now saying she'd not meet with world leaders. The memo called Obama's approach "tough but smart," and Obama himself said the Clinton campaign was concocting a "fabricated controversy."

And he is wrong again.

I've argued before that it makes no difference whether Obama has "experience" in national security -- as the Rumsfeld-Cheney-Powell dream team made abundantly clear, experience is no guarantee of security. But beyond the spat, this is no fabricated controversy. National security is the most important issue of the campaign.

WASHINGTON - Defense Secretary Robert Gates wrote to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton that a top Pentagon official did not intend to impugn her patriotism by suggesting her questions about U.S. planning in Iraq boosts enemy propaganda.

At the same time, Gates defended his aide and the author of the letter, Undersecretary for Policy Eric Edelman, calling him "a valued member" who provides "wise counsel and years of experience (that) are critically important to the many pressing policy issues facing the military."

The letter also contains the most explicit admission to date that the Pentagon is in fact planning for the eventual withdrawal of U.S. forces, with Gates telling Clinton: "You may rest assured that such planning is indeed taking place with my active involvement."

Late Thursday, lawmakers on the Senate Armed Services Committee were told they would get the briefing Clinton had been seeking for months on the issue of troop withdrawal.

The closed-door briefing next week is expected to be given by Edelman and Lt. Gen. John Sattler, who oversees plans and strategy for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, according to the notice sent to Democratic senators who had seconded Clinton's request.

Gates, in the three-page missive obtained by The Associated Press, sought to calm a politically stoked exchange between the Pentagon and the Democratic presidential front-runner over planning for the withdrawal of U.S forces from Iraq.

The feud burst into the open last week when Edelman sent a stinging letter to Clinton, a member of the Armed Services Committee who had sought answers in May about how troops, equipment and vehicles would leave Iraq.

Edelman wrote that public discussion of withdrawal "reinforces enemy propaganda that the U.S. will abandon its allies in Iraq" and exacerbates sectarian tensions there. The New York senator said Edelman's answer impugned her patriotism while avoiding serious questions about troop withdrawal plans.

Gates' letter, dated Wednesday, insisted that was not the point of Edelman's missive.

"I emphatically assure you that we do not claim, suggest, or otherwise believe that congressional oversight emboldens our enemies, nor do we question anyone's motives in this regard," Gates wrote.

The Defense secretary both agreed with Clinton that congressional oversight of military planning is needed and at the same time defended Edelman.

"I truly regret that this important discussion went astray and I also regret any misunderstanding of intention," Gates wrote.

"I agree with you that planning concerning the future of U.S. forces in Iraq - including the drawdown of those forces at the right time - is not only appropriate but essential," Gates wrote, adding that Edelman also agrees with that point.

The weeklong back-and-forth underscored the escalating animosity between the Bush administration and the Democratically controlled Congress in the standoff over Iraq policy, and the center seat the divide holds in the 2008 presidential race.

Clinton's spokesman Philippe Reines said the senator was "disappointed that Secretary Gates does not repudiate Undersecretary Edelman's unacceptable political attack." Reines added that Clinton welcomes Gates statement that congressional oversight of the Iraq war is essential. "She continues to believe strongly that there is absolutely no room for impugning the patriotism of those who rightfully engage in congressional oversight," Reines said.

The public feud between the Edelman and Clinton could win her points among anti-war voters and liberal Democrats, a critical constituency in primary voting that has challenged her 2002 vote to authorize the Iraq war. Facing questions about the war during Monday night's debate, Clinton mentioned the letter and the feud.

Clinton, in a call Friday with reporters, said in response to Edelman's letter that she was "shocked by the timeworn tactic of once again impugning the patriotism of any of us who raise serious questions" about the Iraq war. She was joined in the call by 2004 Democratic nominee Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., who accused the Bush administration of making "planning a dirty word and an alien concept." She also complained directly to Gates in writing, asking if he agreed with Edelman's comments. Edelman is a former aide to Vice President Dick Cheney, and served as an ambassador during the Bush and Clinton administrations. Military leaders have long acknowledged that they have plans for all contingencies in the Iraq war - more recently saying they have looked at adding troops, pulling troops out and maintaining current levels.

They have provided no details, and insisted that decisions hinge on the report from Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, and U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker, which is due in September. Both men are to testify before Congress on how the current strategy is working and whether it needs to be revised.

By Devlin Barrett, Associated Press, July 26, 2007

July 25 (Bloomberg) -- McCain is history.

That's the line inside the Republican Party about its former frontrunner for the presidential nomination, John McCain. No name, not even Ron Paul, elicits the snort of contempt you get when you utter that of the senator from Arizona to a Republican operative.

You have to wonder why. Republicans, after all, have long styled themselves as the party of leadership. They did it so much that they irritated almost everyone. Their talk had an empty circularity: someone was a leader because he led. Yet they clung to the word, through the campaigns of 2000 and 2004.

Fast forward to 2008. You may not agree with every one of McCain's positions. But at least he has positions. He is the candidate who is making unpopular, and often right, choices. Just the way a true leader does. Consider pork, the congressional spending on interest-group programs. Lawmakers, with the tacit support of President George W. Bush, have used the excuse of the war in Iraq to spend the past half-decade inserting earmarks and other giveaways into whatever legislation comes before them. McCain, unlike many Republicans, has crusaded over the years against the process. Monday night in a Michigan speech he made a promise: "Give me the pen, and I'll veto every single pork- barrel bill Congress sends me.'' And knowing what we know about McCain, you have to believe him.

Immigration is another example. The nation's feelings on this topic are as inconsistent and hypocritical as the application process for a green card. The "no-more-Mexicans'' impulse, the "we-want-security'' impulse, the "immigrants- bring-growth'' impulse and the "we-want-to-be-kind'' impulse all compete within the collective American breast. What the country needs is someone to construct a law that emphasizes the impulses that make sense. That is what McCain sought to do when he labored in the Senate to pass an immigration bill. His bill created a way to legalize some of the millions of illegal aliens in the country. But the immigration bill proved to be untenable, and the very concept of legalizing illegals toxic. Nonetheless, McCain stuck to his legislating. He even sent his economic adviser, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, to do battle with the ferocious hosts of conservative-talk radio. That challenge was so great that Holtz- Eakin later said that he would rather test a flame-retardant suit.

On campaign finance McCain likewise shows courage. You may not like McCain-Feingold, his campaign-finance legislation. But at least McCain wrote a law. What's more, he is gracious about the outcome of that law. You don't hear him berating Democrat Barack Obama, even though the senator from Illinois turned out to be the election season's surprise beneficiary of the new rules, receiving millions of dollars in small donations.

To be sure, these stands may just be a function of the office McCain holds. McCain has the advantage of Senate incumbency over Mitt Romney, a former governor, Rudy Giuliani, a former mayor who works as a consultant, and former Senator Fred Thompson, a television and radio star. Of all the Republican candidates or near-candidates, McCain is the only one in a position to write laws and take stands on the thorny issues of our day -- and be held accountable. But then there is Iraq. Again, you might not agree with his support for a continued troop presence, but you have to applaud his consistency. More than rivals, even those who support the war, McCain is credible when he talks about the grueling sacrifice of combat, not to mention time as a prisoner of war. In terms of American credibility abroad, McCain has that too: even al-Qaeda knows well the amount of years he spent in the Hanoi Hilton.

So why not follow the leader? It may be that the party and donors are merely shifting their bets to a figure they feel would be a better leader, Giuliani. Giuliani demonstrated leadership in New York after Sept. 11, but that doesn't compare to what McCain endured.

Maybe the real reason McCain is losing so early is lack of leadership -- not on his part, but on the part of his party and Republican voters.

The two great questions of all elections are "Would this candidate be good?'' and "Would he win?'' The first question is the one that matters more. But at some point in the election cycle madness sets in and only the latter is relevant.

Republicans are so crazed to stay on top in Washington that this time they have let themselves go mad early. The intensity of the contempt toward McCain has less to do with McCain the man than with Republican desperation. Donors sense this and have duly reduced spending, which helps explain why contributions to Campaign McCain have been so disappointing.

What that means is that in the end the Grand Old Party may have a candidate who stands for winning and nothing else. That fact renders the GOP doubly vulnerable to the Democrats.

So maybe Republican party leaders, if you can call them that, should take a last look at McCain. And use the autumn to think hard about what the party stands for. Otherwise McCain isn't the only one who is history in 2008. His party may be too.

By Amity Shlaes, Bloomberg, July 25, 2007

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) endorsed Democratic front-runner Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) for president Wednesday, saying the former first lady is best equipped to lead the country.

"This is a very special moment for me because I have the opportunity to endorse the campaign of a U.S. senator who I believe will be the first female president of the United States," Feinstein said. "Hillary Clinton, I believe, has the experience, the heart and the strength to be a great American president. There has been no election for president where change is as defined and necessary as this one. The question is who is best equipped to lead that change. I believe it is Hillary."

Feinstein is the seventh senator to endorse Clinton's bid for the presidency. No other Democrat has the endorsement of more than one senator. Clinton also has the backing of 49 representatives, putting her far ahead of the other Democratic front-runners, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.).

"Dianne and I have fought side by side in the Senate to expand stem cell research, to take care of our veterans when they return home and to stop the privatization of Social Security," Clinton said. "Dianne is such a respected voice in the Senate. I'm honored to have her support as we work together to bring the war in Iraq to an end and deliver the change this country wants."

By Kara Oppenheim, The Hill, July 25, 2007

WASHINGTON - Monday's release marked the fourth consecutive ABC News/Washington Post poll that found Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., with a lead of 15 or 16 points over Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., in Democratic presidential nomination matchups featuring all of the active candidates.

The latest poll, conducted last Wednesday through Saturday among 606 Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents, showed Clinton with 45 percent of the vote, Obama with 30 percent, former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards at 12 percent, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson with 3 percent and others with 2 percent or less.

Sixty-eight percent of Clinton voters said they strongly supported their candidate, versus 56 percent of Obama backers. In the February ABC/Post polling, Obama supporters were 4 points more intensively supportive of their candidate than Clinton backers, but in the three successive polls, Clinton's support grew more intense. What started as an edge of 8 points in April was 10 points in June and 12 points in the new poll.

When asked who had the best chance to defeat the Republican nominee in the general election, Clinton beat out Obama again, 43 percent to 27 percent.

Finally, when asked if they were satisfied with the choice of candidates running for the Democratic nomination, 83 percent said they were, while just 16 percent said they were not.

In Pollster.com's moving average of all major national polls, Clinton's lead is a bit narrower, at 12.8 points, but has widened over the last three months.

In Pollster.com's Iowa averages, Edwards leads with 27.8 percent to Clinton's 23.8 percent, with both gradually moving up. Obama is at 17.1 percent, but has been dropping over the last two months.

In the New Hampshire averages, support for Clinton, averaging 34 percent, and Obama, at 22.7 percent, is growing. Obama's numbers are growing faster -- and appear to be coming from a rather precipitous decline by Edwards in the Granite State -- but the Illinois senator still has a lot of ground to cover.

The point of all of this is to note that while Obama is slightly ahead of Clinton in the fundraising side of the race, he does not have the momentum that he had back in the first three months of this year.

Indeed, nationally and in Iowa, Obama is losing ground, not gaining it. One has to wonder when Obama's backers will start leaning on him and his campaign organization, the way anxious investors pressure a company's CEO to improve earnings and stock price. Former Massachusetts GOP Gov. Mitt Romney has shown how a combination of strong organizational efforts and television advertising in early primary states can jumpstart a little-known candidate. Romney's numbers among Republicans are rocketing in both Iowa and New Hampshire.

Likewise, Richardson has shown how just a healthy dose of media with a little organization can send numbers shooting up in Iowa and New Hampshire.

But with significantly greater resources than either Romney or Richardson, Obama has not replicated their early-state success. There was that initial burst of momentum created after he announced his candidacy, but since then things have been relatively flat. This isn't to say Obama's situation can't be turned around. After all, in the last presidential campaign cycle, Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., was running low on money late in 2003. But he mortgaged his house, then capitalized on late reservations about front-runner Howard Dean to grab the nomination.

As long as he has money, there is a way out, but there would appear to be a recipe problem with the Obama campaign: They haven't figured out where Democratic taste buds are this year.

Conversely, while the Clinton campaign has lacked the cache and pizzazz of the Obama effort, it has cruised along with Prussian efficiency, methodically plodding along, making no major mistakes.

Clinton has gradually and increasingly become more acceptable, wearing down the resistance in the party and, with general election polls now generally showing her even or mostly ahead, they are breaking through outside the party as well.

At some point, we should assume that Clinton or her campaign will stumble; every candidate and campaign eventually does at least once or twice. But, when it happens, will anyone else be in striking distance, and thus able to capitalize?

It's also worth noting that in Iowa and New Hampshire, Richardson's numbers have been moving. Perhaps it is Astroturf rather than true grassroots, but the upward pattern in the polls in those states -- but not nationally -- should be noticed. Somebody usually makes a run from behind, and it might well be the New Mexican, if his early-state numbers are any indication. There is still six months before balloting begins, but this race has begun to take shape.

For some, of course, that shape is a lot better and more promising than for others. As far as Clinton is concerned, she couldn't ask for things to be working out much better. For Obama, something needs to happen.

And for Richardson, one crucial question must be answered: Is this real?

By Charlie Cook, National Journal, July 25, 2007

FOR HILLARY CLINTON, the presidency is not in the bag. Even winning the Democratic presidential nomination is considerably less than a sure thing. But of the 18 Democratic and Republican presidential candidates, Clinton is the most likely to be the next president. And she did nothing last night in the bizarre presidential debate in Charleston, South Carolina, to alter that.

Clinton managed to maintain at least the outward appearance of seriousness in a debate that included a taped question from someone dressed as a snowman, another from a sanctimonious Planned Parenthood official who asked if the candidates had talked to their kids about sex, and an especially silly one about whether the candidates would be willing to be paid the minimum wage as president. Most of them lied and said yes.

This was the first of six debates sanctioned by the Democratic National Committee. Based on this one, there's a long and tedious season of yakking ahead in the presidential race. With You Tube providing the questions and the candidates offering special one-minute commercials, the idea was to make last night's debate livelier and more fun. Often, though, it was merely unserious, excessively cute, and frivolous.

There was a key moment, however, and once again it pitted Clinton, the New York senator, against Barack Obama, her counterpart from Illinois. The question was whether they'd promise to meet in the first year of their presidency with the leaders of such enemy nations as Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, Iran, and Syria.

"I would," Obama said, foolishly showing his inexperience, and perhaps his naivete as well, in foreign affairs. After all, he said, President Reagan called the Soviet Union an "evil empire" and still talked to Soviet leaders. "I think it's a disgrace we haven't talked" to leaders of the five anti-American countries, Obama said.

Clinton benefited from getting to answer after Obama, and she made the most of it. She said, firmly and coolly, that she wouldn't promise to meet with them. Clinton said the new president had to be careful not to be exploited by hostile leaders for propaganda purposes and not to do anything "that would make the situation worse." Before any meeting, she'd have to know "what the way forward would be."

The verdict on whose answer was better, Obama's or Clinton's, came from John Edwards, the next candidate to speak. He echoed Clinton.

As anti-Iraq war as Clinton has become, she also refused to be drawn into competition with the other candidates over who favored the earliest and most complete withdrawal of American troops. She said it must be done "safely and orderly and carefully," and not merely as quickly as possible.

Clinton said she was "agnostic" on expanding the use of nuclear power and didn't get a chance to spell out her plans on health care. Bill Richardson, eager to out-pander his foes, said "every American deserves the right to the best quality health care." He didn't say how this would be achieved.

The other candidates? Obama, exciting on the stump, was dull in the debate. Mike Gravel seemed quite taken with himself, for no good reason. Dennis Kucinich also exuded enormous self-regard. Edwards oozed insincerity, especially when he said anyone who voted against Clinton because she's a woman or Obama because he's African-American shouldn't vote for him. Joe Biden and Chris Dodd gave reasonable answers, the kind you'd expect from liberal Democratic senators.

For Clinton, the important thing in debates is that she doesn't say anything that gets her in trouble or seriously jeopardizes her chances against the Republican nominee. And she succeeded. She may actually have helped her campaign a bit.

Still, there's nothing inevitable about Clinton's winning the Democratic nomination. She's just closer to gaining the presidential nomination than any candidate in either party. In other words, she's got a better shot at being the Democratic nominee than Rudy Giuliani or Fred Thompson have of becoming the Republican presidential choice.

And then there's the general election race, which favors the Democrat candidate, assuming it's either Clinton or Obama. Yes, Clinton has incredibly high negatives. One national poll found recently that 52 percent of Americans said they'd never vote for her for president. But don't be fooled. The political environment is likely to trump that sentiment.

Unless the national mood changes by November 2008, Democrats will have a large advantage in attracting independent voters. They will have a more excited and involved base. They will have more money. And after the immigration fiasco, they will have the support of a larger chunk of the Hispanic vote than in 2004.

Again, all this doesn't mean Clinton is odds-on to succeed George W. Bush in the White House. It does mean, though, that she has a better chance than anyone else.

By Fred Barnes, The Weekly Standard, July 24, 2007

A moment from last night's debate has burst into a full-blown dispute today between Senator Hillary Clinton and Senator Barack Obama, the two leading Democratic presidential candidates. It is their first public wrangling.

Senator Obama said in the debate that he would meet with the leaders of rogue nations; Senator Clinton said she would first make sure that such meetings were not intended as propaganda.

Pundits generally saw hers as the better answer, underscoring her experience on the world stage and at the same time casting Senator Obama as inexperienced.

Today, Senator Clinton drove home the point by directly criticizing Senator Obama's statement. "I thought that was irresponsible and frankly naive," Mrs. Clinton told the Quad-City Times in Iowa.

Mrs. Clinton's comments were her first real critique of Mr. Obama, and the swiftness and surety of them showed how clearly the campaign saw the debate as reinforcing her message: that she has the experience, strength and judgment to become president on Day One. It was also a reminder that the Clinton campaign can be tough.

The dispute began Monday night, when the candidates were asked during the debate on CNN if they would be "willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?"

Senator Obama said, "I would," adding that the notion that not talking to them was punishing them "is ridiculous." He said that former Presidents Ronald Reagan and John F. Kennedy "constantly spoke to Soviet Union at a time when Ronald Reagan called them an evil empire" because the United States "had the obligation to find areas where we can potentially move forward."

Senator Clinton said: "Well, I will not promise to meet with the leaders of
these countries during my first year. I will promise a very vigorous diplomatic effort," adding: "I don't want to be used for propaganda purposes."

Seeming confident in her answer, she went on: "I will use a lot of high-level presidential envoys to test the waters, to feel the way. But certainly, we're not going to just have our president meet with Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez and, you know, the president of North Korea, Iran and Syria until we know better what the way forward would be."

After the debate, David Axelrod, a top Obama adviser, elaborated on Mr. Obama's statement, telling the National Review that Mr. Obama would initiate talks "just as during the Cold War there were low-level discussions and mid-level discussions between us and the Soviet Union," but that he was "not promising summits" with the leaders of those rogue nations.

The Clinton campaign saw Mrs. Clinton's answer as showcasing her ability to serve as commander-in-chief and held a conference call this morning for reporters with Madeleine Albright, who was Secretary of State in the administration of her husband, Bill Clinton. Ms. Albright said that Mrs. Clinton's response was a "very sophisticated answer, which shows an understanding of the whole process."

Just before the call was to begin, the Obama campaign e-mailed a statement to reporters noting that in April, Mrs. Clinton had said: "I think it is a terrible mistake for our president to say he will not talk with bad people." Thus, the Obama campaign said in its statement, Mrs. Clinton's comment in the debate was a "reversal" and showed that she disagreed with Mr. Obama's view that the United States "should use every tool at the president's disposal to address problems before they become threats."

In her interview today with the Quad-City Times, Senator Clinton rejected the notion that she had reversed herself and added that she would not foreclose talks with those leaders. But she would not promise talks within a certain time frame, either, the newspaper said, and she added that Mr. Obama was regretting his answer.

The newspaper subsequently snagged an interview with Mr. Obama. "What she's somehow maintaining is my statement could be construed as not having asked what the meeting was about," Mr. Obama said. "I didn't say these guys were going to come over for a cup of coffee some afternoon," he said. He added: "From what I heard, the point was, well, I wouldn't do that because it might allow leaders like Hugo Chavez to score propaganda points," he said. "I think that is absolutely wrong."

The Clinton campaign said that last night's debate was reminiscent of another debate moment, in April, when Mrs. Clinton showed more practiced judgment in an international crisis.

The candidates were asked how they would respond militarily to a terrorist attack on American soil that was clearly initiated by al Qaeda.

Mr. Obama said: "The first thing we'd have to do is make sure that we've got an effective emergency response, something that this administration failed to do when we had a hurricane in New Orleans."

Mrs. Clinton said: "I think a president must move as swiftly as is prudent to retaliate."

By Katharine Q. Seeyle, The New York Times, July 24, 2007

July 24 (Bloomberg) -- Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton argued she was the most experienced candidate in the presidential race, while main rival Barack Obama told voters he represented the force for change in Washington during the candidates' fourth debate last night.

Clinton, Obama and former North Carolina Senator John Edwards largely refrained from attacks on each other and set out minor differences in how they would approach the war in Iraq, diplomacy and health care.

"The issue is, which of us is ready to lead on day one,'' New York Senator Clinton, 59, said. "I have 35 years of being an instrument and agent of change, before I was ever a public official.''

The debate, sponsored by CNN and Google Inc.'s YouTube video-sharing Web site at the Citadel military college in Charleston, South Carolina, featured video questions from the public on topics including gay marriage, the environment, education, women in the military and Iraq. "As I travel around the country, people have an urgent desire for change in Washington,'' said Obama, 45, a senator from Illinois. "We are not going to fix health care, we're not going to fix energy, we are not going to do anything about our education system unless we change how business is done in Washington.''

"This clearly was the 'Presidential Debate Show,' starring Clinton, Obama and Edwards, co-starring Biden and whoever, with an occasional appearance by Mike Gravel,'' said Robert Thompson, founder of the Center for the Study of Popular Television at Syracuse University.

South Carolina

South Carolina is scheduled to hold a primary Jan. 29. A poll by CNN and Opinion Research Corp. taken July 16-18 showed Clinton with backing from 43 percent of Democrats in the state, Obama with 27 percent and Edwards with 17 percent. The margin of error is plus or minus 5 percentage points. That mirrors most national polls of the nomination race.

Clinton's performance likely solidified her standing, said Rogan Kersh, a public service professor at New York University.

"She is an extraordinarily disciplined candidate, and tonight was a reaffirmation of that discipline,'' Kersh said. "She's very good at giving responses that are reasonably substantive without giving a lot of sharp angles which opponents can grab on to and get traction to attack her.''

Clinton drew applause with her response to a question from a member of the U.S. military about whether she would be able to deal with leaders in Muslim countries where women are sometimes regarded as "second-class citizens.''

Clinton's Response

She said that she has had many meetings with officials in Arab and Muslim countries. "I believe that there isn't much doubt in anyone's mind that I can be taken seriously,'' she said.

The Democrats said finding solutions to rising health-care costs and gaps in coverage were long overdue. "In this country, no matter who you are, whether you're a ditch-digger, you're a teacher, you're a CEO, you're a waiter, you're a maid, every American deserves the right to the best possible quality health c